“Notes on Thought Papers”Write a Brief Thought Paper that reflects on the reading for class ((PDF file) that includes full name, date, and the class number on the top left corner.(Times New Roman

Color-Blind Racial Ideology Theory, Training, and Measurement Implications in Psychology Helen A. NevilleUniversity of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Germine H. AwadUniversity of Texas at Austin James E. Brooks and Michelle P. FloresUniversity of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Jamie BluemelChicago School of Professional Psychology Synthesizing the interdisciplinary literature, we character- ize color-blind racial ideology (CBRI) as consisting of two interrelated domains: color-evasion (i.e., denial of racial differences by emphasizing sameness) and power-evasion (i.e., denial of racism by emphasizing equal opportunities).

Mounting empirical data suggest that the color-evasion dimension is ineffective and in fact promotes interracial tension and potential inequality. CBRI may be conceived as an ultramodern or contemporary form of racism and a legitimizing ideology used to justify the racial status quo.

Four types of CBRI are described: denial of (a) race, (b) blatant racial issues, (c) institutional racism, and (d) White privilege. We discuss empirical ndings suggesting a rela- tionship between CBRI and increased racial prejudice, racial anger, and racial fear. Implications for education, training, and research are provided.

Keywords:color-blind racial ideology, racism, racial be- liefs, prejudice, discrimination T he question of whether the United States has moved beyond race and racism is one that scholars have grappled with for decades. For some, President Barack Obama’s ascension into the White House in 2008 marked the beginning of a new “postracial” era in which issues of race and racial discrimination are memories of a not-too-distant past. After all, such people argue, if a Black American man could be elected twice to the highest of ce, then the country has transcended its racial past. Scholars have provided sharp analyses countering the legitimacy of a postracial or color-blind America after Obama’s rst election (e.g.,Alexander, 2010;Cha-Jua, 2009;Wise, 2010). Public opinion polls provide further empirical sup- port for these analyses (e.g.,Agiesta & Ross, 2012;Hutch- ings, 2009). Some ndings suggest that White adults’ views on racial policies changed very little between 1998 and the election of President Obama (Hutchings, 2009), while others indicate an actual increase in explicit and implicit anti-Black racial prejudice since his historic elec- tion (Agiesta & Ross, 2012). Thus, even though a Black American man twice has been elected president, we have actually witnessed an increase in anti-Black prejudice, sug- gesting that race still matters in U.S. society.

Psychology has a rich history of research designed to understand and describe the changing expressions of racial beliefs, including the highly contested notion of racial colorblindness. In the 1990s, the American Psychological As- sociation (APA; 1997) published a pamphlet answering the question:Can— or Should—America Be Color-Blind?Us- ing research from social psychology, APA uncovered fal- lacies in individual and collective color-blind approaches to racism and thus concluded in the pamphlet, “Despite soci- ety’s best attempts to ignore race, the research indicates that race does matter” (p. 7). More recently, Melba Vasquez convened the Task Force on Preventing Discrim- ination and Promoting Diversity during her presidency of APA; the Task Force produced a detailed report on preju- dice, stereotypes, and discrimination (APA, Presidential Task Force on Preventing Discrimination and Promoting Diversity, 2012). In the report, interpersonal and institu- tional (racial) discrimination were characterized as human rights violations, and psychologists were encouraged to educate themselves and others about the evolving manifes- tations of discrimination. Color-blind racial ideology (CBRI) is one such evolving manifestation of racial dis- crimination (APA, Presidential Task Force on Preventing Discrimination and Promoting Diversity, 2012). Surpris- ingly, to date, there is no synthesis and integration of the debates within the racial color-blindness literature and their implications in psychology.

In this article, we propose a CBRI framework to help synthesize the divergent perspectives in the literature. In de ning CBRI, we argue that racial color-blindness is unattainable, reinforces racial prejudices and/or inequality, and is actually an expression of ultramodern notions of racism among White Americans and of internalized racism or the adoption of negative racial stereotypes among people of color. Byultramodernwe mean the new articulation of racism at this historic moment that demands the develop- ment of theory and corresponding scales (McConahay, 1986). Given our view of CBRI as an ultramodern form of racism—particularly among White Americans—we differ- Helen A. Neville, Departments of Educational Psychology and African American Studies, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Germine (Gigi) H. Awad, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas at Austin; James E. Brooks and Michelle P. Flores, Counseling Psychology Program, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Jamie Bluemel, Chicago School of Professional Psychology.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Helen A. Neville, Department of Educational Psychology, 1301 S. Sixth Street, MC 708, Champaign, IL 61820. E-mail:[email protected] This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 455 September 2013 ●American Psychologist © 2013 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/13/$12.00 Vol. 68, No. 6, 455– 466 DOI:10.1037/a0033282 entiate CBRI from other racism theories. We then outline the expressions of CBRI across different racial groups before concluding with a discussion of the implications of CBRI for education, training, and research in psychology.

Defining CBRI:

Color- and Power-Evasion Dimensions There are varying de nitions of color-blindness with re- spect to race. We modi ed sociologistFrankenberg’s (1993)conceptual framework in which she identi ed two core interrelated dimensions of racial color-blindness: col- or-evasion and power-evasion. InTable 1we outline the de nition and underlying assumptions of these two dimen- sions. To further highlight the differences between the CBRI dimensions, we identify each dimension’s alternative perspective: that is, multiculturalism, or the acknowledg- ment of racial differences, for the color-evasion dimension and color-consciousness, or the critical awareness of the existence of racism, for the power-evasion dimension. A brief summary of the empirical research is also included.

As noted inTable 1, the rst dimension,color-eva- sion, “emphasiz[es] sameness as a way of rejecting the idea of white racial superiority” (Frankenberg, 1993, p. 147).

The second dimension,power-evasion,refers to the belief that everyone has the same opportunities to succeed and consequently “any failure to achieve is therefore the fault of people of color themselves” (Frankenberg, 1993, p. 14).

A number of researchers in psychology view color-blind- ness from acolor-evasionperspective in which people ignore interracial divisions and attempt to view each person as an individual (e.g.,Apfelbaum, Pauker, Sommers, & Ambady, 2010;Correll, Park, & Smith, 2008;Plaut, Thomas, & Goren, 2009). From this perspective, color- blindness is a sign of being fair-minded and is a strategydesigned to manage diversity by reducing racial prejudice (Knowles, Lowery, Hogan, & Chow, 2009). Some advo- cates of this perspective believe that racial color-blindness does exist and that it is a good thing. But, as we argue below, racial color-blindness is not desirable and may cause more harm in interracial interactions.

Color-Evasion CBRI The key color-evasion strategy of “not seeing race” is an aspirational goal of reducing racial prejudice, and it is something that few people would argue against. AsAppiah and Gutmann (1996)reminded us, however, ignoring race as a strategy to promote racial equality is desirable in an ideal world. Unfortunately, the United States is far from ideal when it comes to race and racial justice, as is evident in the wide-ranging racial disparities that exist here. And thus although we would like to believe everyone has an equal chance to succeed, this is not the case in the United States.

The data on racial disparities underscore the point that we do not live in a racially egalitarian or ideal society.

Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians are overrepresented among those living in poverty (e.g.,Fox, 2004;Quadagno, 1994); their unemployment rates are consistently double or higher than those of their White counterparts (U.S. Depart- ment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). Dispar- ities research also suggests that Asian Americans are un- derrepresented in both socioeconomic as well as health indices despite being considered a model racial group.

Asian Americans have disproportionately high levels of cancer, tuberculosis, and Hepatitis B (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). The dominant belief in society that people who work hard can get ahead obfuscates these types of disparities.

We argue that it is unrealistic and even harmful to disregard another’s race or to not see color in a society that is as racially strati ed as the United States. Thus, the adoption of CBRI doesnotreduce racial prejudice and, moreover, people who endorse greater levels of CBRI actually engage in racially insensitive behavior (e.g.,Ap- felbaum, Sommers, & Norton, 2008;Holoien & Shelton, 2012;Norton, Sommers, Apfelbaum, Pura, & Ariely, 2006). For example,Correll et al. (2008)found that in high-con ict situations a color-blind prejudice-reduction strategy was more likely to increase prejudice toward eth- nic minorities than was a multicultural prejudice-reduction strategy. Similarly, research indicates that White students who avoid mentioning race when completing a collabora- tive task with a Black partner appear less friendly (Apfel- baum, Pauker, Ambady, Sommers, & Norton, 2008), in part because they make less eye contact (Norton et al., 2006). More recently,Vorauer and Sasaki (2011)showed that when there is con ict and relationships are threatening, a multicultural perspective increases greater meaning mak- ing of hostile behaviors in interracial interactions compared with either a color-blind or an antiracist approach.

The harmful effects of a color-evasion approach are also evident among young children.Apfelbaum and col- leagues (2010)exposed elementary school children to one Helen A.

Neville This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 456 September 2013 ●American Psychologist of two narratives— one promoting racial equality through a color-blind approach (“We are all the same”) and the other endorsing a value-diversity approach (“We appreciate and celebrate our differences”). Children who listened to the color-blind story were less likely to identify and reportovert acts of racial discrimination. Collectively, these nd- ings are consistent withAPA’s (1997)conclusion that “treating different people differently and celebrating their cultural uniqueness appears to be a more equitable way to achieve social justice than attempting to adopt a color-blind stance” (p. 8).

Power-Evasion CBRI The overwhelming majority of researchers in this area argue that racial color-blindness re ects a contemporary expression of racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2001). A historical analysis of racial prejudice in the United States shows that overt forms of racism have decreased in the past 40 years (Bonilla-Silva, 2001). Despite the decrease of these overt forms of prejudice (e.g., violence, use of racial epithets), covert forms of racial prejudice seemed to have replaced “old fashioned racism.” The ideas of modern and ultramod- ern forms of prejudice build upon the premise that display- ing prejudice is no longer politically correct or socially acceptable. Therefore, individuals who hold racist attitudes tend to mask their attitudes by either rationalizing their discrimination or avoiding racial topics and intergroup contact. These more modern forms of prejudice and racism are rampant today (Whitley & Kite, 2009) and are con- nected to contemporary assertions of racial color-blindness.

The concept ofpower-evasionis related to the broader discourse of racial color-blindness as an ultramodern form of racism (e.g.,Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, & Browne, 2000). The evasion emphasis here is on power relationships in society and not on the color of someone’s skin. From Table 1 Characteristics of Color-Blind Racial Ideology Dimensions CharacteristicColor-Blind Racial Ideology (CBRI) dimensions Color-evasion Power-evasion Definition Denial of potential racial differences by emphasizing samenessDenial of racism by emphasizing the belief that everyone has the same opportunities Type(s) Denial of “race” Denial/minimization of (a) blatant racial issues, (b) institutional racism, and (c) White privilege Example “I don’t see the color of the person”; “I don’t notice race”; “We are all the same”“Racism isnota major issue in American society”; “Everyone has an equal chance to succeed in society”; “Racism against Whites is a major problem in society” Underlying assumptions (Ineffective) strategy to reduce racial prejudice; masks discomfort in interracial interactionsLegitimizing ideology to justify the racial status quo; ultramodern expression of racism in society Alternative perspective Multiculturalism Color-consciousness Elements of CBRI in WhitesDiscomfort in the presence of people of color and/or when discussing racial issues; increased engagement in racial microaggressionsIncreased racial intolerance/prejudice, modern racism, racial anger and fear, belief in a just world, and social dominance; lower cultural empathy and multicultural competencies Elements of CBRI in people of colorDiscomfort discussing racial issues; fewer interracial friendshipsIncreased internalized oppression; lower multicultural competencies and provision of racial socialization Germine H.

Awad This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 457 September 2013 ●American Psychologist this perspective, racial color-blindness is viewed as an ideology that provides a framework in which toignore racism. We reviewed the literature and identi ed three core interrelated types of evading power, including the denial, minimization, and/or distortion of (a) blatant forms of racism (e.g., “Racism is a thing of the past and is no longer a problem today”), (b) institutional racism (e.g., “Certain policies and practices unfairly bene t racial and ethnic minorities”), and (c) racial privilege (e.g., “White people do not have certain advantages because of the color of their skin”). The characterization of these types is consistent with the subscales of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS;Neville et al., 2000), the most commonly used measure in the psychology literature to assess CBRI from a power-evasion perspective.

Although some individuals certainly deny the exis- tence of blatant racism in society, it is the denial of institutional racism that appears more prevalent. In these instances, individuals ignore institutional racism by not considering power in the de nition of racism; such in- dividuals believe that everyone regardless of race is a perpetrator and a victim of racism in society. Helen Neville and her colleagues interviewed over 30 racially diverse college students about their beliefs about race and racism (Neville, Barr, & Cheng, 2007). “Tiffany,” a White undergraduate student, exempli ed the denial of institutional racism. Throughout the interview, Tiffany expressed abhorrence of racism. However, her de nition of racism did not include a consideration of institutional discrimination. By not considering the role of institu- tional discrimination in creating racial inequalities in society, Tiffany assumed that racism affected both White and Black people in the same way; in the inter- view she asserted that “African Americans are probablymore racist than they think White people are” and that notable African Americans such as Jessie Jackson and Oprah Winfrey are “very racist against people that aren’t Black.” In addition, instead of considering the role of institutional racism as one of the reasons African Amer- icans and other people of color discuss race and racial inequality, she believed that the problem was talking about racism and wanting to discuss solutions to racial inequality, which she referred to as “special rights.” Empirical data suggests that Tiffany is not alone in her assessment;Norton and Sommers (2011)showed that White adults’ ratings of anti-White bias showed a sig- ni cant increase in the 1970s and that by the mid-1990s, Whites perceived racism against Whites as greater than racism against Blacks.

If a person, such as Tiffany, does not consider issues of power in de ning racism, then she or he is more likely to place blame on individuals for racial disparities and thus to avoid identifying policies and practices as problematic. The predicament then arises when consid- ering solutions to racial inequalities—should interven- tions be targeted to those who are affected most by racial disparities, or should they be targeted to external factors that potentially shape the disparities?Marshall (2012) interviewed police of cers, court of cials such as judges, and child welfare professionals to examine their understanding about the disproportionate number of Black youth involved in the child welfare system who ultimately become involved in the juvenile justice sys- tem, or what she refers to ascrossover youth.Partici- pants with high levels of CBRI based on CoBRAS scores, compared to those with low levels of CBRI, were more likely to blame children or their families for racial disproportionalities in the numbers of crossover youth; participants with low levels of CBRI were more likely to identify macro- and system-level factors in their under- standing of the disproportionalities.

In sum, CBRI is a dominant racial ideology or worldview that serves to justify and explain away racial inequalities in society; it is thus one type of ideology that is used “to [help] sustain the social hierarchy while maintaining a perspective that provides the cover of innocence” (APA, Presidential Task Force on Preventing Discrimination and Promoting Diversity, 2012,p.4).

Expressions of CBRI are primarily organized around two interconnecting dimensions— color- and power-eva- sion. Color-evasion research more often than not is experimental and sets up color-blind versus multicul- tural conditions (e.g.,Holoien & Shelton, 2012; Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004;Wolsko, Park, Judd, &, Wittenbrink, 2000), and power-evasion research tends to employ survey designs often using the CoBRAS (e.g., Awad, Cokley, & Ravitch, 2005;Neville et al., 2000).

Throughout, we focus on power-evasion components of CBRI while at the same time recognizing the importance of the literature framed within a color-evasion perspec- tive.

James E.

Brooks This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 458 September 2013 ●American Psychologist Differentiating CBRI From Other Psychology Theories of Contemporary Racism The expression of racism is ever changing depending on context and historical time frame. There are core aspects of racism that are stable over time and context; these include the interlocking role of ideology (or belief system) and institutional practices that serve to create unequal access to resources between racial minority and majority groups.

However, gradual changes occur in the type of beliefs about race and the manifestations of these practices within institutions and interpersonal interactions. CBRI re ects these changing beliefs in the United States at this historic moment. As social norms surrounding the appropriateness of expressing racial attitudes evolve (i.e., it becomes so- cially unacceptable to honestly express negative racial be- liefs), the ways that individuals choose to express their racial attitudes also change. Several theories explaining the contemporary forms of racial prejudice are presented in the social psychological and multicultural discourse. Below we compare CBRI with three theories of racism: modern/ symbolic, aversive, and racial microaggressions.

CBRI and Modern/Symbolic Racism/Prejudice Modern/symbolic prejudice emphasizes the idea that rac- ism is a thing of the past and that Blacks get more than they deserve and seek special favors to get ahead in society.

Given the overlap in the conceptualization of modern and symbolic prejudice, many scholars have combined the terms. Modern/symbolic prejudice also describes the incli- nation by some to legitimize their racial prejudices while couching their attitudes in American cultural ideals of individualism and the Protestant work ethic (McConahay,1986;Sears & Henry, 2005). CBRI is similar to modern/ symbolic racism in that they both serve to ignore the existence of racial inequities in contemporary times. In addition, modern/symbolic racism and CBRI both rely on the myth of meritocracy in that both are concerned primar- ily with equality of opportunity and reject any programs that they believe may unjustly lead to equality of outcome (e.g., af rmative action).

Although modern/symbolic racism and CBRI theories are similar in their consideration of the denial of racism, the motivation to deny such inequalities or prejudice differs.

Modern/symbolic racists do not believe that racism exists because they believe (a) that racism is a thing of the past, and they perceive racism only as old-fashioned racism, and (b) that racial minorities bring negative outcomes (e.g., discrimination) upon themselves because of their reliance on handouts or lack of work ethic. Modern/symbolic racists tend to believe that Whites are the ones being discriminated against through “reverse racism.” Individuals who endorse CBRI, on the other hand, may be motivated by the notion that denying race and racial incidents makes them less racist.

CBRI and Aversive Racism/Prejudice CBRI may also be related to more subtle or implicit forms of prejudice such as aversive racism/prejudice. Individuals who exhibit aversive prejudice embrace egalitarian beliefs but also simultaneously hold unacknowledged negative attitudes toward people of color (e.g.,Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998,2004). Aversive racists may purposefully avoid ra- cial minorities or evade situations or conversations in which racial issues are discussed. People who espouse aversive attitudes may be motivated to adopt a CBRI be- cause it is an ideal strategy to help them avoid racial topics or minorities so that they can preclude the discomfort that arises from addressing racial issues.

CBRI and Racial Microaggressions Racial microaggressions have gained increasing attention in the literature as a contemporary expression of subtle forms of racism; while related, CBRI extends this frame- work as well. Racial microaggressions consist of behav- ioral micro-assaults (similar to pre– civil rights movement overt actions), insults (racial insensitivity to one’s heritage; e.g., assuming someone is a criminal or is not an American because of their racial or ethnic background), and invali- dations (denial of the racialized experiences of people of color). The latter exempli es CBRI. In fact, CBRI is a micro-invalidation theme within Sue’s framework (Sue, 2009;Sue et al., 2007). In the original taxonomy, Sue and colleagues de ned color-blindness as primarily involving interactions in which White people do not acknowledge race or they deny a person of color’s racialized experience (e.g., “I don’t see you as Black, I see you as a human”).

This conceptualization is consistent with the color-evasion component of CBRI discussed earlier.

Extending Sue’s framework (Sue, 2009;Sue et al., 2007), we argue that CBRI consists of additional dimen- sions, particularly denial of racialized experiences and de- Michelle P.

Flores This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 459 September 2013 ●American Psychologist nial of (institutional) racism; these dimensions are consis- tent with the power-evasion component of CBRI. The rst dimension occurs when a person or group denies a person of color’s racialized experience. Denial of (institutional) racism refers to a person’s or group’s denial of the exis- tence of institutional, cultural, or other form of racism in the presence of a person of color, most often as a way to dismiss the individual’s racial group’s lived experience.

This denial in turn serves to alienate or anger the member of the targeted group.

Emerging data illustrate the connection between racial microaggressions and CBRI. In an innovative study,Tynes and Markoe (2010)showed Black and White college stu- dents two images of racially themed parties. The investi- gators asked the students to respond to derogatory and insulting images of African American and Latino cultures as if they were posted on one of their friends’ social networking sites. Students who were classi ed as high in CBRI on the basis of their CoBRAS scores were more likely than others to indicate they were not bothered by the images; a few of these students even provided positive evaluations of the party (e.g., “Looks like a fun party . . .

why wasn’t I invited?”, p. 7).

CBRI Is the Dominant Racial Ideology CBRI differs from many of the contemporary racism frameworks in psychology because of its emphasis on ideology. Most of the theories in psychology focus on racial prejudice, anti-Black sentiment, or racial slights/ injuries such as microaggressions. According to a number of racism scholars, ideology is a key component of racism (Guinier & Torres, 2007). CBRI explicitly describes the changing racial ideology over the past two decades, one that has moved away from overt beliefs about racial infe-riority/superiority to one that evades public consideration of race(ism). To modifyDawson’s (2001)general de ni- tion, racial ideology consists of a worldview readily found in the population, including sets of ideas and values [about race] that cohere, that are used to publicly justify political stances [especially as they relate to racialized matters], and that shape and are shaped by society....Cogni- tively, ideology serves as a lter of what one “sees” and responds to [interpersonally and] in the social world. (pp. 4 –5).

Prager (1982)connected individual-level expressions of racial beliefs to these larger ideological frames or “public worldview” (p. 102).

There are a number of examples in politics to draw from to illustrate racial color-blindness as an ideology or public worldview. The outcry over former President Jimmy Carter’s comments naming the tea partiers’ portrayal of President Obama as racist re ects a color-blind public worldview. From the perspective of a number of pundits and lay people commenting on President Carter’s remarks, naming racism was considered racist in and of itself be- cause as a society we have moved beyond racism. And thus, asserting that portrayals of Obama as a monkey or a witch doctor are racist becomes problematic, as opposed to the behaviors themselves. More recently, Texas Governor Rick Perry commented that the justice system is “color- blind” after neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter for killing Trayvon Martin, an African American teenager.

The Zimmerman trial and verdict received national atten- tion in part because of the racial undertones of the case.

Those who speculate that race and racism have nothing to do with who is arrested, charged, and sentenced with crimes may re ect a color-blind stance that ignores well- documented racial bias in the legal/justice system (see Alexander, 2010).

As re ected in the concept of power-evasion, CBRI is a speci c type of racial ideology; it is a legitimizing or system-justifying ideology designed to maintain the status quo.Jost and Major (2001)noted that ideological thoughts operate to validate ideas and actions that otherwise would be considered questionable. They continued by observing that prevailing ideologies rationalize inequalities, both so- cial and economic, while “preserv[ing] the sense that such inequality is fair and legitimate” (p. 6). In ways, it seems that legitimizing ideologies appear to create a loop in that they justify ideas and actions. In many ways, CBRI serves as a legitimizing ideology because it is designed to deny or minimize institutional racism in our society and as such supports victim-blaming rationalizations to explain poten- tial racial inequalities (Gallagher, 2003;Neville, 2009).

That can lead to inequalities that are then legitimized through ideas and actions.

CBRI Framework Applies to Both Whites and People of Color People across racial groups in the United States are social- ized in the same larger macro-system, and thus it is not surprising that anyone can adopt CBRI, irrespective of Jamie Bluemel This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 460 September 2013 ●American Psychologist racial group membership(s). Given the nature of racism, most psychological theories describe the racial prejudice, affect, and/or covert behaviors of Whites directed to people of color. The CBRI framework is exible enough to con- sider the beliefs of and consequences for both Whites and people of color.

Although Whites and people of color can and do adopt CBRI, adhering to these beliefs has different implications for the two groups. For Whites, CBRI is linked to racial privilege and animus, and for people of color, CBRI is linked to internalized racism. Given that Whites as a whole bene t from CBRI, it is not surprising that White students and community members, on average, adopt higher levels of CBRI as measured by the CoBRAS than do their racial and ethnic minority counterparts (e.g.,Awad et al., 2005; Neville et al., 2000;Oh, Choi, Neville, Anderson, & Lan- drum-Brown, 2010;Worthington, Navarro, Loewy, & Hart, 2008). There are very few data on the differences in opinions between racial and ethnic minority groups, par- ticularly Asian Americans and American Indians. Some emerging data indicate that Latinos endorse color-blind racial beliefs to about the same degree as Whites but to a greater extent than their Black American counterparts (see Bonilla-Silva & Dietrich, 2011).

CBRI among Whites.Instead of reducing racial prejudice, ignoring race and not acknowledging racism actually re ect racial intolerance and prejudice among Whites. There is growing empirical support linking CBRI with a range of cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimen- sions of racism. Consistent with theoretical assertions, nd- ings indicate that among White adults, increased CBRI is related to greater levels of modern racism, racial and gen- der intolerance, and a belief in a just world (Neville et al., 2000). For example,Richeson and Nussbaum (2004)found that White college students who adopted a color-blind mindset as opposed to a multicultural mindset were more likely to show racial bias on both explicit and implicit measures. CBRI also was found to be associated with an increased social dominance orientation (Worthington et al., 2008) and lower cultural appreciation (Spanierman, Poteat, Oh, & Wang, 2008).

Adhering to a victim-blaming ideology such as CBRI is often related to an increase in negative emotions such as fear of people of color and a lack of ethnocultural empathy.

The tragic aftermath of Hurricane Katrina illustrates this point. Initially, many pundits and politicians denied that racism against poor Black Americans played a role in the delayed federal response to the victims, who were stranded for days with limited food and water. A signi cant number of these storm survivors were relocated to Houston for temporary shelter, where Barbara Bush, most notably, commented, “What I’m hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them” (“Barbara Bush Calls Evac- uees Better Off,” 2005). Empirical research supports the link between this type of limited empathy toward Black people (sometimes referred to as the racial empathy gap)and racial bias (e.g.,Forgiarini, Gallucci, & Maravita, 2011).

Emerging data provide initial support for the relation between CBRI and lower levels of cultural empathy.

Burkard and Knox (2004)found that psychologists catego- rized as high in CBRI reported lower levels of empathy and were more likely to hold African American clients more responsible for nding solutions to their problems than were their lower CBRI counterparts. CBRI is related to other negative emotional responses as well. In her system- atic research on the emotional reactions to racism (i.e., costs of racism to Whites), Spanierman and her colleagues completed a series of correlational (e.g.,Spanierman & Heppner, 2004), longitudinal (Todd, Spanierman, & Poteat, 2011), and quasi-experimental (Soble, Spanierman, & Liao, 2011) studies that have incorporated an examination of negative emotions such as the “White fear” of people of color and CBRI. Consistently, ndings from these studies indicate that increased CBRI is related to racial fear among both college students and community members.

CBRI among people of color.When people of color deny the existence of racism, they engage in individual and collective behaviors that counter their group interests. People of color who endorse CBRI may internal- ize stereotypes and believe that race is unimportant; this process is often referred to as internalized racism (Speight, 2007). CBRI, like internalized racism, addresses the con- text in which the racial status quo exists and continues to be perpetuated. Consider a person of color who believes that race is a nonfactor in securing a job (or the denial of institutional racism) and believes that she and other people of color only need to realign their values to give priority to education and not hedonism in order to succeed. Here a dominant racial ideology is maintained by relying on U.S.

values of meritocracy and individualism to explain group differences that, in essence, blame the victim for inequal- ities. Having never considered systemic forms of oppres- sion, this individual may turn to self-criticism to under- stand her unemployment. There is emerging empirical support for a direct link between CBRI and internalized oppression (e.g.,Neville, Coleman, Falconer, & Holmes, 2005). For example,Chen, LePhuoc, Guzman, Rude, and Dodd (2006)found among a sample of Asian American students that increased internalized racial oppression was related to higher levels of denial of institutional racism and racial privilege. CBRI also is associated with opposition to policies such as af rmative action that would help promote greater representation in higher education and the work- place (Awad et al., 2005;Oh et al., 2010). Future Directions in Understanding CBRI Given that CBRI is the current dominant racial ideology, psychologists can play an instrumental role in educating and training students, mental health professionals, and communities about race and racism. In this section, we describe education, training, and consultation as they relate to the reduction of CBRI. Speci cally, we consider educa- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 461 September 2013 ●American Psychologist tion within the university setting, training mental health professionals, and consultation in several contexts (e.g., community, workplace). Findings from interventions and studies employing CBRI reduction strategies are described in addition to suggestions for future directions. A discus- sion of the implications of CBRI in providing therapy is incorporated in our consideration of education and training of mental health professionals. However, a detailed discus- sion about the manifestations of CBRI in clinical practice is beyond the scope of this article.

