Comparing genderblind and colorblind ideologies in public and private contexts

Abstract

AbstractPeople endorse colorblind and genderblind ideologies to appear unbiased toward race or gender, but although they have similar meanings these two ideologies have not been compared across public and private contexts. Given that laws make both gender and race discrimination illegal in public settings, such as schools and workplaces, people may hold similar ideologies in public, professional settings. However, differences in how gender and race are viewed in private contexts, such as friendships or families, could contribute to differential endorsement and use of the ideologies. The current research measured the self‐reported endorsement of genderblind or colorblind ideologies in different contexts (Studies 2 and 3) and a behavioral manifestation of blindness within a decision‐making paradigm (Studies 1, 2, and 3). In this paradigm, participants imagined themselves in an academic and/or social situation and chose which of two targets of different genders or races should join them in a group. Being blind to race or gender involved opting out of this choice. Participants also rated the appropriateness of using gender and race to make these decisions (Study 3). As predicted, in private, social situations participants (a) endorsed colorblindness more than genderblindness, (b) were more likely to show blind decision‐making in cross‐race than cross‐gender choices, and (c) perceived race‐based decisions as more inappropriate than gender‐based decisions. In public (academic and work) situations, colorblind and genderblind measures were equivalent. Thus, people's beliefs about the value of being blind to gender and race differ in social situations and this difference has implications for equality.