There are too few studies yet to constitute a research program, but the initial forays have successfully featured the advantages
of experimental design and distinct perspectives of minority groups. We review the methodology and findings of these experimental
studies to highlight their contributions and limitations and to make several general observations and suggestions about future
directions in this field. As we show, randomization and control strengthen the internal validity of causal inferences drawn
in experiments; however, of equal importance, the interpretation and significance of results depends on additional considerations,
including the measurement of variables, the external validity of the experiment, and the theoretical coherence of the research
design.
Important studies by
Bobo and Johnson (
2004),
Hurwitz and Peffley (
2005), and Peffley and Hurwitz (
2007) employ survey experimental methods on national samples to study the malleability of black and white attitudes under different
framing conditions. A comparison of the results from these studies highlights the variable effects of similar experimental
treatments. Bobo and Johnson hypothesize that because blacks are more likely to believe that the criminal justice system is
racially biased, they are more likely to be influenced by frames accentuating bias in the system when they are asked their
opinion of the death penalty and other sentencing practices. For each survey experiment, respondents were randomly assigned
to receive one of several framed versions of a question about the criminal justice system (the treatment groups) or an unframed
question (the control group).
Most of the tests revealed surprisingly little attitude change among either blacks or whites in response to frames emphasizing
racial biases on death row, racial disparities in the commission of crimes, and wrongful convictions. The only frame that
made a slight difference emphasized the greater likelihood that a killer of a white person would receive the death penalty
than a killer of a black person. This manipulation significantly lowered support for the death penalty among blacks, but not
among whites (although the percentage shifts are modest).
Attitudes toward drug offenses proved to be more malleable and responsive, specifically to frames emphasizing racial bias
in sentencing. Attempts to change views of capital punishment may yield meager results, but efforts to reframe certain policies
associated with the war on drugs may have substantial effects on opinion.
Peffley and Hurwitz (
2007) also test whether
capital punishment attitudes are malleable among blacks and whites in response to arguments about racial biases in sentencing
and the danger of executing innocent people. In contrast to Bobo and Johnson (
2004), they find that both arguments reduce support for the death penalty among blacks. However, the most shocking result is that
the racial bias argument causes support to increase significantly among whites. Peffley and Hurwitz explain that the racial
bias argument increases support for the death penalty among prejudiced individuals by priming their racial attitudes. This
priming effect is made more
surprising if we consider the racial bias argument to be an explicit racial argument that might alert white respondents to
guard against expressing prejudice.
Peffley and Hurwitz (
2007) do not reconcile their findings with the contrary results in Bobo and Johnson's (2004) survey experiment beyond speculating
that the racial bias frames in the other survey may have been harder to comprehend.
Among other possible explanations is that Bobo and Johnson's use of an
Internet sample overrepresented individuals with strong prior opinions about the death penalty who were inoculated against
framing manipulations. Bobo and Johnson, however, conclude that the frames are resisted irrespective of the strength of prior
opinions because they find no differences in the magnitude of framing effects across educational levels.
1Two other anomalies in the Peffley and Hurwitz (
2007) study are worth mentioning briefly, and we return to them in the general discussion of this body of research. First, “consistent
with our expectations, blacks apparently need no explicit prompting to view questions about the death penalty as a racial
issue. Their support for the death penalty, regardless of how the issue is framed, is affected substantially by their belief
about the causes of black crime and punishment” (1005). Although Peffley and Hurwitz anticipated this result, it might be
viewed as being somewhat surprising in light of
White's (2007) demonstration that racial attitudes are related to public policies only when they are explicitly framed in
racial terms. Second, among both black and white respondents, racial arguments do not increase the accessibility of other
racial attitudes, such as stereotypical beliefs about
blacks.
Framing Affirmative Action Decisions
Clawson, Kegler, and Waltenburg's (2003) study of the framing of affirmative action illustrates the sensitivity of results to the
sample of experimental participants. They used a two-by-two design in which participants received one of four combinations
of frames embedded in a media story about a recent Supreme Court decision limiting affirmative action. The decision was described
either as a decision barring preferential treatment for any group or as a major blow to affirmative action and social justice;
in each media story, there was either a critical comment about Justice Clarence Thomas or no comment about Justice Thomas’ conservative vote on the issue.
