-- - — .- ~ ~ v-- _-.-.._ . .-._ ‘.----- -9..v04.-'-0._:o-'-n-0‘~ ' v‘, _.h ‘ - , . . w v“ v. .YWfi -‘ (I f“... _ “‘ . .V.‘1‘;'.—‘-‘v—fi j ‘ BLACK SELF HATE m FRATERNQITY? AND - smomw mum-23m m * AT . I Z r I. . I o o l‘. A . ‘ . ‘ . . I ‘ . I .V . ‘ . i . . . .‘ € I l n . I . - O . A O . I . ‘ v . . O . I v Q . - an . . _ -' . ‘ V _ - . . i I _ n . I - ' t -. O . - O _ - . Esl , . . ‘ I s 0' e‘ ; ’ ' - . . . . —‘ ’ f 5‘ , I I . . o - . . A . . A ‘ I n ’ I . ’ n ' ' . a_ v ‘ ' I . . ' ' ‘ I a o . . . v-n ‘ _ . . . I ; . I- _ _ . _ ,. . . . ' , . . - _ _ - u ' . . . . - o u l ' . I . . ‘ . ' l ' r '. . I u ' ‘ a ' . - " _ . _ . I . ' _. . . . . . . , , .. - _ . -‘ . . I , , I - ' ‘ r I. u. . . . ’ . . . - _ _ .- " ' ' ' , .. o . . v o ‘ ~.u- ~ I ' . . -- , . I- _ , ... . . I ‘- . _ . . . . . ..- ’ . I ‘ - ' C I . _ on . f v “ I- ‘ -. O - ' } ‘ I - . .. .. . - I" .. . ‘_ . - . I u - n . ’ ' . ' . . 4. . , .o a . . o n . , ‘ ‘ , , -~ 4 ‘ .' . I V I ' I . i i -. v' v' v ' f ' -- k . - I . r “ I- o , ‘,' “.. -‘ ‘ I l . - , _ ' ‘ . . .0, c, .. ~- . ‘ 3 . I ‘ . ‘ . . . "u- . ‘ . ' . y _ v0. - — . I ' ' . . ' , .. ‘ ,. . . a . ' . .- § ‘ . ’ . . .. p, -. -... c- . - ’ - '. ’ -. ‘ - - ' ' n‘ . C. ‘ c ‘- .. ~ I ‘ . . ‘ . ". ' . l l g -r a . /‘ ..»‘ ya" ‘ I . . I - . . . ‘ . ‘ _ , . . . o n . . . a ' ‘ ' ‘ I.. . .. .no . — 7‘ -.r‘ . . ' - ' 0 " 1" - ’ ‘ ' ,.-- .. . - ..-.-. :- O ‘ . . 1 ' c . . ' ' r' . '4. __ -. _ , - . .. . ‘ ‘ . ' .-'-‘f - ._ " .. - 1 h t . ' . . r ~ - ' ; . I . ' u l ‘ - . . . . ‘ .v - r r . -.. . _ — . - . o o. ¢ . . . . . - . 0" “’ ' 7 ~'. 4~ .. . 'l ' ' ‘0 I . I ,, h. » .1 . Oc~ I '0 ' . ‘ ' ,..' . _.II I,,.., . .- k I I ‘ ' ‘ . " I 7" ' ' . , - , 't-a. . r . qu-a'; >1 l ., . I . _ -, ,, . . . - . . ' . 4 r '— —-:~-r- . I . . 'I. .. ‘ O ' ' l n o .. on. ,- g, 4 - ~ . . "r . f g . . . .. . . (. “ " ‘ . . ._. , _ . -._:1 ' .«A, ° - a. ' . ' ' - ' ’ ’ ' ' , ‘ ., .1 .- -.‘-p ,. .. ' ' ‘ ~ ' ‘ . . I ' .' ' - ' " .. . - -.. r . or (--0. -- " ’ . 0“ .. ' .." ‘ ' . . ‘ , . >J. ' ‘1 .' O ' V' ‘ ”I . . r . _ v . .. ,..n . .o I; .0. V. .‘ 'r . . '. ‘-. . .. 'J' . I. . . . . u , . l I ~ . . _. .. . , . . . . . .... ,. . — n . . - I‘ , u . -. 0 .. .. .. . ' U . . . . a z-- 0: - ' . . .. ba- . . ft - P l , -. ., u | - 4| > I o . - n . p . . - .‘ .'- c ~ . ' an . . . ‘ , .. .. . . - . , ..po ‘ . - I. . , I, . A I L . A . . ‘ ‘ . . 5‘ -g, ‘.n o 0' . - . ‘. I D' ' 'l” L . l l I O ' " I . . , . . . . .o. . D. . . . .. . . . ~ ' . . . . . .. . . ‘ ‘ o . . . a .n r u. | .. ' u . I I . n v ‘ o . . . . , v . I . c- v - D ‘ -I '0. < a ’ I ’ ' ' ‘ - ... ,. .. n - D v o -‘- n - . . . ~ I. ., . ‘ . , .., I. . . I I r .1 D . .V . ...,, ,,-. I . ; c c- ; Jla, .. ' . a . . .. . . .. a 4 . . I. . I . .. .. ..4-- v v ‘ ' " N . l ‘ a, .. 