Overview

This study examines white college students' attitudes toward race-based affirmative action in Brazil, asking whether those attitudes stem from prejudice, intergroup conflict, or individual political predispositions. An indirect questioning technique is used to reduce social desirability bias and produce a more accurate portrait of opinions about quota policies at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC).

📋 Who Was Surveyed and How

• White undergraduate students at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Brazil.
• A list experiment (indirect questioning) was implemented to offset under-reporting and encourage more sincere answers by allowing respondents to answer sensitive questions without directly stating their position.
• Direct survey questions were also collected to compare responses under standard and privacy-enhancing conditions.

📊 What Was Measured

• Support for a quota policy for Black students at UFSC.
• Negative racial attitudes (prejudice) and indicators of intergroup conflict.
• Political predispositions and political knowledge as potential drivers of responses.

🔍 Key Findings

• Responses on affirmative action are strongly affected by social desirability: direct questioning produces low explicit support, with only 6% of white respondents agreeing that a quota policy for Black students at UFSC is important.
• Indirect measurement via the list experiment reveals more candidly held attitudes than direct questions, indicating substantial under-reporting on sensitive racial-policy items.
• Higher levels of political knowledge are associated with greater expressed support for affirmative action and with more coherent (internally consistent) racial attitudes.
• Both negative racial attitudes (prejudice) and stable political predispositions are significant determinants of white students' positions on affirmative action policies.

⚖️ Why It Matters

Findings highlight that measurement choice matters for understanding public opinion on race-targeted policies: social desirability can mask substantial private opposition or ambivalence. For scholars and policymakers, results underscore the need to account for concealed attitudes when assessing public support for affirmative action and when designing interventions to reduce racial exclusion.