Attitudes on Residential Integration: Perceived Status Differences, Mere InGro Preference, or Racial Prejudice?'

Residential segregation, especially of blacks from whites, remains the common pattern in urban America. This research examines the part that popular attitudes on residential integration may play in the process of residential integration/segregation. Using data from a large multiethnic sample survey in Los Angeles, we examine three hypotheses about the nature of attitudes toward residential integration. The perceived economic status dfference hypothesis holds that attitudes about racial residential integration rest upon assumptions about likely class background differences between ethnic groups. 7he mere in-group preference hypothesis uggests that ethnocentrism results in mutual across-group preferences for residential contact with in-group members. The prejudice hypothesis suggests that hostile attitudes toward an out-group shape views on residential integration. Little evidence in support of the perceived economic status difference and mere in-group preference hypotheses can be found. Theories of prejudice, in particular Blumers theory of group position, provide much greater leverage on residential integration attitudes. We discuss the implications of the results for actual behavior and aggregate patterns of racial residential segregation. Racial residential segregation is arguably the "structural linchpin" of American race relations (Bobo 1989; Pettigrew 1979). Analyses of 1980 census data showed that in 16 large metropolitan areas including Los Angeles blacks were "hypersegregated" from whites, exhibiting extreme isolation across at least four of five standard indicators (Massey & Denton 1989). Although some modest improvement occurred between 1980 and 1990, blacks remain highly segregated from whites and substantially more isolated from whites than either Asians or Hispanics (Farley & Frey 1994). i The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, March 1996, 74(3):883-909 * The authors wish to thank Mia Tuan and two anonymous Social Forces reviewers for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. Please direct correspondence to Lawrence Bobo, Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, California, 90095-1551. 884 / Social Forces 74:3, March 1996 There are strong reasons to believe that interethnic attitudes play a part in the problem of residential segregation. In particular, the distinctly high rates of black-white segregation would appear to call for attention to potential structures of racial attitude and preference in the population. As Massey and Denton (1989:389) argued: "Blacks are thus unique in experiencing multidimensional hypersegregation. The contrast between them and Hispanics is not easily explained by different socioeconomic characteristics, varying population sizes, different regional locations, or contrasting metropolitan conditions. Although our models cannot eliminate the view that some unmeasured objective factor accounts for the discrepancy between blacks and Hispanics, the models lend credence to the view that blacks remain the object of significantly higher levels of Anglo prejudice than Hispanics." Indeed, the degree of black residential isolation is so unique and persistent that it prompted Massey and Denton (1993) to label the phenomenon "American Apartheid," concluding that racial residential segregation is central to the development and persistence of an urban underclass that is disproportionately African American. Others have challenged the view that uniquely potent levels of antiblack prejudice and discrimination contribute to the higher levels of black segregation from whites. For example, a number of econometric analyses emphasize such factors as economic status differences, job location, and other differences in tastes as contributing to racial residential segregation (Berry 1979; Leven et al. 1976). A central factor may be mutual patterns of in-group preference as opposed to out-group avoidance or hostility. Clark (1986,1992) argued that the degree of joint preference among whites and blacks for living near substantial concentrations of coracial/coethnic group members is probably a larger factor in explaining modem residential segregation than white avoidance and discrimination. Our broad objective in this research is to understand the climate of attitudes, beliefs, and opinions about racial residential segregation. We bring three objectives to the research. First, we wish to characterize the current levels of expressed preference for social distance from members of different racial and ethnic group backgrounds. Such preferences have implications for likely patterns of individual and institutional discrimination in the housing market. Second, we specifically test social psychological aspects of the perceived social class differences, the mere in-group preferences, and the prejudice models as they might influence patterns of residential segregation. Third, in recognition of the increasing diversity of many major metropolitan areas, our research is multiethnic in scope, examining the attitudes of blacks, whites, Hispanics, and Asians.1 One possibility is that increasing ethnic diversity creates a "buffer," opening to blacks more opportunity for residential mobility and contact with whites. Views on Racial Residential Segregation Many factors may contribute to and constrain an individual's choice of housing location: cost and affordability, location, the quality of housing stock, proximity to work, stage in the life cycle, quality of schools, and so on (Galster 1988). Attitudes on Residential Integration / 885 Aggregate patterns of segregation by racial/ethnic group membership can thus stem from any of several individual-level processes. With respect to understanding patterns of specifically racial residential preferences, three hypotheses are typically considered. These hypotheses are, first, that perceived differences fin socioeconomic status that heavily coincide with racial/ethnic boundaries contribute to racial residential preferences; second, that members of all social groups tend to be ethnocentric, expressing preference for association and interaction with fellow racial/efthnic group members; and third, that more active out-group avoidance or domination are at the root of racial residential preferences. We elaborate on each of these models below. THE PERCPIVED SOCIAL CLASS DIFFERNCE HYPOTHESIS According to this view, racially/ethnically segregated neighborhoods are the result of perceived group differences in socioeconomic status characteristics: income, occupation, and associated differences in life-style (see Jackman & Jackman 1983 on class identities as involving life-style considerations). These perceived status differences are influential both within and across groups such that, "except for the genuinely poor, all people white and black, rich and not so rich, are willing to pay, and substantially, to avoid class integration.... Rising above humble origins to make it in the new and'better neighborhood is central to our societal tradition. Without passing judgment on it we must acknowledge the tradition, and we certainly do not seek policies to destroy it" (Leven et al. 1976:202-3). Clark (1988) draws attention to a number of social class characteristics that would increase opposition to having blacks as neighbors. He argues that, in addition to differences in wealth, black households are more likely to have a female head, unemployed adults, and more residents per household. These characteristics leave black home seekers at a disadvantage, not because of their race, but because of class-based differences in the potential for wear and tear to property, lower incomes, and unstable employment patterns. Thus, under this model, minority group members particularly blacks are said to live in segregated areas because they are perceived as lacking the material and cultural-class-based resources needed to obtain housing in more desirable, predominantly white suburban areas. Under this hypothesis, we should find that the more individuals perceive that members of an out-group lag behind his or her own racial/ethnic group socioeconomically, the greater the objection to substantial residential contact with that group. Despite the commonsense appeal and plausibility of this hypothesis, there is little evidence supporting it. Galster's (1988) comprehensive review concluded that affordability and other race-neutral economic factors (e.g., job location) accounted for at best a small fraction of black-white residential segregation. The bulk of evidence supporting this perspective comes from survey questions in which respondents are asked to explain why groups usually blacks and whites tend to live in separate neighborhoods, and/or the extent to which groups are perceived as having the ability to pay for housing in particular areas (Farley et al. 1993; Farley et al. 1978). Black-white comparisons of actual housing expenditures indicate a great deal of overlap, suggesting that many blacks can, indeed, afford to live in "desirable" neighborhoods (Farley et al. 1993).2 886 / Social Forces 74:3, March 1996 Likewise, inaccurate knowledge of the cost of housing cannot account for blackwhite levels of segregation. In 1976, blacks and whites in the Detroit area possessed accurate knowledge of housing prices in the greater Detroit area; by 1992, both blacks and whites tended to overestimate the cost of suburban housing (Farley et al. 1993:11-12). Despite this change, blacks and whites reported extensive and accurate knowledge of blacks' financial capabilities, with both groups recognizing that significant numbers of blacks can, indeed, afford to live in suburban areas (14). THE MERE IN-GROUP PREFERENCE HYPOTHESIS Contrary to analyses of residential segregation that give center stage to "white avoidance" or to institutional discrimination (Pearce 1979; Yinger 1986), Clark (1992) asserts the primary importance of in-group preferences. By in-group preferences he refers to "strong desires for own-race combinations in the ethnicity of neighborhoods" (451). These preferences are interpreted as a simple and natural ethnocentrism rather than anti-out-group sentiment or an effort to preserve relative status advantages. Clark argues that there are "strong similarities in own-race preferences among different ethnic groups" (463-64), and that "discrimination in the housing market plays only a minor role" (452). The preferred racial/ethnic composition of a neighborhood is simply one of many characteristics taken into consideration when searching for housing. What is more, under this model, preferences themselves are driven by positive feelings about one's own group, not negative feelings about out-groups. These ethnocentric feelings act in concert with group differences in economic status to explain the bulk of residential segregation: segregation results from the mutually ethnocentric social preferences of consumers (Clark 1986:108-9). Under this hypothesis, strong feelings of in-group attachment or affect should increase objections to substantial residential integration with members of other groups. Two immediate problems arise with the in-group preference hypothesis. While many individuals may attribute segregation to mutual ethnocentrism, such an account may function as a convenient mask or excuse for those who do not wish to express out-group prejudices more directly. Farley et al. (1994) asked respondents to the 1992 Detroit Area Study to explain why blacks and whites generally lived in different neighborhoods. Variants of the "mere ingroup preference" argument were the most common answer, with 30% of whites opining that "birds of a feather flock together" or that "people just prefer it that way." Detailed analysis, however, shows that large fractions of white DAS respondents expressed negative stereotypes of blacks. They were especially inclined to do so when asked why they would not live in neighborhoods with large numbers of blacks. In addition, emphasizing in-group preferences positive in-group affect or ethnocentrism as opposed to prejudice to explain persisting racial residential segregation minimizes the extent to which the preferences of one group constrain the preferences of other groups, particularly blacks. If more than token numbers of black neighbors are "seen as threatening to white households" (Clark 1991:3), and this threat results in avoidance behavior or "white flight," this would seem to indicate the presence of something more closely resembling Attitudes on Residential Integration / 887 negative out-group affect. If preferences for same-race neighborhoods were equal across groups, and were accompanied by assurances of equal quality of life across groups, it might be persuasive to view in-group preferences as neutral. However, because of the manifestly racist historical origins of residential segregation in the U.S. (Cell 1981; Jaynes & Williams 1989; Woodward 1974) and because its effects are not neutral in their consequences (Massey & Denton 1993), it seems shortsighted to consider them neutral. THE PREJUDICE HYPOTHESIS Two variants of the prejudice hypothesis are relevant to attitudes toward residential integration. The first is closer to traditional prejudice and, in contrast to the mere in-group preference hypothesis, stresses the importance of outgroup hostility in determining individual attitudes about residential contact (Allport 1954; Katz 1991; Pettigrew 1982). Prejudice is typically defined as an irrational antipathy against minority groups and their members. Prejudice is understood as heavily imbued with negative affect and negative stereotypes that make the views of the prejudiced individual unreceptive to reason and new information Uackman 1994). Accordingly, under the traditional prejudice hypothesis we should find that measures of negative affective response to outgroup members and of negative stereotypes should be the most strongly associated with objections to residential integration. A second variant of the prejudice hypothesis is rooted in Blumer's (1958) theoxy of race prejudice as a sense of group position. Rather than placing negative feelings and beliefs at the core of prejudice, Blumer argued that prejudice involves a commitment to a specific group status or relative group position. The group position hypothesis suggests that neither mere in-group preference nor out-group hostility are sufficient to give prejudice social force. Instead, what matters is the magnitude or degree of difference that in-group members have socially learned to expect and maintain relative to members of specific outgroups. As a result, under the sense of group position hypothesis, it is the degree of difference between in-group attachment and out-group hostility that should be most strongly associated with objections to residential integration (see Bobo 1988). The greater the affective differentiation from members of an outgroup, with such differentiation understood as one indicator of a preferred superior group position, the greater the likelihood of objections to residential integration. Both the traditional prejudice hypothesis and group position as prejudice hypothesis view residential segregation as connected to attitudes about an outgroup. As such, racial residential segregation persists because "whites prefer and are willing to pay more for segregation than blacks are willing [or able] to pay for integration" (Muth 1986:9). Several types of research on attitudinal data point to the plausibility of the prejudice hypothesis. To be sure, there has been a sweeping rise in whites' advocacy of the principle of free residential choice for blacks. Trend studies have shown, however, that whites still express great opposition to the enforcement of blacks' right to live wherever they can afford (Bobo, Schuman & Steeh 1986; Pettigrew 1973, 1979; Schuman, Steeh & Bobo 1985). Experimental data have also shown many whites to express greater 888 / Social Forces 74:3, March 1996 residential social distance from blacks than from Asians (Schuman & Bobo 1988).