The participants were 146 white and black students from a large Midwestern university. Comparisons of the sample to the American
National Election Studies and National Black Election Study samples revealed, as expected, that both black and white participants
were younger, better educated, and wealthier than blacks and whites in the national sample. Black participants were also much
more interested in politics than was the national black sample.
The dominant finding for black participants is that they (in contrast to white participants) have firm positions on affirmative
action regardless of how a recent conservative court ruling is framed. Among blacks, only their attitude toward blacks (measured
by racial resentment items) and gender predicted their attitude toward affirmative action; the frames were irrelevant.
The insignificance of framing in this experiment illustrates the difficulty of generalizing beyond the experimental laboratory
participants to the general population. Affirmative action is likely to be a more salient issue to African Americans, and attitudes on salient issues are likely to be stronger and more resistant to persuasion. Whether this
is true for only a small subset of the black population or for most blacks can only be settled with a more representative
sample.
The next set of studies we review involves experimental tests of the persuasiveness of different sources and messages. These
studies focus on minority responses to consumer
and health messages, but they are relevant for our purposes because their findings on how racial minorities use racial cues
in processing information can be extrapolated to political choices.
In the basic experimental design, participants (who vary by race and ethnicity) are randomly assigned to receive a message
from one of several sources that vary by race or ethnicity and expertise. The primary hypothesis is that sources that share
the minority participant's race or ethnicity will be evaluated more highly along with their message. A second hypothesis is
that the impact of shared race or ethnicity will be moderated by the strength of the participant's racial identity. Finally,
these studies test whether white participants favor white sources and respond negatively to minority sources.
Appiah
(
2002) found that black audiences recalled more information delivered by a black source than a white source in a videotaped message.
This study also found that white participants’ recall of information about individuals on a videotape was unaffected by the
race of those individuals. White subjects’ evaluation of sources was based on social (occupation, physical appearance, social
status) rather than racial features, perhaps because race is less salient to individuals in the majority.
Wang
and Arpan (
2008) designed an experiment to study how race, expertise, and group identification affected black and white audiences' evaluations
of a public service announcement (PSA). The participants for the experiments were black and white undergraduate students recruited
from a university in the southeastern United States and from a historically black college in the same city.
Black respondents not only rated a black source more highly than a white source, but also reacted more positively toward the
PSA when it was delivered by a black source. However, the effect of the source on blacks and whites was again asymmetric.
Race did not bias white respondents’ evaluations in the same way; instead, whites were more affected in their evaluation of
the message by the expertise (physician or nonphysician) of the source than were blacks. Contrary to expectations, strength
of racial identity did not moderate the effect of the race of the source.
The favoritism that blacks show toward a black source in a public health message is also demonstrated in an experiment by
Herek, Gillis, and Glunt (
1998) on the factors influencing evaluation of
AIDS messages presented in a video. Blacks evaluated a black announcer as more attractive and credible than a white announcer,
but these in-group biases were not manifest among whites. Blacks also favored videos that were built around culturally specific
messages, in contrast to multicultural messages. The manipulations in this experiment affected proximate evaluations of the
announcer and the message, but did not affect attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral intentions regarding AIDS.
Whittler
and Spira's (2002) study of consumer evaluations hypothesizes that source characteristics will serve as peripheral cues,
but can also motivate cognitive elaboration of messages. Studies have shown that whites sometimes focus more heavily on the
content of the message when the source is black
(White and Harkins
1994;
Petty, Fleming, and White
1999). The sample consisted of 160 black adults from a southeastern city assigned to a 2 × 2 experimental design. Participants
received a strong or weak argument from either a black or white speaker advertising a garment bag.
The evidence in the Whittler and Spira (
2002) study is mixed. Participants overlooked the quality of arguments and rated the product and advertising more favorably if
it was promoted by a black source, but this bias was evident only among participants who identified strongly with black culture.
Identification with the black source appeared to generate more thought about the speaker and the advertisement; however, because
additional thinking was also biased by identification, greater thought did not lead to discrimination between strong and weak
arguments.
Forehand
and Deshpande (
2001) argue that group-targeted ads will be most effective on audiences that have been ethnically primed. Same-ethnicity sources
or group-targeted messages may not have a significant impact on audiences unless ethnic
self-awareness is initially primed to make the audience more receptive to the source.
The subjects in the Forehand and Deshpande (
2001) study were
Asian American and white students from a West Coast university. Advertisements were sandwiched between news segments on video,
with ethnic primes preceding advertisements aimed at the ethnic group. Similar results were obtained in both experiments.
Exposure to the ethnic prime caused members of the target audience to respond more favorably to the ethnic ad. However, the
magnitude of the effect of the ethnic prime was not magnified by strong ethnic identification, so the expectation of an interaction
with enduring identifications was not met. This is a surprising result because we would expect strong identifiers to be more
likely both to recognize the ethnic prime and to base their judgment on it. Exposure to the ethnic prime among members of
the nontarget market (whites in the experiment) resulted in less favorable responses, but the magnitudes were statistically
insignificant. Once again, it does not appear that an ethnic prime has a negative effect on individuals who do not share the
same ethnicity.
Extensions to Vote Choice
An obvious extrapolation from these studies is to examine how variation in the race or ethnicity of a politician influences
political evaluations and choices.
Kuklinski and Hurley (
1996) conducted one of the few experimental studies in political science along these lines.
African Americans recruited from the Chicago metropolitan region were randomly assigned to one of four treatments or to a
control group. Each treatment presented a common statement about the need for self-reliance among African Americans, but the
statement was attributed to a different political figure in each of the four conditions: George Bush, Clarence Thomas, Ted
Kennedy, or Jesse Jackson. If the statement was attributed to Bush or Kennedy, then participants were more likely to disagree
with it, but if the observation originated from Jackson or Thomas, then they were significantly more likely to agree. As in
the case of the aforementioned
Whittler and Spira study, some respondents relied entirely on the (peripheral) racial cue to form their judgment, but even
those respondents who gave more attention to the substance of the message construed it in light of the source.
Surprisingly, we did not discover any experimental research using this basic design to analyze the effect of race and ethnicity
on minority voter choice. An innovative experimental study by
Terkildsen (
1993) examined the effects of varying the race (black or white) and features (light or dark skin tone) of candidates, but only
on the voting preferences of white respondents (who evaluated the white candidate significantly more positively than either
of the two black candidates.).
Abrajano,
Nagler, and Alvarez (
2005) took advantage of an unusual opportunity in Los Angeles County to disentangle ethnicity and issue distance as factors in
voting. In this natural experiment using
survey data, Abrajano et al. analyzed the electoral choices of voters in two open city races involving Latino candidates running
against white candidates. In the mayoral race, the white candidate was more conservative than the Latino candidate, but the
white candidate was the more liberal candidate in the city attorney election. They found that
Latino voters were more affected by the candidates’ ethnicity and much less affected by their issue positions than were white
voters.
Aside from laboratory and survey research on persuasion and information processing, the study of political mobilization is
the other area in which there has been sustained experimental research on minority groups.
2 Field research on the political mobilization of minorities comes with special challenges because it requires investigators
to go beyond standard methodologies for data collection in the midst of electoral campaigns. Researchers
must take care to locate the target populations for study, provide multilingual questionnaires and interviewers in some cases,
and design valid and reliable treatments appropriate to minority subjects.
