Selected ratings of racial group intelligence from the ANES 2022 Pilot Study

The plot below is based on data from the ANES 2022 Pilot Study, plotting the percentage of particular populations that rated the in-general intelligence of Whites higher than the in-general intelligence of Blacks (black dots) and the percentage of these populations that rated the in-general intelligence of Asians higher than the in-general intelligence of Whites (white dots). For the item wording, see the notes below or page 44 of the questionnaire.

My understanding is that, based on a straightforward / naïve interpretation of educational data such as NAEP scores as good-enough measures of intelligence [*], there isn't much reason to be in the white dot and not in the black dot or vice versa. But, nonetheless, there is a gap between dots in the overall population and in certain populations.

In the plot above, estimated percentages are similar among very conservative Whites and among U.S. residents who attributed to biological differences at least some of the Black-American/Hispanic-American-vs-White-American difference in outcomes in things such as jobs and income. But similar percentages can mask inconsistencies.

For example, among U.S. residents who attributed to biological differences at least some of the Black-American/Hispanic-American-vs-White-American difference in outcomes in things such as jobs and income, about 37% rated Asians' intelligence higher than Whites' intelligence, about 34% rated Whites' intelligence higher than Blacks' intelligence, but only about 14% fell into both of these groups, as illustrated in the second panel below:

The plot below indicates corresponding comparisons for the estimated percentages that rated the in-general intelligence of Whites higher than the in-general intelligence of Blacks (black dots) and the percentage of these populations that rated the in-general intelligence of Asians higher than the in-general intelligence of Blacks (white dots).

---

[*] I can imagine reasons to not be in one or both dots, such as perceptions about the influence of past or present racial discrimination, the relative size of the gaps, flaws in the use of educational data as measures of intelligence, and imperfections in the wording of the ANES item. But I nonetheless thought that it would be interesting to check respondent ratings about racial group intelligence.

---

NOTES

1. Relevant item wording from the ANES 2022 Pilot Study:

Next, we're going to show you a seven-point scale on which the characteristics of the people in a group can be rated. In the first statement a score of '1' means that you think almost all of the people in that group tend to be intelligent.' A score of '7' means that you think most people in the group are 'unintelligent.' A score of '4' means that you think that most people in the group are not closer to one end or the other, and of course, you may choose any number in between. Where would you rate each group in general on this scale?

2. The ANES 2022 Pilot Study had a parallel item about Hispanic-Americans that I didn't analyze, to avoid complicating the presentation.

3. In the full sample, weighted, 13% rated in-general Black intelligence higher than in-general White intelligence (compared to 25% the other way), 8% rated in-general Black intelligence higher than in-general Asian intelligence (compared to 38% the other way), and 10% rated in-general White intelligence higher than in-general Asian intelligence (compared to 35% the other way). Respective equal ratings of in-general intelligence were 62% White/Black, 54% Asian/Black, and 55% Asian/White.

Respondents were coded into a separate category if the respondent didn't provide a rating of intelligence for at least one of the racial groups in a comparison, but almost all respondents provided a rating of intelligence for each racial group.

4. Plots created with R packages: tidyverse, waffle, and patchwork.

5. Data for the ANES 2022 Pilot Study. Stata code and output for my analysis.

6. An earlier draft of the first plot is below, which I didn't like as much, because I thought that it was too wide and not as visually attractive:

7. The shading in the plot below is intended to emphasize the size of the gaps between the estimates within a population, with red indicating reversal of the typical pattern:

8. Plot replacing the legend with direct labels:

9. Bonus plot, while I'm working on visualizations, with this plot comparing ratings about men and women on 0-to-100 feeling thermometers, with confidence intervals for each category, as if the category were plotted as its own percentage: