Research Essay
Kyle369
RacismGunOwnership.pdf
Racism, Gun Ownership and Gun Control: Biased Attitudes in US Whites May Influence Policy Decisions Kerry O’Brien1,2*, Walter Forrest1, Dermot Lynott3, Michael Daly4
1 Behavioural Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia, 2 School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom, 3 Department
of Psychology, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom, 4 Institute of Sociomanagement, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, United Kingdom
Abstract
Objective: Racism is related to policies preferences and behaviors that adversely affect blacks and appear related to a fear of blacks (e.g., increased policing, death penalty). This study examined whether racism is also related to gun ownership and opposition to gun controls in US whites.
Method: The most recent data from the American National Election Study, a large representative US sample, was used to test relationships between racism, gun ownership, and opposition to gun control in US whites. Explanatory variables known to be related to gun ownership and gun control opposition (i.e., age, gender, education, income, conservatism, anti- government sentiment, southern vs. other states, political identification) were entered in logistic regression models, along with measures of racism, and the stereotype of blacks as violent. Outcome variables included; having a gun in the home, opposition to bans on handguns in the home, support for permits to carry concealed handguns.
Results: After accounting for all explanatory variables, logistic regressions found that for each 1 point increase in symbolic racism there was a 50% increase in the odds of having a gun at home. After also accounting for having a gun in the home, there was still a 28% increase in support for permits to carry concealed handguns, for each one point increase in symbolic racism. The relationship between symbolic racism and opposition to banning handguns in the home (OR1.27 CI 1.03,1.58) was reduced to non-significant after accounting for having a gun in the home (OR1.17 CI.94,1.46), which likely represents self-interest in retaining property (guns).
Conclusions: Symbolic racism was related to having a gun in the home and opposition to gun control policies in US whites. The findings help explain US whites’ paradoxical attitudes towards gun ownership and gun control. Such attitudes may adversely influence US gun control policy debates and decisions.
Citation: O’Brien K, Forrest W, Lynott D, Daly M (2013) Racism, Gun Ownership and Gun Control: Biased Attitudes in US Whites May Influence Policy Decisions. PLoS ONE 8(10): e77552. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077552
Editor: Brock Bastian, University of Queensland, Australia
Received May 3, 2013; Accepted September 7, 2013; Published October 31, 2013
Copyright: � 2013 O’Brien et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: These authors have no support or funding to report.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist
* E-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
Several mass shootings in 2012 (e.g., Sandy Hook Elementary
School, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado) reignited gun-control and
firearm ownership debates in the United States (US). The public
health importance of gun reform in the US is clear and should not
need such tragedies for policy change. In 2011, there were 32,163
firearm-related deaths in the US, with 11,101 homicides (69.5% of
all homicides), and 19,776 suicides (51.6% of all suicides) [1].
Rates of firearm homicides in the US (3.6 per 100,000) are over 7-
fold of those in similar nations (e.g., Canada, 0.5; United
Kingdom, 0.1; Australia, 0.1) [2]. Blacks are disproportionately
represented in US firearm homicides (14.6 per 100,000), and
would benefit most from improved gun controls [1]. Opposition to
gun control is considerably stronger in whites than blacks [3], with
whites also reporting twice the rate of personal gun ownership and
having a gun in the home, than is reported by blacks [4].
Proponents of gun-ownership rights cite self-protection and safety
as their primary argument for owning guns and resisting gun
reform [4,5]. This is paradoxical, as whites, and particularly white
males, are considerably more likely to commit suicide with
firearms (7.3 and 12.9 per 100,000, respectively), than die from a
firearm homicide (1.9 per 100,000) [1]. Indeed, US research found
that having one or more guns in the home is related to a 2.7 and
4.8 fold increase in the risk of a member of that household dying
from homicide or suicide, respectively [6,7]. Given that gun
controls have been shown to reduce suicides and homicides [8–10]
arguments against gun reform based on self-defense/protection/
safety are counterintuitive, and are inhibiting the adoption of
appropriate policy to improve public health. As such, it is
important for public health advocates, researchers, and policy
makers to consider all explanations for opposition to gun reform in
US whites. However, research on the reasons for opposition to gun
control is sparse, in part because of restrictions on funding for
research on gun control in the US [11,12].
Stronger opposition to gun control by US whites has not always
been the case. During the civil rights movement of the late 60 s,
black activists exercised their right to carry loaded firearms in
order to provide protection from police and extreme white factions
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 October 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 10 | e77552
[13]. The response from US whites was to demand stricter gun
control. The Mulford Act was signed into law by Californian
governor Ronald Reagan in 1967, and prohibited the carrying of
loaded firearms in public [13]. The social landscape has changed
considerably, and most recent data indicates a quite different view
on gun control by whites, with 53% of whites wanting to protect
the right to own guns, whereas only 24% of blacks do [14].
People’s stated reasons for owning guns and opposing gun-
control legislation are likely complex; however, it has been
suggested that sociocultural factors such as fear of black violence
may be associated with gun ownership, and with opposition to gun
controls [15,16]. Similarly, negative attitudes towards blacks (i.e.,
racism), along with conservative and political ideologies, appear to
be related to fear of black violence and crime [17–20]. What is not
known, and accordingly is the focus of this study, is whether racism
is associated with gun ownership and opposition to gun control. It
has been found that racial stereotypes (e.g., that blacks are violent)
are related to US whites’ fears of violence from blacks, and to their
support for crime-related policy measures, such as building
prisons, and the death penalty [19,20]. Support for such policies
is particularly pronounced in US whites who hold higher levels of
racism [19]. Strong evidence also supports the notion that negative
racial stereotypes and attitudes are related to people’s perceptions
of threat from black gun-related violence [20]. Additionally, US
research using measures of implicit race attitudes (e.g., Implicit
Association Test; IAT) have shown a preference for whites over
blacks [21] and appear to influence people’s political decisions,
and even choices of medical procedures for blacks [22–24]. For
instance, measures of explicit and implicit racism measures
predicted opposition to Obama’s health reforms [23].
Most prominently, symbolic racism (racial resentment), an
explicit but subtle form and measure of racism, has been found to
be consistently related to peoples decisions regarding policies that
may affect non-white US citizens. It is argued that symbolic racism
supplanted old-fashioned or overt/blatant racism which had seen
blacks as amoral and inferior, and was associated with open
support for race inequality and segregation under ‘Jim Crow Laws’
[25]. Research following the US civil-rights movement suggested
that anti-black racism and stereotyping, as assessed by blatant
measures, had declined [26]. However, subsequent research
revealed that people may merely be reluctant to express racism
and negative stereotyping on these blatant measures in order to
avoid appearing racist [27,28]. This observation led to the
conceptualization and measurement of more subtle measures of
racism, such as, symbolic racism [25].
Symbolic racism is a belief structure underpinned by both anti-
black affect and traditional values [29]. The anti-black affect
(racism) component of symbolic racism is said to be established in
pre-adult years through exposure to negative black stereotypes
(e.g. blacks as dangerous, blacks are lazy), to the point that
phenomena such as crime and physical violence have become
typified as black phenomena [30]. The anti-black affect is not
necessarily conscious or deliberative, but may be felt as fear, anger,
unease, and hostility towards blacks [29,31,32]. The symbolic
component reflects the abstract view of blacks as a collective rather
than as individuals, as well as its basis in abstract white moralistic
reasoning and traditions. Because symbolic racism represents an
ingrained schema, individuals high in symbolic racism will react in
a negative manner, often unconsciously, to issues perceived to
involve a racial (i.e. black) component. Psychometric work shows
that while symbolic racism has a small relationship with old-
fashioned or blatant racism and stereotypes, only symbolic racism
is associated with policy preferences related to race after
controlling for conservative and political ideology and demo-
graphic characteristics (e.g., education, gender, age) [33].
Policies of which blacks or whites are the intended or obvious
beneficiaries (e.g. affirmative action, school busing) should easily
be perceived as involving a racial component. But other policies
may also involve a perceived racial component merely because
they concern an issue that is already understood by whites in racial
(black) terms. Thus, symbolic racism has been linked to opposition
to and support for a range of policies that whites consistently
associate with blacks (e.g., welfare), even if it is not in the self-
interest of whites to do so [22–25,32]. This is also likely to explain
the frequently observed correlations between symbolic racism and
public opinion regarding a range of criminal justice policies (e.g.
death penalty, mandatory sentences). There is substantial evidence
that whites associate blacks with crime, and especially violent
crime [19,30]. The result of this conflation of race and crime is
that whites high on symbolic racism will support policies that are
perceived as being tough on crime and oppose policies that are
considered lenient. Green and colleagues [34] have found a
positive relationship between symbolic racism and punitive crime
policies (i.e., death penalty, three strikes imprisonment), and
negative correlation with policies that are intended to assist
criminals (i.e., education of inmates, poverty reduction). And
although conservative ideologies and racism are inherently related,
symbolic racism makes a unique contribution to crime policy
attitudes after accounting for other race-neutral factors (e.g.,
conservatism, crime victimization, crime news exposure, and
socio-demographics) [34]. More generally, symbolic racism should
also correlate with fear of crime and black violence, along with
attitudes to policies that may reduce, or increase, perceived threat
(e.g., gun ownership, gun control). Self-protection and physical
safety (e.g., fear) are the most commonly cited reason for owning a
gun and opposing gun control and blacks are overrepresented in
the crime statistics and media portrayals of violent crime.
Accordingly, people with higher symbolic racism may be more
likely to own a gun and oppose gun control as a means of dealing
(consciously or unconsciously) with abstract fears regarding blacks
[19].
Given the importance of guns and gun-control to US public
health, and the urgent need for appropriate policy to reduce gun-
related harms, it is vital to examine the psychological and
sociocultural reasons for the paradoxical attitudes of many US
citizens and politicians to gun-control. US whites have twice the
rate of gun ownership of blacks, oppose gun control to much
greater extent than blacks, but are considerably more likely to kill
themselves with those guns, than be killed by others or blacks.
While the literature suggests that racism in whites shapes fear of
black violence and support for policies that disadvantage blacks,
no research has examined whether racism is related to gun
ownership and attitudes to gun-control in US whites. This study
investigated whether racism is related to gun ownership and
opposition to gun control in US whites. We hypothesized that,
after accounting for known confounders (i.e., age, gender,
education, income, location, conservatism, political identification,
anti-government sentiment), anti-black racism would be associated
with having a gun in the home, and opposition to gun controls.
Methods
The most recent data from the American National Election
Study (ANES) [35] was used to test the hypothesis. The ANES
panel study is the leading large-scale psychological and socio-
political attitudes survey in the US, measuring various constructs
and attitudes in monthly waves from a representative probability
Racism, Guns, and Gun Control in US Whites
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 October 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 10 | e77552
sample of US voters. Explanatory variables, including demo-
graphic details (i.e., age, gender, education, income, location:
southern vs. other), anti-government sentiment, measures of
conservatism (e.g., liberal versus conservative ideology), party
identification (e.g., Republican versus Democrat leanings), sym-
bolic racism, belief in a black violent stereotype, and implicit
racism (i.e., race IAT), were accessed for US whites. Outcome
measures were: having a gun in the home, opposition to policies
banning handguns in the home, and support for permits to carry
concealed handguns.
Potential participants for the ANES were contacted via
telephone using random-digit-dialling and requested to complete
an online survey each month from January 2008 to September
2009. Respondents were paid $10 a month for participation and
those without internet access were provided with internet service
for the duration of the study. The current study drew on data from
several waves of the ANES survey. To counter the impact of
participant drop-out and non-response on the representativeness
of the sample examined in the current study we applied ANES
generated weights as recommended (i.e. wave 20 post-election
weight) [35]. The comprehensive ANES panel study demograph-
ics, data, materials and methods are freely available online at
(http://www.electionstudies.org/).
Measures
As part of the ANES, participants provided comprehensive
information about the demographic composition of their house-
hold alongside their own background characteristics. Participants’
highest level of educational attainment was grouped into five
categories: less than high school diploma, high school diploma,
some college but no bachelor’s degree, bachelor’s degree, and
graduate degree. This variable was scored from 1 = less than high
school diploma, to 5 = graduate degree. Household income in the
last year was reported by all participants. Participants were
instructed to include their own pre-tax income and the income of
all other household members from all sources (e.g. wages, tips,
interest on savings, child support, Social Security). Nineteen
income bands were used ranging from 1 = ,$5,000 per annum to
19 = $$175,000 or more per annum. Consistent with previous
research [36], education and income where dummy coded into
five and four categories for analysis, respectively, rather than being
treated as linear variables.
Racism Measures of two key types of racism against blacks were taken
from the ANES for analyses: symbolic racism and implicit racial
attitudes. Additionally, a single item from wave 20 of ANES was
used to assess whether participants held the stereotype that blacks
are violent. Participants responded to the item ‘‘How well does the
word ‘violent’ describe most blacks?’’ using five response categories
ranging from 1 = ‘‘extremely well’’, to 5 = ‘‘not at all well’’ (i.e.
extremely well, very well, moderately well, slightly well, or not at
all well). The item was coded so that a response of extremely well
or very well, indicated endorsement of the black violent stereotype
Table 1. Univariate and multivariate relationships from logistic regressions are displayed for having a gun in the home among US whites.
Gun in home
Univariate Multivariatea
Explanatory Variables OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Age 1.00 (1.00, 1.01) 1.01 (1.00, 1.02)
Education No High School Diploma 1.28 (0.60, 2.73) Reference
High School Diploma 1.25 (0.89, 1.77) 0.64 (0.27, 1.55)
Some college, no bachelor’s degree 1.26 (0.95, 1.67) 0.62 (0.26, 1.47)
Bachelor’s degree 0.69** (0.51, 0.93) 0.46 (0.19, 1.11)
Graduate degree 0.55*** (0.41, 0.75) 0.39* (0.16, 0.96)
Income Under $20,000 0.43** (0.23, 0.81) Reference
$20,000 to $49,999 1.16 (0.85, 1.59) 2.05* (1.03, 4.09)
$50,000 to $99,999 1.10 (0.82, 1.47) 2.24* (1.13, 4.43)
$100,000 or more 0.92 (0.66, 1.27) 2.04 (0.96, 4.34)
Male 1.24 (0.93, 1.64) 1.06 (0.77, 1.45)
Southern (yes = 1, no = 0) 1.44* (1.05, 1.96) 1.15 (0.82, 1.62)
Conservatism 1.26*** (1.17, 1.37) 1.06 (0.94, 1.18)
Anti-Government Sentiment (yes = 1, no = 0) 1.97*** (1.44, 2.69) 1.38 (0.98, 1.96)
Party Identification 1.22*** (1.14, 1.30) 1.10 (0.99, 1.21)
Black Violent Stereotype 1.15 (0.69, 1.93) 0.90 (0.52, 1.54)
Implicit Racism 1.32 (0.97, 1.79) 1.16 (0.84, 1.61)
Symbolic Racism 1.86*** (1.57, 2.20) 1.50*** (1.22, 1.84)
***p,0.001;**p,0.01;*p,0.05; a Adjusting for all other variables in the model. All VIF-values are below 2.00. Link-tests indicated that multivariate model are correctly specified (t-statistic was 0.39). F-adjusted mean residual tests for goodness-of-fit for the dependent variable indicated a good fit (p value 0.59). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077552.t001
Racism, Guns, and Gun Control in US Whites
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 3 October 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 10 | e77552
(coded 1), with other responses coded as 0, did not endorse
stereotype blacks are violent.
In wave 20 of the ANES, participants were asked to respond to
a four-item scale drawn from the Symbolic Racism Scale [37].
Specifically, participants indicated the extent to which they agree
(1 = agree strongly to 5 = disagree strongly) with statements such as
‘‘Generations of slavery and discrimination have created condi-
tions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the
lower class’’ (reverse scored). Scores on the four items were coded
so that high scores are indicative of elevated levels of symbolic
racism. A test of the reliability of the scale showed the four items
corresponded closely with each other as indicated by a Cronbach’s
alpha level of 0.8 and the emergence of a single factor from
exploratory factor analysis of the scale. We utilized the average
score across the four items to produce a scale ranging 1 = lowest
symbolic racism score, to 5 = highest symbolic racism score.
The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is commonly used in
experimental psychology to gauge implicit bias. A brief race (anti-
black) IAT was included in wave 19 of the ANES to assess the
extent to which participants demonstrated black-white racial bias.
The theoretical background, instructions, and methodology for the
race IAT have been well described elsewhere [21,22]. Briefly, the
race IAT was administered online, requiring participants to
rapidly associate pictures of white and black faces with positively-
and negatively-valenced words. Participants were asked to press
the key ‘‘P’’ for white faces and for positive words and ‘‘Q’’ for any
other stimulus. Alternatively, they were asked to press ‘‘P’’ for
black faces or positive words and ‘‘Q’’ for other stimuli. The test
consisted of 84 stimuli, two practice runs (14 sets of stimuli each)
and two data collection blocks (28 sets of stimuli each). Response
latencies across blocks were analysed to produce an effect size
coefficient or D score. This score is coded so that positive scores
indicate an unconscious preference for whites over blacks.
Conservatism, Anti-Government Sentiment, and Political Party Identification Conservatism (ideological self-placement) was derived from four
items assessing self-descriptions of liberal versus conservative
leanings, and strength thereof. The four items were asked in wave
11 of the ANES. Participants were firstly asked ‘‘When it comes to
politics, would you describe yourself as liberal, conservative, or
neither liberal nor conservative?’’. The extent to which partici-
pants considered themselves to be liberal or conservative was then
gauged with a further question: ‘‘Would you call yourself very
liberal or somewhat liberal? Would you call yourself very
conservative or somewhat conservative?’’. Those who rated
themselves as ‘‘neither liberal nor conservative’’ were requested
to indicate: ‘‘Do you think of yourself as closer to liberals, or
conservatives, or neither of these?’’. We combined all ratings on
these four items to produce a score ranging from 1 to 7
(1 = extremely liberal, 4 = moderate, 7 = extremely conservative).
Table 2. Univariate and multivariate relationships from logistic regressions are displayed for opposition to a handgun ban in home among US whites.
Opposition to handgun ban in home
Univariate Multivariatea Multivariateb
Explanatory Variables OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Age 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) 1.00 (0.99, 1.02) 1.00 (0.99, 1.01)
Education No High School Diploma 1.61 (0.74, 3.48) Reference Reference
High School Diploma 0.80 (0.56, 1.15) 0.49 (0.19, 1.23) 0.53 (0.20, 1.41)
Some college, no bachelor’s degree 1.51**(1.11, 2.05) 0.78 (0.32, 1.90) 0.86 (0.33, 2.22)
Bachelor’s degree 1.08 (0.79, 1.49) 0.72 (0.28, 1.83) 0.86 (0.32, 2.27)
Graduate degree 0.74 (0.54, 1.00) 0.57(0.22, 1.47) 0.72 (0.27, 1.96)
Income Under $20,000 0.68(0.37, 1.26) Reference Reference
$20,000 to $49,999 0.82 (0.59, 1.14) 1.04 (0.50, 2.14) 0.88 (0.41, 1.86)
$50,000 to $99,999 1.18 (0.87, 1.61) 1.25 (0.61, 2.57) 1.05 (0.50, 2.21)
$100,000 or more 1.18 (0.83, 1.67) 1.16 (0.54, 2.50) 0.98 (0.45, 2.16)
Male 2.11***(1.54, 2.87) 1.72**(1.21, 2.44) 1.69*(1.17, 2.44)
Southern (yes = 1, no = 0) 2.05***(1.44, 2.92) 1.72**(1.17, 2.54) 1.67*(1.11, 2.54)
Conservatism 1.40*** (1.29, 1.53) 1.15*(1.02, 1.30) 1.14*(1.01, 1.30)
Anti-Government Sentiment (yes = 1,no = 0) 2.47***(1.80, 3.40) 1.78**(1.23, 2.58) 1.68**(1.15, 2.45)
Party Identification 1.32***(1.22, 1.42) 1.15**(1.04, 1.28) 1.13*(1.02, 1.26)
Black Violent Stereotype 1.38 (0.76, 2.53) 1.37 (0.74, 1.54) 1.46 (0.78, 2.76)
Implicit Racism 1.07 (0.77, 1.50) 1.01 (0.69, 1.47) 0.98 (0.66, 1.45)
Symbolic Racism 1.70***(1.43, 2.02) 1.27*(1.03, 1.58) 1.17 (0.94, 1.46)
Gun in the home (yes = 1, no = 0) 3.38***(2.77, 5.45) – 2.84***(1.95, 4.14)
***p,0.001;**p,0.01;*p,0.05; a Adjusting for all other variables in the model except having gun in home. b Adjusting for all other variables in the model including having gun in home. All VIF-values are below 2.02. Link-tests indicate that multivariate model was correctly specified (t-statistic.69). The p value for the F-adjusted mean residual test for goodness-of-fit was (0.18). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077552.t002
Racism, Guns, and Gun Control in US Whites
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 4 October 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 10 | e77552
To better capture conservative values and associated views
regarding government infringement on personal rights, we
included a measure of anti-government sentiment. Participants
responded with either a yes, immediate threat; or no, does not (yes
responses coded as 1, no as 0) to the item ‘Do you think the federal
government has become so large and powerful that it poses an
immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens,
or not?’.
Party identification, and the strength of this identification, was
derived (wave 19) from the same process using four component
questions assessing whether participants identified themselves as
Republicans, Democrats, or Independents. This process yielded a
score ranging from 1 to 7 (1 = strong Democrat, 4 = independent,
7 = strong Republican).
Gun Ownership Questions relating to household gun ownership were included in
wave 19 of ANES. Participants were firstly asked if any person in
the household owned any type of gun. Specifically, participants
were asked: ‘‘Do you or does any other member of your household
own a handgun, rifle, shotgun, or any other kind of firearm, or
does no one in your household own a firearm?’’. Subsequently,
participants were asked: ‘‘Do you happen to have in your home or
garage any guns or revolvers?’’. This second question functioned
largely to corroborate responses to the initial question, but also
established the participant’s personal ownership of the reported
gun in the home. For analyses, a yes response to either item was
coded as a 1, no responses were coded as 0.
Opinions on Gun Control Participants were asked two questions regarding their views on
two potential gun control policies in wave 13 of the ANES panel
study. Participants were firstly asked: ‘‘Do you favor, oppose, or
neither favor nor oppose making it illegal for anyone to keep a
handgun at home?’’. Next they were asked: ‘‘Do you favor,
oppose, or neither favor nor oppose giving permits to allow any
adult to carry a concealed handgun if they have never been
convicted of committing a crime and they have passed a test
showing that they know how to use the gun safely?’’. To produce a
clear index of whether the participant is opposed to gun control,
we coded responses to the first question so that 1 = definite
opposition to making it illegal to keep a handgun at home, and
0 = other responses. The item assessing support for a permit to
carry a concealed handgun was reverse coded, so that ‘‘favor’’ for
permits to have concealed handguns was coded as 1, which in
effect represents opposition to gun control. Other responses were
coded as 0, indicating non-support for concealed handguns.
Statistical Analysis Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine relation-
ships between explanatory variables, and gun-related outcomes.
Odds ratios (OR) are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI)
Table 3. Univariate and multivariate relationships from logistic regressions are displayed for support for permits to carry concealed handguns among US whites.
Support permit for concealed handguns
Univariate Multivariatea Multivariateb
Explanatory Variables OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Age 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) 1.00 (0.99, 1.01)
Education No High School Diploma 1.61 (0.74, 3.48) Reference Reference
High School Diploma 1.10 (0.56, 1.15) 0.50 (0.21, 1.19) 0.54 (0.23, 1.29)
Some college, no bachelor’s degree 1.13 (0.86, 1.50) 0.47 (0.20, 1.08) 0.50 (0.22, 1.13)
Bachelor’s degree 0.86 (0.64, 1.15) 0.43 (0.18, 1.04) 0.49 (0.21, 1.15)
Graduate degree 0.54***(0.40, 0.73) 0.32*(0.13, 0.77) 0.38*(0.16, 0.91)
Income Under $20,000 0.68(0.37, 1.26) Reference Reference
$20,000 to $49,999 1.19 (0.87, 1.63) 1.18 (0.61, 2.27) 1.01 (0.51, 2.02)
$50,000 to $99,999 0.96 (0.73, 1.28) 1.08 (0.57, 2.07) 0.92 (0.46, 1.81)
$100,000 or more 0.94 (0.68, 1.30) 1.12 (0.55, 2.30) 0.95 (0.46, 1.96)
Male 2.29***(1.72, 3.05) 2.01***(1.45, 2.79) 1.99***(1.43, 2.77)
Southern (yes = 1, no = 0) 1.77***(1.30, 2.42) 1.46*(1.03, 2.06) 1.41(0.97, 2.05)
Conservatism 1.37***(1.26, 1.50) 1.14*(1.01, 1.29) 1.14*(1.01, 1.29)
Anti-Government Sentiment (yes = 1,no = 0) 2.47***(1.80, 3.40) 1.89**(1.30, 2.73) 1.81*(1.24, 2.66)
Party Identification 1.29***(1.20, 1.38) 1.14*(1.03, 1.27) 1.13*(1.01, 1.25)
Black Violent Stereotype 1.75*(1.03, 2.95) 1.22 (0.71, 2.09) 1.27 (0.72, 2.25)
Implicit Racism 1.10 (0.81, 1.50) 0.95 (0.66, 1.39) 0.94 (0.64, 1.36)
Symbolic Racism 1.84***(1.57, 2.17) 1.38**(1.13, 1.70) 1.28*(0.94, 1.46)
Gun in the home (yes = 1, no = 0) 3.29***(2.44, 4.42) – 2.50***(1.78, 3.51)
***p,0.001;**p,0.01;*p,0.05; a Adjusting for all other variables in the model, except having a gun in home. b Adjusting for all other variables in the model including having a gun in home. VIF-values were below 2.04. Link-tests indicate that multivariate model was (t-statistic 0.04). F-adjusted mean residual tests for goodness-of-fit p value 0.04. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077552.t003
Racism, Guns, and Gun Control in US Whites
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 5 October 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 10 | e77552
T a b le
4 . S p e a rm
a n ’s c o rr e la ti o n c o e ff ic ie n ts
fo r b iv a ri a te
re la ti o n sh ip
b e tw
e e n a ll v a ri a b le s.
V a ri a b le s
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
1 . G u n in
th e h o m e
2 . O p p o s e b a n n in g g u n s in
th e h o m e
.3 5 ** *
3 . S u p p o rt
fo r p e rm
it c o n c e a le d
w e a p o n
.3 3 ** *
.4 7 ** *
4 . A g e
.0 5
2 .0 1
2 .0 5 *
5 . N o h ig h s c h o o l d ip lo m a
.0 4
.0 3
.0 5 *
.0 1
6 . H ig h s c h o o l d ip lo m a
.0 5
2 .0 3
.0 4
.0 5
2 .0 6 *
7 . S o m e c o ll e g e , n o b a c h e lo r’ s d e g re e
.1 0 **
.1 0 **
.1 0 **
2 .0 1
2 .1 1 **
2 .3 2 ** *
8 . B a c h e lo r’ s d e g re e
2 .0 4
2 .0 1
2 .0 5 *
2 .0 9 **
2 .0 9 **
2 .2 5 ** * 2 .4 5 ** *
9 . G ra d u a te
d e g re e
2 .1 4 **
2 .0 9 **
2 .1 1 **
.0 8 **
2 .0 7 **
2 .2 1 ** * 2 .3 8 ** * 2 .3 0 ** *
1 0 . U n d e r $ 2 0 ,0 0 0
2 .0 5
2 .0 3
2 .0 4
.0 8 **
.0 6 *
.1 2 **
.0 3
2 .0 8 **
2 .0 8 **
1 1 . $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 to
$ 4 9 ,9 9 9
2 .0 1
2 .0 4
.0 2
.1 2 **
.0 6 *
.1 7 **
.0 6 *
2 .1 1 **
2 .1 3 **
2 .1 5 **
1 2 . $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 to
$ 9 9 ,9 9 9
.0 7 **
.0 5 *
.0 3
2 .0 6 *
2 .0 4
2 .0 5
.0 5
.0 2
2 .0 3
2 .2 0 **
2 .5 1 ** *
1 3 . $ 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 o r m o re
2 .0 4
2 .0 1
2 .0 3
2 .0 9 **
2 .0 5
2 .1 9 **
2 .1 4 **
.1 3 **
.2 0 ** *
2 .1 5 **
2 .3 7 ** * 2 .4 9 ** *
1 4 . M a le
.1 1 **
.1 8 **
.1 8 **
.0 7 *
2 .0 2
2 .0 7 *
2 .0 4
.0 6 *
.0 5
2 .0 8 *
2 .1 1 **
.0 9 *
.0 5 *
1 5 . S o u th
e rn
.0 9 **
.1 1 **
.1 1 **
.0 6 *
.0 1
.0 1
.0 2
.0 1
2 .0 4
2 .0 2
.0 3
2 .0 3
.0 0
.0 4
1 6 . C o n s e rv a ti s m
.2 6 ** *
.3 1 ** *
.3 3 ** *
.0 5
2 .0 1
.0 7 *
.1 1 **
2 .0 6 *
2 .1 3 **
2 .0 6 *
.0 2
.0 1
2 .0 0
.1 3 **
.1 1 **
1 7 . A n ti 2 g o v e rn
m e n t s e n ti m e n t
.1 5 **
.2 0 ** *
.2 0 ** *
.0 4
.0 2
2 .0 0
.0 5 *
2 .0 2
2 .0 5
.0 1
.0 1
.0 3
2 .0 5
.1 5 **
.0 3
.2 0 ** *
1 8 . P a rt y id e n ti fi c a ti o n
.2 2 ** *
.3 0 ** *
.3 0 ** *
2 .0 3
2 .0 3
.0 1
.1 1 **
2 .0 2
2 .1 0 **
2 .0 9 **
2 .0 0
.0 2
.0 3
.0 8 *
.1 1 **
.7 0 ** *
.1 6 **
1 9 . Im
p li c it
ra c is m
.0 6 *
.0 4
.0 5
.0 5
.0 7 *
.0 5
.0 2
2 .0 4
2 .0 5
2 .0 1
.0 5 *
2 .0 0
2 .0 4
2 .0 2
.0 2
.0 6 *
.0 1
.0 6 *
2 0 . B la c k v io le n t s te re o ty p e
.0 8 *
.0 7 *
.0 9 **
2 .0 4
.0 3
.0 7 *
.0 8 **
2 .0 8 **
2 .0 8 **
2 .0 3
.0 8 **
.0 2
2 .0 8 **
.0 4
.0 2
.0 6 *
.0 6 *
.0 4
.0 9 **
2 1 . S y m b o li c ra c is m
.2 6 ** *
.2 9 ** *
.3 1 ** *
2 .0 8 *
.0 0
.1 0 **
.1 9 ** *
2 .0 8 **
2 .2 3 ** * 2 .0 4
.0 3
.0 2
2 .0 3
.1 0 **
.1 2 **
.4 6 ** *
.2 2 ** *
.4 1 ** *
.1 5 **
.2 4 ** *
S ig n if ic a n t tw
o -t a il e d re la ti o n sh ip s a re
in d ic a te d ** *p , 0 .0 0 1 ; ** p , 0 .0 1 ; *p , 0 .0 5 .
d o i:1 0 .1 3 7 1 /j o u rn a l.p
o n e .0 0 7 7 5 5 2 .t 0 0 4
Racism, Guns, and Gun Control in US Whites
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 6 October 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 10 | e77552
for univariate and multivariate relationships with the outcome
variables (see Tables 1–3) based on Taylor linearized standard
errors. Explanatory variables were entered simultaneously in
models, with the exception of having a gun in the home. Because
participants reporting gun ownership will quite logically be against
measures that involve giving up their guns, and ownership is
hypothesised to be related to racism, we entered the variable ‘have
a gun in the home’ in a second step for models examining
opposition to gun control (Tables 2 and 3). Spearman’s correlation
coefficients between all variables were calculated along with
descriptives (see Tables 4 and 5, respectively).
Results
Just over half (52%) of the sample had a gun in the home, 66%
opposed bans on handguns in the home, and 52% reported
support for permits to carry a concealed handgun. Participants
reported being slightly more conservative than liberal, and more
Republican than Democratic leaning. Mean scores for symbolic
racism, and to a lesser extent the race IAT, indicated anti-black
sentiment; however, participants had mean scores considerably
below the midpoint of scoring for the stereotype that ‘blacks are
violent’. Table 5 displays full weighted descriptives.
After adjusting for all explanatory variables in the model,
symbolic racism was significantly related to having a gun in the
home. Specifically, for each 1 point increase in symbolic racism,
there was a 50% greater odds of having a gun in the home (see
Table 1), and there was a 28% increase in the odds of supporting
permits to carry concealed handguns (see Table 3). The
relationship between symbolic racism and opposing a ban on
guns in the home (27% increase in odds), was reduced (17%
increase in odds) and became non-significant when the outcome
‘having a gun in the home’ was entered in the model (see Table 2).
This is unsurprising as, in effect, opposition to gun control policy is
conflated with having a gun already, and reflects self-interest [38].
Thus the gun ownership variable mediated the relationship
between symbolic racism and opposition to a ban on handguns
in the home. It is noteworthy that symbolic racism still maintained
its significant relationship with support for permits to carry
concealed handguns in the presence of having a gun in the home.
Conservative ideology was also significantly related to stronger
support for permits to carry concealed handguns after adjusting for
other explanatory variables. Similarly, stronger republican iden-
tification, being from a southern state, and anti-government
sentiment were associated with opposition to gun-control policies,
but not with having a gun in the home. With the exception of sex,
and to a much lesser extent education, demographic variables
were not related to having a gun in the home or opposition to gun
controls. Although sex was unrelated to having a gun in the home,
there were greater odds of males being opposed to banning
handguns in the home, and being supportive of permits to carry
concealed handguns, than for females. This result is consistent
Table 5. Weighted means and 95% confidence intervals for all variables.
Mean Lower CI Upper CI Range N {
Gun in home (1 = yes, 0 = no) 0.52 0.49 0.56 0, 1 1354
Opposition to handgun ban in home (1 = yes, 0 = no) 0.66 0.63 0.70 0, 1 1370
Support permit for concealed handguns (1 = yes, 0 = no) 0.52 0.49 0.56 0, 1 1370
Age 49.35 47.97 50.73 18–90 1370
Education 2.94 2.86 3.03 1–5 1370
No High School Diploma 0.08 0.05 0.11 0, 1 1370
High School Diploma 0.30 0.27 0.34 0, 1 1370
Some college, no bachelor’s degree 0.31 0.28 0.34 0, 1 1370
Bachelor’s degree 0.21 0.18 0.23 0, 1 1370
Graduate degree 0.10 0.09 0.12 0, 1 1370
Income 12.51 12.27 12.75 1–19 1368
Under $20,000 0.05 0.04 0.07 0, 1 1368
$20,000 to $49,999 0.31 0.27 0.34 0, 1 1368
$50,000 to $99,999 0.43 0.39 0.46 0, 1 1368
$100,000 or more 0.21 0.19 0.24 0, 1 1368
Sex (1 = male, 0 = female) 0.49 0.45 0.52 0, 1 1370
Conservatism 4.56 4.43 4.68 1–7 1370
South (1 = yes, 0 = no) 0.32 0.28 0.35 0, 1 1370
Anti-Government Sentiment 0.70 0.66 0.73 0, 1 1370
Party identification 4.16 4.01 4.31 1–7 1370
Black violent stereotype* 0.10 (2.1) 0.08 (2.14) 0.13 (2.29) 0, 1 (1–5) 1360
Implicit racism 0.17 0.13 0.20 22–2 1287
Symbolic racism 3.48 3.42 3.55 1–5 1370
Unequal N’s result from lower non-assessment rates for a measure in a specific ANES wave or from missing. The means and confidence intervals are calculated using svy: mean procedure and are based on the white subsample. { N reflects size of the population of whites after weighting. Range refers to the theoretical range. *In brackets is the mean score for 5-point scales for black violent stereotype. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077552.t005
Racism, Guns, and Gun Control in US Whites
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 7 October 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 10 | e77552
with other US data showing that white males display the most
opposition to gun control, and greater support for liberalisation of
gun laws [3]. Higher education levels were associated with lower
odds of having a gun in the home, but not with the gun control
outcomes. This finding mirrors national data on gun ownership
and support for gun control policies [3], which also shows a poor
and mixed relationship between income and age, and gun
ownership.
In correlation analyses, greater race IAT scores were weakly
associated with greater symbolic racism scores, and with the black
violent stereotype. Higher IAT scores were not related to gun
ownership and gun control in full models. Higher scores on black
violent stereotyping were not related to any of the gun-related
outcomes; the univariate relationship between black violent
stereotyping and greater support for concealed handgun permits
was explained by other variables.
Discussion
Opposition to gun control in US whites is somewhat paradox-
ical given the statistics on gun-related deaths, and such opposition
may be undermining the public health of all US citizens. This
study examined for the first time whether racism is related to gun
ownership and the opposition to gun control in US whites. The
results support the hypothesis by showing that greater symbolic
racism is related to increased odds of having a gun in the home
and greater opposition to gun control, after accounting for all
other explanatory variables.
It is particularly noteworthy that the relationship between
symbolic racism and the gun-related outcomes was maintained in
the presence of conservative ideologies, political affiliation,
opposition to government control, and being from a southern
state, which are otherwise strong predictors of gun ownership and
opposition to gun reform. Contrary to research showing associ-
ations between implicit racism and policy decision making [23],
we did not find implicit racism to be significantly related to gun
related outcomes after accounting for other variables. Similarly,
the small correlations between the stereotype that most blacks
being violent and gun outcomes were not significant after
accounting for all other variables.
There are several possible reasons for the absence of multivar-
iate associations between the stereotype of blacks as violent and
race-IAT, and gun outcomes. There is considerable debate in the
field regards the validity and predictive qualities of implicit
measures with critical reviews and reanalyses showing weak or no
association between implicit and explicit measures, and outcomes
[39,40]. Others demonstrate that non-attitudinal factors, such as,
stimuli familiarity, cognitive ability, and fear of appearing racist
also account for individual differences in IAT scores, that may in
turn affect associations with outcome variables [39–43]. The
implicit association test is also a conceptually difficult task for some
to learn, and particularly the brief race-IAT used in the ANES
which restricts training on this computerized measure [41]. Given
the mean D score for the ANES race-IAT (.17) is more than twice
as small as from any other studies, including one in medical
doctors [44], it is also possible that participants may not have
completed this complex computerized task correctly. Other
authors have noted this problem with the ANES race-IAT data
[45].