Garcia
Bedolla and Michelson (
2009) report on a field experimental study of a massive effort to mobilize voters through direct mail and telephone calls in California
during primary and general election phases of the 2006 election. The content of the direct mail included a get out the vote
(GOTV) message, but varied in terms of procedural information such as the voter's polling place and a photo included in the
mailer that was adjusted “to be appropriate to each national-origin group” (9). The authors found no significant impact of
direct mail and a positive effect of a phone call on voting turnout among the
Asian American subjects contacted (with considerable variance across groups classified by national origin). Considering the
extremely low base rate of voting in the target population, the treatment had a large proportional impact. The authors’ conclusions
from this set of experiments and other GOTV studies in
California and elsewhere point to the significance of a personal invitation to participate. At the same time, however, they
admitted, “We do not have a well-defined theoretical understanding of why an in-person invitation would be so effective, or
why it could counteract the negative effect of low voter resources” (271).
The results from the Garcia Bedolla and Michelson (
2009) field experiments are consistent with earlier studies of Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans that have shown
direct mail to be ineffective and personal contact to be effective interventions with minority voters. In a large-scale national
field experiment with African American voters during the 2000 election,
Green (
2004) found no significant effects on turnout with a mailing and small but statistically significant effects from a telephone
call. In another large field experiment during the 2002 election,
Ramirez (
2005) analyzed results from attempted contact with nearly a half-million
Latinos by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. Neither the robo-calling nor the direct mail
had a discernible and reliable influence on voter turnout among Latinos, but the live telephone calls did have a positive
effect on mobilizing voters.
Trivedi
(
2005) attempted to discern whether distinctive appeals to ethnic group solidarity among Indian Americans would increase voter
turnout. Despite three alternative framings with racial and ethnic cues, there were no significant effects on voter turnout
of any of the three groups that received the mailing.
Wong's (2005) field experiment during the 2002 election included a postcard mailing or a phone call for randomly assigned
Asian American registered voters in Los Angeles County who resided in high-density Asian American areas. In contrast to other
studies that show no effect from direct mail, Wong found positive effects for both mobilization stimuli on Asian American
voter turnout.
Finally, Michelson (
2005) reports on a series of field experiments with Latino subjects in central California. Her results show that
Latino Democrats voted at a higher rate when contacted by a coethnic canvasser. Michelson suggests possible social and cognitive
mechanisms that explain why “coethnic” contacts may stimulate higher levels of participation: “Latino voters are more likely
to be receptive to appeals to participate when those appeals are made by coethnics and copartisans.…In other words, if the
messenger somehow is able to establish a common bond with the voter – either through shared ethnicity or through shared partisanship
– then the voter is more likely to hear and be affected by the mobilization effort” (98–99).
Taken together, none of the field experiments shows strong or consistent positive effects from direct mailings, regardless
of content, format, or presentation of the information in a language assumed to be most familiar to the subject. Second, personal
contact with a live person in a telephone call has a modest absolute effect, and potentially a greater effect if the contact
occurs in person, especially if that individual is a “coethnic” canvasser. Third, effective methods for mobilizing specifically
minority voters are
essentially the same as those found to work on majority group populations. Personal contacts, unscripted communications, and
face-to-face meetings provide more reliable boosts to turnout than do more automated, remote techniques
(Gerber and Green
2000).
To the extent that field experimental research on the mobilization of minority voters is distinct from studies of white voters,
it is due to the nascent hypothesis that identifications and social relationships based on race and ethnicity ought to moderate
the impact of mobilization treatments. This intuition or hunch lies behind experimental manipulations that try to stimulate
group identification using racial or ethnic themes or imagery in communications. A Latino voter, for example, is told his
or her vote will help empower the ethnic community, or an Asian American is shown a photograph of Asian Americans voting out
of duty as U.S. citizens.
The prediction that treatments will elevate racial and ethnic awareness and thereby increase one's motivation to vote is based
on several assumptions about both the chronic accessibility of social identifications and the durability of treatment effects. Some observations drawn previously from our review of political psychology research should lower our expectations
about the impact of such efforts to manipulate racial identities. In communications experiments on racial priming, participants
are often college students who are unusually attentive to experimental treatments; volunteers who agree to participate are
eager to cooperate with the experimenter's instructions and pay close attention to any materials they are asked to read or
view. This combination of higher motivation and capacity means the laboratory subject receives what amounts to an especially
large dosage of the treatment. Finally, if we assume the treatment to be not only fast acting but also fast fading – like
a sugar rush – then its effects will only be detected if we measure them soon after it is administered.
The typical GOTV field experiment deviates from these conditions in each instance. Attention to the treatment and interest
in politics are low (indeed, sometimes the participants are selected on this basis), and comprehension may be impaired because
of language difficulties or inability. Furthermore, the ad hoc design of the ethnic cues makes them equivalent to an untested
drug whose effects have not heretofore been demonstrated in pre-testing. Unlike laboratory experiments in which effects are
measured promptly, the GOTV treatments are expected to influence behavior (not simply attitudes) days or weeks later, so it
is perhaps not surprising that they have proved to be anemic stimulants.
Abrajano, Marisa A., Jonathan Nagler, and R. Michael Alvarez. 2005. “A Natural Experiment of Race-Based and Issue Voting: The 2001 City of Los Angeles Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 58: 203–18.
Appiah, O. 2002. “Black and White Viewers’ Perception and Recall of Occupational Characters on Television.” Journal of Communications 52: 776–93.
Barreto, Matt A. 2007. “Si Se Puede! Latino Candidates and the Mobilization of Latino Voters.” American Political Science Review 101: 425–41.
Bobo, Lawrence, and Frank Gilliam. 1990. “Race, Sociopolitical Participation and Black Empowerment.” American Political Science Review 84: 379–93.
Bobo, Lawrence D., and Devon Johnson. 2004. “A Taste for Punishment: Black and White Americans’ Views on the Death Penalty and the War on Drugs.” DuBois Review 1: 151–80.
Chong, Dennis. 2000. Rational Lives: Norms and Values in Politics and Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2007. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101: 637–55.
Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2008. “Dynamic Public Opinion: Framing Effects over Time.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
Chong, Dennis, and Dukhong Kim. 2006. “The Experiences and Effects of Economic Status among Racial and Ethnic Minorities.” American Political Science Review 100: 335–51.
Chong, Dennis, and Reuel Rogers. 2005. “Racial Solidarity and Political Participation.” Political Behavior 27: 347–74.
Clawson, Rosalee A., Elizabeth R. Kegler, and Eric N. Waltenburg. 2003. “Supreme Court Legitimacy and Group-Centric Forces: Black Support for Capital Punishment and Affirmative Action.” Political Behavior 25: 289–311.
Dawson, Michael. 1994. Behind the Mule Race and Class in African American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fazio, Russell H., and Olson, Michael A. 2003. “Attitudes: Foundations, Functions, and Consequences.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology, eds. Michael A. Hogg and Joel M. Cooper. London: Sage, 139–60.
Feldman, Stanley, and John Zaller. 1992. “The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State.” American Journal of Political Science 36: 268–307.
Forehand, Mark R., and Rohit Deshpande. 2001. “What We See Makes Us Who We Are: Priming Ethnic Self-Awareness and Advertising Response.” Journal of Marketing Research 38: 336–48.
Gaines, Brian J., James H. Kuklinski, and Paul J. Quirk. 2007. “Rethinking the Survey Experiment.” Political Analysis 15: 1–21.
Garcia Bedolla, Lisa, and Melissa R. Michelson. 2009. “What Do Voters Need to Know? Testing the Role of Cognitive Information in Asian American Voter Mobilization.” American Politics Research 37: 254–74.
Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2000. “The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 94: 653–63.
Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, and Christopher W. Larimer. 2008. “Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 102: 33–48.
Gilens, Martin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Anti-Poverty Policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Gilliam, Frank D., Jr., and Shanto Iyengar. 2000. “Prime Suspects: The Impact of Local Television News on the Viewing Public.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 560–73.
Green, Donald P. 2004. “Mobilizing African-American Voters Using Direct Mail and Commercial Phone Banks: A Field Experiment.” Political Research Quarterly 57: 245–55.
Herek, Gregory M.,
J. Roy Gillis, and
Erik K. Glunt.
