Effects of regular and joke dog whistles on perceptions of political candidates

Abstract Our experiment showed a scenario where a White politician used a racist dog whistle (DW) when referring to his Black opponent. We used pilot data to determine DW statements and then tested whether different DWs (joke or regular) would affect perceptions of candidates based on participants’ levels of subtle and explicit racism compared to a comment without racial undertones. Our results indicated that while neither DW affected perceptions of the Black candidate based on participants’ levels of subtle racism, when a regular DW was used, subtle racism was positively associated with more positive perceptions of the White candidate. Our findings can broadly be explained within the context of modern racism and the suppression justification model of prejudice. The presence of a DW served as a prime, allowing those who have subtle anti-Black prejudice to express it through more positive personal perceptions of the White candidate. Without opportunities to justify the expression of their subtle prejudice (i.e. have a non-prejudice reason to dislike the candidate), the participants’ did not report more negative perceptions of the Black candidate. However, there was a “backlash” and participants were less likely to consider voting for the White candidate, particularly when he used a joke DW.