There are two plausible reasons for the blacks as violent
stereotype not accounting for significant variance in multivariate
models. First, the stereotype appears to be subsumed by symbolic
racism. Table 4 shows that the black violent stereotype has its
strongest relationship with symbolic racism (r = .24), and only
weak relationships with other variables (rs = .06–.09). Thus, the
association between the black violent stereotype and gun outcomes
may be explained through its association with symbolic racism
which captures negative affect towards blacks (e.g., fear, unease,
hostility). Alternatively, because the black violent stereotype is a
quite blatant measure, participants may have been reluctant to
endorse a clearly negative view of blacks in order to avoid
appearing racist. In support of this notion, only 10% of
participants strongly endorsed the statement that most blacks
could be described as violent, with a mean score of 2.2 on the 5-
point scale, compared to a mean score of 3.5 for symbolic racism
on a 5-point scale.
There are potential limitations that should be noted. The item
assessing having a gun in the home does not establish that the
respondent is the owner or user of that gun. This observation is
born out in the absence of a sex difference to this question. Males
typically have a higher rate of gun ownership than females [3].
Similarly, the gun control policy items do not assess opposition/
support for assault weapons, which has been a particular focus of
attention during recent gun debates in the US. Nonetheless,
symbolic racism might also, quite reasonably, be related to
opposition to broader gun control measures (banning assault
weapons, and gun clips containing more than 10 rounds), which
may or may not be effective in reducing firearms related deaths.
However, although the ANES only asked participants whether
there was a gun in the home, best available evidence suggests that
merely having a gun in the home is associated with a marked
increase in the odds of one of the members of that home dying
from suicide or homicide [6,7].
Another potential limitation is the focus on white US adults as it
is possible that other US racial groups may display similar pattern
of results. However, given that whites oppose gun reforms to a
considerably greater extent than do blacks, or indeed any other
non-white racial group, that whites are also the single largest
(.70%) ethnic grouping in the US, and that symbolic racism in
whites is related to numerous outcomes, the focus of the study on
whites seems appropriate [3]. Indeed, in a sub-analysis of the black
sample from the ANES panel study, we found that none of the
variables reported in models for white participants were signifi-
cantly related to any of the gun-related outcomes for blacks.
Finally, the correlational nature of the study clearly prohibits
causal inferences. While a view that racism underpins gun-related
attitudes is plausible and supported by evidence on other race-
related policy decisions [18,23], it could be argued that there are
other plausible but unmeasured variables that could explain the
pattern of relationships we find here. Similarly, simply owning a
firearm may lead whites to develop more negative attitudes
towards blacks. There is some experimental research showing that
participants who have recently held a firearm produce enhanced
salivary testosterone levels and display increased aggression toward
others [46]. Causality aside, greater control of firearms is the most
logical direction for public health policy.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the results indicate that
symbolic racism is associated with gun-related attitudes and
behaviours in US whites. The statistics on firearm-related suicides
and homicides in the US might reasonably be expected to
convince US citizens that action on reducing gun ownership and
use would be beneficial to their health. Yet, US whites oppose
strong gun reform more than all other racial groups, despite a
much greater likelihood that whites will kill themselves with their
guns (suicide), than be killed by someone else [1]. Black-on-black
homicide rates would benefit most from gun reform, and, quite
logically, blacks support these reforms even if whites do not [3,47].
Symbolic racism appears to play a role in explaining gun
Racism, Guns, and Gun Control in US Whites
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 8 October 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 10 | e77552
ownership and paradoxical attitudes to gun control in US whites.
In other words, despite certain policy changes potentially
benefitting whites, anti-black prejudice leads people to oppose
their implementation. This finding is consistent with previous
research showing that symbolic racism is associated with
opposition to US policies that may benefit blacks, and support
for policies that disadvantage blacks, and critically, goes beyond
what is explained by other important confounders.
Gun-related deaths in the US are a significant public health
concern, representing a leading cause of death, and are
particularly prevalent from ages 15–54. Attitudes towards guns
in many US whites appear to be influenced, like other policy
preferences, by illogical racial biases. The present results suggest
that gun control policies may need to be implemented indepen-
dent of public opinion. The implementation of initially unpopular
public health initiatives has proven effective for other public health
threats (e.g., tobacco taxation, bans on smoking in public places,
seatbelt use) that initially did not have widespread public and
political support, but have eventually proven popular and have led
to changes in attitudes [48,49].
There remains considerable resistance in the US to even cursory
gun controls, and the reasons for owning a gun and opposing gun
reform (i.e., self-protection, safety, fear of crime) [4,5], are not
supported by the evidence on gun-related harms. Clearly, other
motives and attitudes must be driving such paradoxical views on
guns. Future research needs to examine other less obvious, yet
influential, sociocultural and psychological influences on gun
ownership and control, as this evidence is sparse. Evidence on the
psychological and sociocultural drivers of gun ownership and
resistance to strong controls will in turn help inform educational
campaigns (e.g., social marketing) that may aid public acceptance
of appropriate policies in the interest of the US public’s health,
and/or allow policy makers to implement good public health
policy. The reinstatement of funding for research on gun control in
the US should assist in these research endeavours.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Louise Connell for helpful comments on drafts of
this work, Elmer Villanueva and Jason Ferris for their statistical advice, and
the reviewers for their helpful suggestions.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: KOB WF DL MD. Performed
the experiments: KOB WF DL MD. Analyzed the data: KOB WF MD.
Wrote the paper: KOB WF DL MD.
References
1. Hoyert DL, Xu J (2012) Deaths: preliminary data for 2011. Natl Vital Stat Rep
61: 1–65.
2. UN Office on Drugs and Crimes website. United Nations surveys on crime
trends and the operations of criminal justice systems. Available: www.unodc.
org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Homicides_by_
firearms.xls. Accessed 2013 May 5.
3. Smith TW (2001) National gun policy survey of the national opinion research
centre: Research findings. Chicago: University of Chicago, National Opinion
Research Center.
4. Pew Research Center (2013) Perspectives of Gun Owners, Non-Owners: Why
Own a Gun? Protection Is Now Top Reason. Pew Research Center. http://
www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-
reason/Accessed 27/03/2013.
5. Lott JR (2010) More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun-control
laws. 3 rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB, Banton JG, Reay DT et al. (1993)
Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med 329:
1084–91.
7. Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, Reay DT, Francisco J et al. (1992) Suicide
in the home in relation to gun ownership. N Engl J Med 327: 467–72.
8. Chapman S, Alpers P, Agho K, Jones M (2006) Australia’s 1996 gun law
reforms: faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without
mass shootings. Inj Prev 12: 365–372.
9. Leenaars AA, Moksony F, Lester D, Wenckstern S (2003) The impact of gun
control (Bill C-51) on suicide in Canada. Death Stud 27: 103–124.
10. Leigh A, Neill C (2012) Do gun buybacks save lives? Evidence from panel data.
Am Law Econ Rev 12: 462–508.
11. McCarthy M (2013) Reviving research into US gun violence. BMJ 346: f980.
12. Davies E (2013) If guns don’t kill people, ignorance might. BMJ 346: f1058.
13. Winkler A (2011) Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.
New York, N.Y. London: W.W. Norton.
14. Pew Research Center (2013) Gun Rights Proponents More Politically Active: In
Gun Control Debate, Several Options Draw Majority Support. Pew Research
Center http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/01-14-
13%20Gun%20Policy%20Release.pdf Accessed 18/05/2013.
15. Benforado A (2010) Quick on the draw: Implicit bias and the second
amendment. Oregon Law Rev 89: 1–81.
16. Kleck G, Kovandzic T, Saber M, Hauser W (2010) The effect of perceived risk
and victimization on plans to purchase a gun for self-protection J Crim Just 39:
312–319.
17. Sears DO, Henry PJ (2005) Over thirty years later: A contemporary look at
symbolic racism. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 37: 95–150.
18. Barkan S, Cohn SE (2005) Why Whites Favor Spending More Money to Fight
Crime: The Role of Racial Prejudice. Soc Probl 52: 300–315.
19. Hurwitz J, Peffley M (1997) Public Perceptions of Race and Crime: The Role of
Racial Stereotypes. Am J Polit Sci 41: 374–401.
20. Kahan DM, Braman D (2002) More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural
Theory of Gun-Risk Perceptions. U Penn Law Rev 151: 1291.
21. Greenwald AG, Poehlman TA, Uhlmann EL, Banaji MR (2003) Understanding
and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. J Pers Soc Psychol 97: 17–41.
22. Lane KA, Kang J, Banaji MR (2007) Implicit social cognition and law. Annu
Rev Law Soc Sci 3: 427–451.
23. Knowles ED, Lowery BS, Schaumberg RL (2010) Racial prejudice predicts opposition to Obama and his health care reform plan. J Exp Soc Psy 46: 420–
423.
24. Henderson M, Hillygus DS (2011) The Dynamics of Health Care Opinion, 2008–2010: Partisanship, Self-Interest, and Racial Resentment. J Health Polit
Pol Law 36: 945–960.
25. Rabinowitz JL, Sears DO, Sidanius J, Krosnick JA (2009) Why do white Americans oppose race-targeted policies? Clarifying the impact of symbolic
racism. Polit Psychol 30: 805–828.
26. Campbell A (1971) White attitudes toward black people. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
27. Crosby F, Bromley S, Saxe L (1980) Recent unobtrusive studies of Black and
White discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Psychol Bull 87: 546– 563.
28. McConahay J (1986) Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism
Scale. In J. Gaertner & S. Dovidio (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism. Orlando, FL. Academic Press. 91–125.
29. Sears DO, Henry PJ (2003) The origins of symbolic racism. J Pers Soc Psychol
85: 259–275.
30. Chiricos T, Welch K, Gertz M (2004) Racial typification of crime and support for punitive measures. Criminology 42: 359–390.
31. Berg JA (2013) Opposition to Pro-Immigrant Public Policy: Symbolic Racism
and Group Threat. Soc Inq 83: 1–31.
32. Tarman C, Sears DO (2005) The conceptualization and measurement of symbolic racism. J Polit 63: 731–761.
33. Sears D, Van Laar C, Carillo M, Kosterman R (1997) Is it really racism? The
origins of White Americans’ opposition to race-targeted policies. Public Opin Quart 61: 16–53.
34. Green EGT, Staerklé C, Sears DO (2006) Symbolic racism and whites’ attitudes
towards punitive and preventive crime policies. Law Human Behav 30: 435–54.
35. DeBell M, Krosnick JA, Lupia A (2010) Methodology Report and User Guide for the 2008–2009 ANES Panel Study. Stanford Univ. and Univ. Michigan.
36. Nicholson SP, Segura GM (2012) Who’s the Party of the People? Economic
Populism and the U.S. Public’s Beliefs About Political Parties. Political Behavior 34: 369–389.
37. Henry PJ, Sears DO (2002) The Symbolic Racism 2000 Scale. Polit Psychol 23:
253–283.
38. Kleck G (1996) Crime, Culture Conflict and the Sources of Support for Gun Control: A Multilevel Application of the General Social Surveys. Am Behav Sci
39: 387–404.
39. Blanton H, Jaccard J, Klick J, Mellers B, Mitchell G et al. (2009) Strong claims and weak evidence: reassessing the predictive validity of the IAT. J Appl Psychol
94: 567–582.
40. Mitchell G, Tetlock PE (2006) Antidiscrimination law and the perils of mindreading. Ohio State Law J 67: 1023–1121.
Racism, Guns, and Gun Control in US Whites
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 9 October 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 10 | e77552
41. Rothermund K, Wentura D, De Houwer J (2005) Validity of the salience
asymmetry account of the Implicit Association Test: Reply to Greenwald, Nosek, Banaji, and Klauer (2005). J Exper Psychol: Gen 134: 426–430.
42. Vanman EJ, Saltz JL, Nathan LR, Warren JA (2004) Racial discrimination by
low prejudiced Whites: Facial movements as implicit measures of attitudes related to behavior. Psychol Science 11: 711–714.
43. Rezaei AR (2011) Validity and Reliability of the IAT: Measuring Gender and Ethnic Stereotypes. Comput Human Behav 27: 1937–1941.
44. Sabin JA, Nosek BA, Greenwald AG, Rivara FP (2009) Physicians’ implicit and
explicit attitudes about race by MD race, ethnicity, and gender. J Health Care Poor Underserved 20: 896–913.
45. Kinder DR, Ryan TJ (2012) Prejudice and Politics Re-Examined: The Political Significance of Implicit Racial Bias. Prepared for the annual meeting of the
American Political Science Association. New Orleans.
46. Klinesmith J, Kasser T, McAndrew FT (2006) Guns, Testosterone, and
Aggression An Experimental Test of a Mediational Hypothesis. Psychol Science
17: 568–571.
47. Felson R, Paré P (2010) Firearms and Fisticuffs: Region, Race, and Adversary
Effects on Homicide and Assault. Soc Sci Res 39: 272–284.
48. Tang H, Cowling DW, Lloyd JC, Rogers T, Koumjian KL et al. (2003) Changes
of attitudes and patronage behaviors in response to a smoke-free bar law.
J Information 93: 611–617.
49. Heloma A, Jaakkola MS (2003) Four year follow up of smoke exposure, attitudes
and smoking behaviour following enactment of Finland’s national smoke free
work place law. Addiction 98: 1111–1117.
Racism, Guns, and Gun Control in US Whites
PLOS ONE | www.plosone.org 10 October 2013 | Volume 8 | Issue 10 | e77552
