Sample
The most frequent samples have come from the National Election Studies representative surveys.
Generalizability is not an issue, as the most frequent respondents have been U.S. representative samples. The
scale does operate the best for Whites, even across education levels ( Henry & Sears, 2002; Sears & Henry, 2005 ).
Reliability
Internal Consistency
Median Cronbach alpha coefficients for White respondents have been reported as .75, and .79 in the most
recent version ( Henry & Sears, 2002 ). However, other ethnicities also can exhibit moderate alpha coefficients (in
the two samples: Blacks, .55 and .85; Asians, .74 and .60; and Latinos, .42 and .73, respectively).
Test/C0Retest
Test/C0retest reliability was .68 over two years in a national sample ( Kinder & Sanders, 1996 ) showing high
overall stability from voting age through late middle age ( Henry & Sears, 2009 ).
Validity
Convergent/Concurrent
SRS has concentrated on predicting Whites’ racial attitudes (beta 5.41/C0.50 in three studies; Henry & Sears,
2002 ). Most compelling is that endorsement of Black individualism (responsibility) predicts symbolic racism (beta
B.40), which in turn predicts racial policy preferences ( B.50), with a much smaller direct path from endorsing
Black individualism to racial policy preferences ( B.15) ( Sears & Henry, 2005 ). SRS represents racial attitudes and
political conservatism to an equal degree in confirmatory factor analysis, but regressions from three studies each
demonstrate significant increase in R2adding SRS to those two measures in predicting Whites’ opposition to
racial policies ( Henry & Sears, 2002 ).
Divergent/Discriminant
The current 8-item measure varies its scaling, having not only agree and disagree items but also several other
response modes (e.g., a-lot/none-at-all , and others). Social desirability to a predecessor scale ( McConahay, 1986 )
shows weak and inconsistent correlations.
Discriminant validity suggests that symbolic racism differs clearly from both older racial attitudes and from
political conservatism (see previous section), although its base in both has led to controversy (e.g., Sniderman,
Crosby, & Howell, 2000 ) (see Henry & Sears, 2002 ;Sears & Henry, 2005 ).
Divergence among known groups shows that Blacks, not surprisingly, score lower ( Ms5.24 to .36) than
Whites ( Ms5.40 to .49), but also lower than Asians ( Ms5.44 to .53), and Latinos ( Ms5.34 to .51). The new
immigrants maintain ethnic identity as a result of recency of arrival ( Sears, Fu, Henry, & Bui, 2003 ), perhaps
explaining why they do not identify with Black Americans as another minority group, therefore scoring closer to
Whites.
The theory was designed to explain White racial policy attitudes. Whites’ personal self-interest is arguably not
the reason ( Kinder & Sears, 1981 ), nor is White group identity or group interest necessarily the key ( Sears &
Henry, 2005 ). Instead, the origins of White symbolic racism blend anti-Black affect and conservative values into
overall endorsement prescribing Black individualism (blame, responsibility, required effort) (see Sears & Henry,
2003 , for items). These patterns cohere in individual development by voting age, and consolidate across the life-
span, but reduce with cognitive decline in older age, however not responding strongly to sociocultural change
(Henry & Sears, 2009 ).
Construct/Factor Analytic
Although the scale has appeared variable across methods and samples in its number of dimensions, even
when more than one subfactor appears, the two-factor model dimensions correlate highly, from r5.49 (Henry &
Sears, 2002 )t o r5.96 ( Sears & Henry, 2005 ). For example, the dominant ideology dimension contains items
denying discrimination, seeing change, and endorsing hard work, whereas the political resentment dimension
views Blacks as undeserving, getting too much attention, and being too pushy. Conceptually crucial themes are:
denial of continuing discrimination, endorsing effort and responsibility, rejecting excessive demands, and resent-
ing undeserved advantage ( Sears & Henry, 2005 ).692 24. MEASURES OF STEREOTYPING AND PREJUDICE: BAROMETERS OF BIAS
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT