4.8 Article

The limits of racial prejudice

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1308501110

Keywords

social networks; preemptive discrimination; OkCupid; assortative mating

Funding

  1. Division of Research and Faculty Development at Harvard Business School

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The racial segregation of romantic networks has been documented by social scientists for generations. However, because of limitations in available data, we still have a surprisingly basic idea of the extent to which this pattern is generated by actual interpersonal prejudice as opposed to structural constraints on meeting opportunities, how severe this prejudice is, and the circumstances under which it can be reduced. I analyzed a network of messages sent and received among 126,134 users of a popular online dating site over a 2.5-mo period. As in face-to-face interaction, online exchanges are structured heavily by race. Even when controlling for regional differences in meeting opportunities, site users-especially minority site users-disproportionately message other users from the same racial background. However, this high degree of self-segregation peaks at the first stage of contact. First, users from all racial backgrounds are equally likely or more likely to cross a racial boundary when reciprocating than when initiating romantic interest. Second, users who receive a cross-race message initiate more new interracial exchanges in the future than they would have otherwise. This effect varies by gender, racial background, and site experience; is specific to the racial background of the original sender; requires that the recipient replied to the original message; and diminishes after a week. In contrast to prior research on relationship outcomes, these findings shed light on the complex interactional dynamics that -under certain circumstances-may amplify the effects of racial boundary crossing and foster greater interracial mixing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available