That's encouraging, at least here, but the curmudgeon in me wonders whether that question really measures how socially acceptable it is to admit to being racist.
Without having read it, my guess is that this is yet another example of a bullish!t "study." Made to grab attention more than to illuminate.
Just what does "another race" mean in these different contexts. I'm sure it means something very different in India than it does in Japan or the US. And as Mary Anna notes, the survey is likely capturing differential cultural willingness to talk to strangers about delicate subjects as much (or more) than it is measuring actual attitudes about this undefined idea of race.
Then we get into differential response rates and that kind of statistical bias ...
Posts: 12759 | Location: Williamsburg, VA | Registered: 19 July 2005
I'm also curious about how the questions were worded in each language. W/ regard to Japan, for example, I bet you'd get worse answers by phrasing it "people from a different country" or "foreigner" than by phrasing it "another race."
Difficult to phrase a question that will have the same connotation in all cultures. And if the question is NOT the same, there's variability right there.
-------------------------------- "A mob is a place where people go to get away from their conscience" Atticus Finch
I've been thinking about this, and it's odd. India is the most racist, yet they really have only one race. What they do have is a large number of ethnic and religious differences. Are Muslims and Hindus, Sikhs and Baha'i different races? For that matter, what about Sunnis and Shias? There seems to be a confusion between race and ethnicity. Rookie mistake.
Posts: 35428 | Location: West: North and South! | Registered: 20 April 2005