1998. “
Culturally Sensitive AIDS Educational Videos for African American Audiences: Effects of Source, Message, Receiver, and Context.”
American Journal of Community Psychology 26:
705–43.
Huber, Gregory A., and John S. Lapinski. 2008. “Testing the Implicit–Explicit Model of Racialized Political Communication.” Perspectives on Politics 6: 125–34.
Hurwitz, Jon, and Mark Peffley. 2005. “Explaining the Great Racial Divide: Perceptions of Fairness in the U.S. Criminal Justice System.” Journal of Politics 67: 762–83.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kinder, Donald R., and Lynn M. Sanders. 1996. Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kinder, Donald R., and Nicholas Winter. 2001. “Exploring the Racial Divide: Blacks, Whites, and Opinions on National Policy.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 439–56.
Kuklinski, James H., and Norman L. Hurley. 1996. “It's a Matter of Interpretation.” In Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, eds. Diana C. Mutz, Paul M. Sniderman, and Richard A. Brody. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 125–44.
Lien, Pei-te. 2001. The Making of Asian America through Political Participation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lodge, Milton, and Charles Taber. in press. The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marschall, Melissa. 2001. “Does the Shoe Fit? Testing Models of Participation for African-American and Latino Involvement in Local Politics.” Urban Affairs Review 37: 227–48.
Mendelberg, Tali M. 2001. The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages and the Norm of Equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Michelson, Melissa R. 2005. “Meeting the Challenge of Latino Voter Mobilization.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601: 85–101.
Miller, Arthur, Patricia Gurin, Gerald Gurin, and Oksana Malanchuk. 1981. “Group Consciousness and Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science 25: 494–511.
Peffley, Mark, and Jon Hurwitz. 2007. “Persuasion and Resistance: Race and the Death Penalty in America.” American Journal of Political Science 51: 996–1012.
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, Richard E., Monique A. Fleming, and P. H. White. 1999. “Stigmatized Sources and Persuasion: Prejudice as a Determinant of Argument Scrutiny.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76: 19–34.
Petty, Richard E., and D. T. Wegener. 1999. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current Status and Controversies.” In Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology, eds. Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope. New York: Guilford Press, 41–72.
Ramirez, Ricardo. 2005. “Giving Voice to Latino Voters: A Field Experiment on the Effectiveness of a National Nonpartisan Mobilization Effort.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601: 66–84.
Sears, David O., Jim Sidanius, and Lawrence Bobo, eds. 2000. Racialized Politics: The Debate about Racism in America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Shingles, Richard D. 1981. “Black Consciousness and Political Participation: The Missing Link.” American Political Science Review 75: 76–91.
Sniderman, Paul M., and Sean M. Theriault. 2004. “The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing.” In Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change, eds. Willem E. Saris and Paul M. Sniderman. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 133–65.
Tate, Katherine. 1994. From Protest to Politics: The New Black Voters in American Elections. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Terkildsen, Nayda. 1993. “When White Voters Evaluate Black Candidates: The Processing Implication of Candidate Skin Color, Prejudice, and Self-Monitoring.” American Journal of Political Science 37: 1032–53.
Trivedi, Neema. 2005. “The Effect of Identity-Based GOTV Direct Mail Appeals on the Turnout of Indian Americans.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601: 115–22.
Wang, Xiao, and Laura M. Arpan. 2008. “Effects of Race and Ethnic Identity on Audience Evaluation of HIV Public Service Announcements.” Howard Journal of Communications 19: 44–63.
White, Ismail K. 2007. “When Race Matters and When It Doesn't: Racial Group Differences in Response to Racial Cues.” American Political Science Review 101: 339–54.
White, Paul H., and Stephen G. Harkins. 1994. “Race of Source Effects in the Elaboration Likelihood Model.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67: 790–807.
Whittler, Tommy E., and Joan Scattone Spira. 2002. “Model's Race: A Peripheral Cue in Advertising Messages?” Journal of Consumer Psychology 12: 291–301.
Wong, Janelle S. 2005. “Mobilizing Asian American Voters: A Field Experiment.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601: 102–14.