Table 3.
Racial Prejudice and Policy Opinion, by Race/Ethnicity (2012 ANES)
| Explicit racial policies | Implicit racial politics and vote choice | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Latinos (US-born) | ||||||||||||||
| Aff. action | Aid to blacks | Fair jobs | Death penalty | Welfare | Obama 1 | Obama 2 | ||||||||
| N = 346 | N = 346 | N = 346 | N = 345 | N = 305 | N = 413 | N = 170 | ||||||||
| b | (SE) | b | (SE) | b | (SE) | b | (SE) | b | (SE) | b | (SE) | b | (SE) | |
| Neg. stereo. | –0.03 | (0.14) | –0.12 | (0.13) | –0.39** | (0.14) | 0.03 | (0.15) | –1.06* | (0.43) | 0.13 | (0.63) | 1.18 | (0.89) |
| Denial/Symp | –0.45** | (0.10) | –0.20* | (0.09) | –0.27* | (0.11) | 0.26* | (0.12) | –0.47 | (0.34) | –0.97 | (0.61) | –1.79* | (0.69) |
| Cons. | 0.56** | (0.17) | 0.51** | (0.16) | 0.49* | (0.19) | 0.46* | (0.20) | a | b | 2.43** | (0.84) | 4.77** | (1.20) |
| F | 4.36 | 4.45 | 13.56 | 1.80 | 5.73 | 13.99 | 7.55 | |||||||
| Latinos (foreign-born) | ||||||||||||||
| N = 125 | N = 125 | N = 125 | N = 125 | N = 100 | N = 201 | – | – | |||||||
| b | (SE) | b | (SE) | b | (SE) | b | (SE) | b | (SE) | b | (SE) | – | – | |
| Neg stereo. | –0.14 | (0.21) | –0.30# | (0.17) | –0.43* | (0.20) | 0.46* | (0.20) | 1.07 | (0.80) | 1.45 | (1.09) | – | – |
| Denial/Symp | –0.37* | (0.16) | –0.39 | (0.15) | –0.40** | (0.14) | –0.14 | (0.18) | –2.58** | (0.72) | –0.42 | (0.84) | – | – |
| Cons. | 0.85** | (0.29) | 0.85** | (0.30) | 1.06** | (0.31) | 0.33 | (0.34) | a | b | 2.77* | (1.37) | – | – |
| F | 1.72 | 5.58 | 6.92 | 1.17 | 4.98 | 6.82 | – | – | ||||||
| Whites | ||||||||||||||
| Aff. action | Aid to blacks | Fair jobs | Death penalty | Welfare | Obama 1 | Obama 2 | ||||||||
| N = 917 | N = 917 | N = 917 | N = 917 | N = 803 | N = 2,591 | N = 576 | ||||||||
| b | (SE) | b | (SE) | b | (SE) | b | (SE) | b | (SE) | b | (SE) | b | (SE) | |
| Neg. stereo. | –0.14* | (0.06) | –0.11* | (0.05) | –0.14# | (0.08) | 0.20** | (0.07) | –0.40 | (0.28) | –0.58* | (0.25) | –1.59** | (0.45) |
| Denial/Symp | –0.22** | (0.05) | –0.21** | (0.05) | –0.30** | (0.07) | 0.15* | (0.06) | –0.11 | (0.23) | 0.07 | (0.25) | 0.09 | (0.46) |
| Cons. | 0.45** | (0.08) | 0.54** | (0.08) | 0.52** | (0.10) | 0.62** | (0.06) | a | b | 0.96* | (0.39) | 1.47* | (0.62) |
| F | 11.76 | 19.55 | 50.59 | 12.87 | 15.41 | 67.71 | 20.96 | |||||||
**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; #p < 0.1 (two-tailed); ordinary least squares regression coefficients (Affirmative action, Aid to blacks, Fair jobs, Death penalty), ordered probit (Welfare) and logit (Vote choice: Obama 1, 2). Standard errors are in parentheses. Coefficients on the following additional control variables are suppressed: party identification, limited government, egalitarianism, age, gender, and education (see online appendix 5 and 7 for full coefficients). The data set is the 2012 ANES time-series survey, FTF interviews only; the analyses are weighted for national representativeness. Multiple imputation (m = 100) is used to deal with listwise deletion where results rely on ordinary least squares, and results without multiple imputation are shown in online appendix 6. Alternative approaches to imputing missing values are used where variables are categorical (Welfare), leading to a different sample size. Due to sample size constraints, two Vote choice models are used. The first model uses codes voting for Obama as 1 and Romney as 0, excludes non-voters, but deals with sample size issues by merging the FTF and web interviews. The second uses a dependent variable that includes non-voters in the 0 category to deal with the sample-size issue, but uses only FTF interviews. A third approach to the vote choice variable, which excludes non-voters and uses FTF interviews, can only be used with US-born Latinos and whites to ensure a sufficient sample size; the results of this estimation are included in the online appendix. The variables Fair jobs and Welfare are measured differently in 2012 than in 2008, which is why the Welfare model in table 3 is estimated using ordered probit, while the model in table 2 is not.
a,bCut-points for the ordered probit: US-born Latinos, (1) –2.54 (0.62), (2) –1.30 (0.59); foreign-born Latinos (1) –3.51(1.09), (2) –1.92 (1.07); whites (1) –0.34 (0.35), (2) 1.18 (0.34).