Running head: INADVERTENT RACISM

Couch 1

Inadvertent Racism The Harm of the Cross-Race Effect Tiffany Couch Liberty High School

INADVERTENT RACISM

Couch 2

Abstract

INADVERTENT RACISM

Couch 3

Inadvertent Racism The Harm of the Cross-Race Effect The term racism was first used in 1933 (Merriam-Webster), and in the 80 years since its inception, it has spread like wildfire. Today, its very difficult to bring up any kind of issue related to race without saying or doing something considered racist. Racial tensions have always been present, even today, despite recent advancements in civil rights for the growing population of minorities in largely Caucasian populations. Politically correct terms for racial and ethnic groups are constantly changing, as less offensive terms replace outdated, insensitive ones. Research into racial attitudes during the past forty years has worked to see if there is a scientific explanation for racism. Racism, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race (Merriam-Webster), although its much more complex than a simple definition. Racism is the reason for Apartheid, the Holocaust, and the Civil Rights movement during the 1900s. (I need to find a way to expand on this thought and bridge it to the next paragraph) A study earlier this year was able to show that the age that children start developing racist tendencies is the period from five to seven years. Before five years of age, children show no preference of race in social partners: they are as likely to share their toys with African-American or Caucasian children. Their opinions of other children their age dont differ from child to child either. However, after age five, children are far more likely to choose a playmate of the same race. They are also more likely to refer to children of other races as dirty or stupid. (I also

INADVERTENT RACISM

Couch 4

need to find a way to connect: this is probably where my thesis will be: racism is a combination of innate behavior and developed behavior) The cross-race effect is a phenomenon that many people experience every day, and pervades in society in ways that go unnoticed, or at least unnamed, to most. The cross-race effect (also known as the same-race bias or the other-race effect) occurs when a person finds it difficult to distinguish between individuals of a race other than theirs. The existence of the effect has been proven time and time again, even in children as young as three months old (Anzures, 2011, pg. 173). Because of its development so early on in life, could be one of the causes of racism. For a long time, the effect was only tested in Caucasians, but recently research has spread to include Asian and biracial individuals. It was always assumed to be a Caucasian bias but the experiments show that Asians and biracial individuals are just as prone to the effect (biracial people can distinguish between the races of their parents, but not as well with others). It has even been proven that Japanese-Americans are significantly worse at differentiating between ChineseAmericans (Johnson, 1984, 941). It has also been tested in individuals adopted into families of a race other than their own. The research had unexpected results- children adopted between two and 26 months old could distinguish between faces of both the race of the family that adopted them as well as their own race, while children adopted between the ages of three and nine years old could only distinguish between faces of the same race as the family that adopted them (Anzures, 2011, pg. 175). Lawyer John. P Rutledge strongly believes that the cross-race effect is a blight that causes racism, especially when it comes to criminal justice. Innocent people have been, and continue to be, stripped of their liberty simply because they all look alike (Rutledge, 2001, pg.

INADVERTENT RACISM

Couch 5

213). The phenomenon he refers to here is called cross race impairment and occurs much more often in cases that involve a defendant that is a minority. A case in 1965 illustrates this issue perfectly: The five victims of a kidnapping, rape, and robbery episode, all of whom spent several hours with the perpetrator, each identified a man who subsequently was proved to have been several hundred miles away at the time of the offense. When the true criminal was apprehended, it was apparent that, other than his black skin, he bore no resemblance to the original suspect. Because its difficult for many people to tell apart people of other races, the cross-race effect can mean an innocent person being locked up in prison. As it turns out, training against the cross-race effect isnt as easy (or effective) as other scientists make it seem. A study in 2007 in United States, Norway, and South Africa found that despite Caucasian inhabitants of South Africa growing up around dark-skinned South Africans, they were no better at distinguishing between individuals of other races than the Caucasians of the United States or Norway. Growing up in a heterogeneous-race society has more or less the same effect as growing up in a homogeneous one (Goodmana, 2007, pg. 233). However, it is important to keep in mind that South Africans that took part in this study grew up during apartheid and the years following, so its very likely that someone of one race rarely had meaningful exposure to an individual of another race. The cross-race effect definitely has some unfortunate side effects, such as cross-race impairment in judicial cases and unseemly racial attitudes in young children, but is the cross-race effect an actual problem? Studies often conflict, with some saying that the cross-race effect can be retrained at any point during life. A study by Anzures (2011) suggests that at the age of three months, exposure to faces of another race can get rid of the effect, with the exposure time getting progressively longer the older the individual gets. The average exposure for an adult is about 20

INADVERTENT RACISM

Couch 6

years, although the efficacy of exposure to eradicate the cross-race effect is hotly debated. There are three main questions about the origins of the cross-race effect. One- does a heterogeneous society reduce the cross-race effect; two- is it experiential or developmental (is it something that is wired into us or does it develop depending on the situation that an individual grows up in); and three- in eradication, is mere exposure to other races effective, or does it need to be meaningful exposure? It is feasible that if it is possible to avoid the phenomenon early in life, then racism could be a far less likely result. More experiments are needed to confirm the viability of this hypothesis, but it would be a low cost for a world without racism. This part is where I would go in to talking about what you were telling me about earlier with your daughter and her reaction to the African-American man (not this exact story, but the same kind of idea). I thought I would also talk about evolutionary biology, Darwin, and survival of the fittest. Basically, it would be saying what you said about racism being innate, as opposed to being caused by a scientific bias developed (the cross-race effect). I think that my paper is kind of changing topics from the cross-race effect to racism in general: innate vs. developed. If I do that, should I talk about racism being passed down from parents to children?