Education and Training and CBRI The common educational and training challenge is to nd effective ways to contest the main expressions of CBRI (i.e., denial of race, blatant racial issues, institutional rac- ism, and White privilege). Many of the education and training activities designed to challenge these expressions are comparable across context, including teaching under- graduate students or training mental health professionals.

Most of the suggestions offered in this section serve as learning opportunities for people across race and ethnicity.

In our own teaching and training experience, we have observed that acknowledging institutional racism in partic- ular is a challenge for both White students and people of color students.

Another challenge is to provide students an opportu- nity to explore alternative approaches to color-blindness.

From the color-evasion perspective, this alternative often is the adoption of a multicultural approach in which people recognize and appreciate others’ diversity (seeWolsko et al., 2000). Focusing more directly on issues of race(ism), scholars from the power-evasion frame talk about acolor- consciousoutlook; in addition to engaging the social sig- ni cance of race and racism, color-consciousness involves individual and collective action to reduce racial injustices (e.g.,Appiah & Gutmann, 1996).

Educating undergraduate students.

Psychologists can educate undergraduate students about race(ism) by offering courses related to the topic and pro- viding training to faculty interested in incorporating re- search on race(ism) into their courses. The research is clear; exposure to racism awareness education often de- creases CBRI and promotes a critical awareness of ra- ce(ism) (Lopez, 2004). There is mounting documentation of the role of diversity courses in decreasing racism, par- ticularly among White students (Case, 2007;Cole, Case, Rios, & Curtin, 2011;Colvin-Burque, Davis-Maye, & Zu- gazaga, 2007;Kernahan & Davis, 2007). Two longitudinal studies are worth mentioning.Kernahan and Davis (2010) found that students who completed a diversity course in- creased their awareness of various dimensions of racism (i.e., lowered their CBRI) compared to students who com- pleted another type of course, and this change was main- tained over a year. In a longitudinal study over a four-year period,Neville, Poteat, Lewis, and Spanierman (2013) found that White students who completed a greater number of diversity courses during their undergraduate years showed faster decline in the power-evasion dimension of CBRI over time.While these results are encouraging, it is important to identify not only what brings about declines in CBRI but also how those changes are brought about. There are few process-related studies, and thus little is known about what types of experiences in diversity courses are helpful in challenging CBRI. In one of the few studies that examined a speci c intervention on the power-evasion dimension of CBRI,Soble et al. (2011)randomly assigned undergradu- ate students to one of two conditions: a racism documen- tary condition and a control group. Students who watched the documentary showed a decrease in CBRI scores imme- diately after watching the video; follow-up data were not collected.

More research is needed to identify the speci c edu- cational ingredients that produce long-term changes in the reduction of CBRI among students. Theory and writings from educators point to some compelling activities that show promise. In addition to discussing documentaries about blatant and institutional racism in society, psychol- ogists can help students see the relevance of racism in their lives and on campus. Using counternarratives is one way to get at this understanding and to develop color-conscious- ness, because they expose racism.

Grounded in the work of critical race theorists, we acknowledge that a fair number of people “see” institu- tional and interpersonal racism. Such individuals challenge underlying assumptions that race and racism do not matter in today’s society and expose the ways in which racism has affected their lives. Critical race theory draws on scholar- ship in the elds of law, sociology, education, Black stud- ies, ethnic studies, and women’s studies (seeCrenshaw, 2011). Scholars within this tradition often use qualitative methods in which participants share stories that “tell on” racism.

Educational researcher Lee Ann Bell is one such scholar who writes extensively in this area. In an interview study with gatekeepers within the education and human service elds,Bell (2003)identi ed CBRI counternarra- tives. Most of the narrators of these stories were people of color, but a few White participants who learned about racism through close friendships with people of color also shared CBRI counternarrative stories. In these stories, par- ticipants discussed the persistence of racism; they acknowl- edged progress in this area since the civil rights movement, but they noted that change was slow. Drawing on this research, educators could assign counternarratives to read or, better yet, they could bring counternarratives to the classroom via a panel of students, faculty, and administra- tors on campus.

Another method to increase an awareness that “ra- ce(ism) does in fact matter”—particularly among White students—is to create opportunities for meaningful interra- cial interactions. As posited by the contact hypothesis (also known as intergroup contact theory), there are several conditions that are necessary for successful intergroup in- teraction. These include equal status, cooperation to achieve common goals, acquaintance potential, and insti- tutional support (Allport, 1954;Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 462 September 2013 ●American Psychologist Research ndings indicate that establishing close friendships with people of color is related to decreases in CBRI and an increase in a critical understanding of ra- ce(ism) among Whites (Bell, 2003). InNeville et al.’s (2013)four-year longitudinal study, White students who reported a greater proportion of close Black American friends demonstrated a signi cantly greater rate of decrease in CBRI over the course of their undergraduate experience.

These ndings extend the contact hypothesis by suggesting that increased interracial friendships reduce CBRI or rather increase an awareness of race(ism) in society. At this point, we do not know what it is about these interpersonal inter- actions that may reduce CBRI. One possible explanation is the sharing of stories and experiences that occurs in close friendships; perhaps, for White students, these exchanges put a human face to racism.

Educating and training mental health professionals.Graduate programs training mental health professionals should challenge CBRI among stu- dents as a component of establishing multicultural coun- seling competencies (APA, 2003). Literature documents the harmful effects of both color- and power-evasion in the therapy context. Chalmer Thompson and her colleagues (Thompson & Jenal, 1994;Thompson, Worthington, & Atkinson, 1994) conducted the rst studies examining the role of CBRI, or what they referred to as a race-avoidant or universalist perspective, on the therapy process. Both stud- ies reported ndings from a larger quasi-experimental study in which Black women college students were invited to participate in a quasi-counseling session with either a White or a Black woman counselor under one of two counseling content conditions: a universalist condition in which the counselor avoided discussions about race even when initiated by the client and a cultural content condition that attended to race, racism, and cultural content in the session. Not surprisingly, the type of content condition in uenced the therapy process. Clients rated the counselor as more credible and were more likely to disclose at a deeper level under the cultural content condition than under the universalist (i.e., CBRI) condition (Thompson et al., 1994). Since these publications, researchers have found an association between CBRI and multicultural counseling competencies (e.g.,Burkard & Knox, 2004;Chao, Wei, Good, & Flores, 2011;Neville, Spanierman, & Doan, 2006). In a survey study with over 300 White therapists in training,Spanierman et al. (2008)found signi cant asso- ciations between increased CBRI and lower levels of mul- ticultural counseling competencies, particularly multicul- tural awareness of one’s values and biases and knowledge of the roles of race, culture, and sociohistorical experiences in mental health.

Training programs are tasked with the dif cult job of educating emerging professionals about the potential role of race(ism) in the therapy context at a deep process level rather than with a cookie cutter, one-size- ts-all approach.

In order to do this, educators have to work with students to understand the role of race in their own lives, including their own fears, anxiety, and anger about race. Without a full understanding about his or her own views of race, it isimpossible for a trainee to competently talk about race with a potential client. Much of this type of work has been written about extensively (seeSue & Sue, 2013).

Developing skills to identify the appropriate time to talk and how to talk about race with clients are key steps in countering the ill effects of CBRI in therapy and in devel- oping multicultural counseling competencies. Should a White therapist discuss race with an Asian American client who is battling symptoms of major depression? Should a Mexican American mental health professional talk about race with a White client who makes racial slurs in therapy?

There are no clear answers to these types of questions.

Educators can work with emerging professionals to identify ways to introduce race as part of processing the therapeutic relationship. Role-playing activities also could be incorpo- rated into training to provide students opportunities to (a) respond to racial information when it is explicitly discussed or implicitly referenced in coded language and (b) identify and manage their anxiety that may result from talking about race(ism).

Training programs should also assist students in in- corporating an analysis of race(ism) in conceptualizing all clients’ presenting concerns; this does not mean that ra- ce(ism) plays a role in all presenting concerns, but rather that a therapist should systematically rule out (or include) these issues. The challenge here is to assess the complex- ities of race(ism) in the person’s life, in the history of his or her family, and/or in the connections to larger social issues while concurrently viewing the person as a unique individ- ual. Providing case vignettes for students to work through and discuss is one way to develop skills in this area.

Educating and training in consultation activities.In the role of consultants, psychologists can assist groups such as universities, companies, and commu- nities to challenge the culture of CBRI in their settings.

Racial inequalities or injuries are perpetuated when the leadership team ignores race(ism) practices in the setting or if a community tries to ignore its racial past. Employers who espouse a CBRI, for example, may turn a blind eye to the ways in which discriminatory practices take place in their organization. If they believe race does not matter, then they will be less likely to acknowledge that stereotypes may impact their evaluations of people of color in their organization. Perhaps if there is an awareness of the pos- sibility of racial prejudice, individuals in a position to evaluate applicants will engage in slow effortful processing to ensure that they objectively assess their employees of color. Psychological consultants may want to present data about the impact of biases in the evaluations of applicants to help raise awareness of how these biases may impact the workplace vis a` vis hiring, promotion, and retention prac- tices (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2003;Ziegert & Hanges, 2005).

The case of sundown towns offers another example of the ways in which consultants can assist a large system to challenge CBRI. Sundown towns are communities that are intentionally kept all-White (Loewen, 2005). There are over a thousand such towns across the country. In a survey study of White undergraduates, we found that students This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 463 September 2013 ●American Psychologist from sundown towns were more likely to adhere to higher levels of CBRI compared to students who did not reside in communities that were at some point intentionally all- White (Flores, Neville, Spanierman, & Loewen, 2013).

This nding exempli es how CBRI endorses White su- premacy under the guise that race is no longer a relative construct.

One of the authors (Michelle P. Flores) worked with sociologist James Loewen on his ongoing research on sundown towns across the United States. The leadership of a historic sundown town consulted with Loewen to assist them in their efforts to change the town’s reputation asso- ciated with its racial past. As part of the consultation work, Loewen (2005)proposed a three-step change plan: publicly acknowledging its history of being a sundown town, taking steps to apologize (e.g., public apology or publication of a newspaper article), and implementing structural changes that lessened the impact of racism in the town. The town’s leadership council believed it was unnecessary to acknowl- edge the town’s racist history and to issue a public apology.

The trivialization of racism in this case exempli es how CBRI is endorsed not only at the individual or family level but throughout a community and its administration. The town was unable to connect the historic past with contem- porary inequalities in the town; they wanted to adopt a color-blind future without acknowledging racial injustices.

Building onLoewen’s (2005)education paradigm in working with sundown towns, we offer three strategies psychology consultants can use to reduce CBRI in group/ community settings and to promote color-conscious prac- tices. First, consultants could work with groups to create an open dialogue about the group’s history and current stance on race. Part of this discussion could include exploring whether one or more of the four CBRI types are present in the group’s culture, interpersonal interactions, and/or group-based policies and practices. Second, they could collaboratively identify appropriate ways to acknowledge and apologize for (if appropriate) previous racial “injuries.” An apology for a historic lynching or a recent racist event/ practice exempli es this step. Last, consultants could work hand in hand with the group leadership to implement and evaluate diversity education via trainings, seminars, and school curricula as a way to counter CBRI and increase racial equality in the setting.

Measurement Issues and CBRI As a nascent theory, more work is needed to further theo- rize CBRI. For example, future researchers could explore if there are additional types of CBRI beyond the four com- monly studied in the psychology literature (i.e., denial of race, blatant racial issues, institutional racism, and White privilege). In addition, CBRI research centers on research in the United States, yet the construct has relevance in other countries with a legacy of racism. Further theorizing about the history and expressions of CBRI in other countries is needed to better articulate the tenets of CBRI as an ultra- modern expression of racism and not just a unique racial ideology within the United States.There is no one measure designed to assess both the color- and power-evasion dimensions of CBRI. In studies using (quasi) experimental designs, CBRI conditions are created to evoke color-evasion, and occasionally scales are used to measure color-evasion attitudes (e.g.,Goff, Jack- son, Nichols, & Di Leone, 2013). In survey research, there are scales to assess one or more types of power-evasion CBRI. In terms of the scales used in these studies, research- ers either piece together one to four items with little or no psychometric support or they use the CoBRAS. The Co- BRAS has solid psychometric properties with college and community samples across a range of racial and ethnic groups, and it has subscales designed to assess three types of power-evasion CBRI. However, the CoBRAS was de- veloped in the very early years of empirical CBRI research in the social sciences. Are the items still as relevant and do they capture current articulations of denial of blatant rac- ism, institutional racism, and White privilege? A CBRI measure is also needed to examine both color- and power- evasion. We know very little about how these two dimen- sions are linked empirically and the speci c outcomes to which they are linked.

At this point, we do not know if certain CBRI types are more relevant for speci c racial and ethnic groups and, if they are, under what conditions. For example, does CBRI among White college students look the same as CBRI among Asian American college students? And, if there are differences, what potential explanations can account for these differences? More information also is needed on factors accounting for within-group differences among spe- ci c racial and ethnic groups. Initial ndings in the litera- ture suggest that racial socialization for Black emerging adults is related to CBRI (e.g.,Barr & Neville, 2008), but more research is needed for other racial groups. Having this understanding is important to explore the full impact of CBRI on the lives of people of color.

Measures designed to assess color-consciousness are needed as an alternative to power-evasion CBRI. In the literature, some researchers use low scores on the CoBRAS to indicate color-consciousness. While low CBRI may be a proxy for color-consciousness, it is not the same construct, and thus explicit measures of color-consciousness are needed. Researchers should explore the core dimensions of color-consciousness and how the construct is similar to theories of critical consciousness. REFERENCES Agiesta, J., & Ross, S. (2012, October 27). AP poll: Majority harbor prejudice against Blacks.Associated Press. Retrieved fromhttp://news .yahoo.com/ap-poll-majority-harbor-prejudice-against-blacks-07355 1680-election.html Alexander, M. (2010).The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York, NY: New Press.

Allport, G. W. (1954).The nature of prejudice. New York, NY: Perseus.

American Psychological Association. (1997).Can— or should—America be color-blind? Psychological research reveals fallacies in a color- blind response to racism[Pamphlet]. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (2003). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists.American Psychologist, 58(5), 377– 402.doi:10.1037/ 0003-066X.58.5.377 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 464 September 2013 ●American Psychologist American Psychological Association, Task Force on Preventing Discrim- ination and Promoting Diversity. (2012).Dual pathways to a better America: Preventing discrimination and promoting diversity. Retrieved fromhttp://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/promoting-diversity.aspx Apfelbaum, E. P., Pauker, K., Ambady, N., Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Learning (not) to talk about race: When older children underperform in social categorization.Developmental Psychology, 44(5), 1513–1518.doi:10.1037/a0012835 Apfelbaum, E. P., Pauker, K., Sommers, S. R., & Ambady, N. (2010). In blind pursuit of racial equality?Psychological Science, 21,1587–1592.

doi:10.1177/0956797610384741 Apfelbaum, E. P., Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Seeing race and seeming racist: Evaluating strategic colorblindness in social inter- action.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95,918 –932.

doi:10.1037/a0011990 Appiah, K. A., & Gutmann, A. (1996).Color conscious: The political morality of race. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Awad, G. H., Cokley, K., & Ravitch, J. (2005). Attitudes toward af r- mative action: A comparison of color-blind versus modern racist atti- tudes.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35,1384 –1399.doi:

10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02175.x Barbara Bush calls evacuees better off. (2005, September 7).The New York Times. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/07/ national/nationalspecial/07barbara.html Barr, S. C., & Neville, H. A. (2008). Examination of the link between parental racial socialization messages and racial ideology among Black college students.Journal of Black Psychology, 34,131–155.doi:

10.1177/0095798408314138 Bell, L. A. (2003). Telling tales: What stories can teach us about racism.

Race Ethnicity and Education, 6,3–28.doi:10.1080/ 1361332032000044567 Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2003). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A eld experiment on labor market discrimination (Working Paper No. 9873). Cambridge, MA:

National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved fromhttp://www .nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf Bonilla-Silva, E. (2001).White supremacy and racism in the post civil rights era. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Bonilla-Silva, E., & Dietrich, D. (2011). The sweet enchantment of color-blind racism in Obamerica.Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 634,190 –206.doi:10.1177/ 0002716210389702 Brown, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37,255–343.

doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5 Burkard, A. W., & Knox, S. (2004). Effect of therapist color-blindness on empathy and attributions in cross-cultural counseling.Journal of Coun- seling Psychology, 51,387–397.doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.4.387 Case, K. A. (2007). Raising White privilege awareness and reducing racial prejudice: Assessing diversity course effectiveness.Teaching of Psy- chology, 34,231–235.doi:10.1080/00986280701700250 Cha-Jua, S. K. (2009). The changing same: Black racial formation and transformation as a theory of the African American experience. In T.

Koditschek, S. K. Cha-Jua, and H. A. Neville (Eds.),Race struggles (pp. 9 – 47). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Chao, R. C.-L., Wei, M., Good, G. E., & Flores, L. Y. (2011). Race/ ethnicity, color-blind racial attitudes, and multicultural counseling com- petence: The moderating effects of multicultural counseling training.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58,72– 82.doi:10.1037/a0022091 Chen, G. A., LePhuoc, P., Guzman, M. R., Rude, S. S., & Dodd, B. G.

(2006). Exploring Asian American racial ideology.Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12,461– 476.doi:10.1037/1099-9809 .12.3.461 Cole, E. R., Case, K. A., Rios, D., & Curtin, N. (2011). Understanding what students bring to the classroom: Moderators of the effects of diversity courses on student attitudes.Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17,397– 405.doi:10.1037/a0025433 Colvin-Burque, A., Davis-Maye, D., & Zugazaga, C. B. (2007). Can cultural competence be taught? Evaluating the impact of the soap model.Journal of Social Work Education, 43,223–242.doi:10.5175/ JSWE.2007.200500528Correll, J., Park, B., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Situations colorblind and multicultural prejudice reduction strategies in high-con ict.Group Pro- cesses & Intergroup Relations, 11,471– 491.doi:10.1177/ 1368430208095401 Crenshaw, K. W. (2011). Twenty years of critical race theory: Looking back to move forward.Connecticut Law Review, 43(5) 1253–1352.

Dawson, M. C. (2001).Black visions: The roots of contemporary African American political ideologies. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The causes, consequences, and challenges of aversive rac- ism. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.),Confronting racism: The problem and the response(pp. 3–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36,1–52.doi:10.1016/S0065- 2601(04)36001-6 Flores, M. P., Neville, H. A., Spanierman, L. B., & Loewen, J. (2013).

Sundown towns: Exploring the in uence of neighborhood racial com- position on white college students’ colorblind racial ideology. Unpub- lished manuscript.

Forgiarini, M., Gallucci, M., & Maravita, A. (2011). Racism and the empathy for pain on our skin.Frontiers in Psychology, 2,Article No.

108.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00108 Fox, C. (2004). The changing colour of welfare? How Whites’ attitudes toward Latinos in uence support for welfare.American Journal of Sociology, 110,580 – 625.doi:10.1086/422587 Frankenberg, R. (1993).White women, race matters: The social construc- tion of whiteness. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Gallagher, C. A. (2003). Color-blind privilege: The social and political functions of erasing the color line in post-race America.Race, Gender & Class, 10(4), 1–17.

Goff, P. A., Jackson, M. C., Nichols, A. H., & Di Leone, B. A. L. (2013).

Anything but race: Avoiding racial discourse to avoid hurting you or me.Psychology, 4,335–339.doi:10.4236/psych.2013.43A048 Guinier, L., & Torres, G. (2007). The ideology of colorblindness. In C.

Gallagher (Ed.),Rethinking the color line: Readings in race and eth- nicity(3rd ed., pp. 143–148). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Holoien, D. S., & Shelton, J. N. (2012). You deplete me: The cognitive costs of colorblindness on ethnic minorities.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48,562–565.doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.09.010 Hutchings, V. L. (2009). Change or more of the same? Evaluating racial attitudes in the Obama era.Public Opinion Quarterly, 73,917–942.

doi:10.1093/poq/nfp080 Jost, J. T., & Major, B. (Eds.). (2001).The psychology of legitimacy:

Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations.

New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Kernahan, C., & Davis, T. (2007). Changing perspective: How learning about racism in uences student awareness and emotion.Teaching of Psychology, 34,49 –52.

Kernahan, C., & Davis, T. (2010). What are the long-term effects of learning about racism?Teaching of Psychology, 37,41– 45.doi:

10.1080/00986280903425748 Knowles, E. D., Lowery, B. S., Hogan, C. M., & Chow, R. M. (2009). On the malleability of ideology: Motivated construals of color blindness.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96,857– 869.doi:

10.1037/a0013595 Loewen, J. (2005).Sundown towns: A hidden dimension of American racism. New York, NY: Touchstone.

Lopez, G. E. (2004). Interethnic contact, curriculum, and attitudes in the rst year of college.Journal of Social Issues, 60,75–94.doi:10.1111/ j.0022-4537.2004.00100.x Marshall, J. (2012).A mixed method examination of racial disproportion- alities among youth who cross over from the child welfare to the juvenile justice system: Perspectives from the eld. Unpublished doc- toral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.

McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J. R. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.),Prejudice, discrimination, and racism(pp. 91–125). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Neville, H. A. (2009). Rationalizing the racial order: Racial color-blind- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 465 September 2013 ●American Psychologist ness as a legitimizing ideology. In T. Koditschek, S. K. Cha-Jua, & H. A. Neville (Eds.),Race struggles(pp. 115–133). Champaign, IL:

University of Illinois Press.

Neville, H. A., Barr, S., & Cheng, S. J. (2007, August).Uncovering racial narratives: Interpretations of race(ism) among diverse students. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Asso- ciation, San Francisco, CA.

Neville, H. A., Coleman, M. N., Falconer, J. W., & Holmes, D. (2005).

Color-blind racial ideology and psychological false consciousness among African Americans.Journal of Black Psychology, 31,27– 45.

doi:10.1177/0095798404268287 Neville, H. A., Lilly, R. L., Duran, G., Lee, R. M., & Browne, L. (2000).

Construction and initial validation of the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS).Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47,59 –70.doi:

10.1037/0022-0167.47.1.59 Neville, H. A., Poteat, V. P., Lewis, J. A., & Spanierman, L. B. (2013.

Changes in White college students’ color-blind racial ideology over four years: Do diversity experiences make a difference?Manuscript submitted for publication.

Neville, H., Spanierman, L., & Doan, B. (2006). Exploring the association between color-blind racial ideology and multicultural counseling com- petencies.Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 12, 275–290.doi:10.1037/1099-9809.12.2.275 Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. (2011). Whites see racism as a zero-sum game that they are now losing.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(3), 215–218.doi:10.1177/1745691611406922 Norton, M. I., Sommers, S. R., Apfelbaum, E. P., Pura, N., & Ariely, D.

(2006). Color blindness and interracial interaction.Psychological Sci- ence, 17,949 –953.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01810.x Oh, E., Choi, C., Neville, H. A., Anderson, C. J., & Landrum-Brown, J.

(2010). Beliefs about af rmative action: A test of the group self-interest and racism beliefs models.Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3, 163–176.doi:10.1037/a0019799 Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for minorities?Psychological Science, 20, 444 – 446.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02318.x Prager, J. (1982). American racial ideology as collective representation.

Ethnic and Racial Studies, 5,99 –119.doi:10.1080/01419870.1982 .9993362 Quadagno, J. (1994).The colour of welfare: How racism undermined the war on poverty. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Richeson, J. A., & Nussbaum, R. J. (2004). The impact of multicultural- ism versus color-blindness on racial bias.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40,417– 423.doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.002 Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2005). Over thirty years later: A contem- porary look at symbolic racism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 37,pp. 95–150). San Diego, CA:

Elsevier Academic Press.doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37002-X Soble, J. R., Spanierman, L. B., & Liao, H. (2011). Effects of a brief video intervention on White university students’ racial attitudes.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58,151–157.doi:10.1037/a0021158 Spanierman, L. B., & Heppner, M. J. (2004). Psychosocial costs of racism to white scale (PCRW): Construction and initial validation.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51,249 –262.doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.249Spanierman, L. B., Poteat, V. P., Oh, E., & Wang, Y. (2008). Psycholog- ical costs of racism to White counselors: Predicting various dimensions of multicultural counseling competence.Journal of Counseling Psy- chology, 55,75– 88.doi:10.1037/0022-0167.55.1.75 Speight, S. L. (2007). Internalized racism: One more piece of the puzzle.

The Counseling Psychologist, 35(1), 126 –134.doi:10.1177/ 0011000006295119 Sue, D. W. (2009).Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. E. (2007). Racial microaggres- sions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice.American Psychologist, 62,271–286.doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271 Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2013).Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice(6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Thompson, C. E., & Jenal, S. T. (1994). Interracial and intraracial quasi- counseling interactions when counselors avoid discussing race.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41,484 – 491.doi:10.1037/0022-0167.41.4 .484 Thompson, C. E., Worthington, R., & Atkinson, D. R. (1994). Counseling content orientation, counselor race, and Black women’s cultural mis- trust and self-disclosures.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 41,155– 161.doi:10.1037/0022-0167.41.2.155 Todd, N. R., Spanierman, L. B., & Poteat, V. P. (2011). Longitudinal examination of the psychosocial costs of racism to Whites across the college experience.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58,508 –521.

doi:10.1037/a0025066 Tynes, B. M., & Markoe, S. L. (2010). The role of color-blind racial attitudes in reactions to racial discrimination on social network sites.

Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3,1–13.doi:10.1037/ a0018683 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Healthy people 2020.

Retrieved fromhttp://healthypeople.gov/2020/default.aspx U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011).Household data annual averages: 1. Employment status of the civilian noninstitu- tional population, 1940 to date. Retrieved fromhttp://www.bls.gov/ cps/cpsa2010.pdf Vorauer, J. D., & Sasaki, S. J. (2011). In the worst rather than the best of times: Effects of salient intergroup ideology in threatening intergroup interactions,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 307–320.doi:10.1037/a0023152 Whitley, B. E., & Kite, M. E. (2009).Psychology of prejudice and discrimination(2nd ed.). Stanford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Wise, T. J. (2010).Colorblind: The rise of post-racial politics and the retreat from racial equity. San Francisco, CA: City Lights Books.

Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspec- tives on judgments of groups and individuals.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,635– 654.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.635 Worthington, R. L., Navarro, R. L., Loewy, M., & Hart, J. (2008).

Color-blind racial attitudes, social dominance orientation, racial ethnic group membership and college students’ perceptions of campus cli- mate.Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1,8 –19.doi:10.1037/ 1938-8926.1.1.8 Ziegert, J. C., & Hanges, P. J. (2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes, motivation, and a climate for racial bias.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 553–562.doi:10.1037/0021- 9010.90.3.553 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 466 September 2013 ●American Psychologist