Abstract
In previous work, respondents overestimated the size of the US Black population, while underestimating the White population. In the present study, we examined perceptions of the racial composition of more specific locations within the US, comparing relatively rural and urban locations to one another. We expected that observers would see more rural places as having smaller Black populations, and larger White populations, compared to less rural places, but these perceived differences would exist independent of actual variation in racial makeup. In three samples, US residents judged 70 locations, estimating their racial demographics, rurality/urbanness, and desirability. Study 1 (N = 241) tested an all-White sample; Study 2 tested a White subsample (n = 246) and a Black subsample (n = 263).As expected, more rural locations were judged as having larger White populations and smaller Black populations than less rural locations, beyond any actual differences in racial composition. These results support the conclusion that the mental images that Black and White respondents have of rural and urban America are characterized by stereotypes of their populations.
Public Significance Statement
Academic and public scholarship has assumed that the meaning of the idea of “rural” is racialized, such that places judged as rural are thought of as White, and places judged as urban are thought of as Black, beyond any actual racial differences among locations. The present data confirm the operation of such biases, demonstrating them among both Black and White observers. The data also speak to how observers estimate the size of Black and White populations in specific locations, supporting the following conclusion: people’s judgments of the racial composition of the residents of places are a product of multiple, not entirely consistent, processes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