4. ¢. .. l. n l 03-90 b A -v . I. I n . o 0- "- O" u- .. o. . .' . . . , .o-. la . ‘ y- l ' ' . u o '. . . , I a. , a -. a u u , . . , .. ,. . . ... '04- .-. .. on... a - I . ca . . .>9. 0 n . - ' ' - . -n u . o. .. .. o o l‘ I ' ' 'I' p . . ... . ' o - u »----0 , u . I. I . .. . .. -- . . c a--‘ a o ' . . . ‘ v- . . .‘ v ._ . . .. ‘.‘. . '7‘- .,-'-~oyv'.\\' ‘ I . g ' o I . O— .O u - Q a... o -O t " "n‘...'*>."'- ....c.’ -- .. ~ - - ' .. _ . . --' -' . o - . -“ ' ". - . pal l . . '- u .. , . n. . ..,,.n - o- . o ... . o. v " T"*l-""."‘;’;; . . I I . . _ _ . . . . 0.09- . . | a . ... . - .ggo . ., |o'~ . - . v.’ ‘ - ' ‘ ' -"O‘d'. ".Y-’. | .‘ . v. . ‘ . ... . ~ I - ‘0 ' ‘- O . . . . . 4.: . o . .- ..'., . l - ~-- a-n. . V .v. . v ,, o o . . -.. ._.._ '. .. . . . ‘ . a. - . g ‘ . . ' v .0 no: . ' 'Ill' . - I - I I 0‘. I I -b n“ U'. ". I . - . . . . . . . v ol‘. - , . l r . - N .74 v»— '- - a ' ' - . C .v' .0-- -—o.oo- .-- ,, 9-. -- ’ ' ' I .I A . I .I. .. I' _ .. . . o -. ,'.; u-u .. V. .9 l ’ ° " “'.‘. .‘.'_-.....- .’ou.o-d .‘ ' . . .. . . . - .. . , .. n— - :0... ~ ' ‘_ po.- o-¢¢ooQD-p "".'.""-" _ . . . I . . _. . al-b. 4..‘ ' - .I’ ... I l. , [I Q! I”!!! W! WM 1% fl” "1le ((1!le II x} g ,f’" r13? }‘,1-- ,{jdflj 0 SUN: 1 4 .2005 ..‘- f" .L ,3. U 1.”: ABSTRACT BLACK SELF HATE IN FRATERNITY AND SORORITY AFFILIATES AND IN INDEPENDENT UNDERGRADUATES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BY Craig Kenneth Polite The present study was designed to examine what effect the recent black pride movement had on the cogni- tive structure of self esteem among black undergraduates. Fraternity and sorority affiliates as well as independent undergraduates at Michigan State University were tested on a number of variables relevant to self concept, fra— ternity membership and esteem in which the subject holds his ethnic group. It was hypothesized that black under- graduates would evaluate "Blacks" in as positive a manner as they would evaluate "White Protestants." It was also hypothesized that fraternity and sorority affiliates would evaluate "Blacks" in a less favorable manner than would their independent counterparts. Craig Kenneth Polite The subjects included in the present study were ninety—six (96) black undergraduates. Forty—five (45) of the subjects were independent undergraduates while the remaining fifty-one (51) were members of a social fraternity or sorority, representing 2% of undergraduate blacks at Michigan State University. Measures of the esteem in which individuals hold themselves and other ethnic groups were taken through the use of the semantic differential (Osgood, 1957). Five concepts, Blacks, Negro, White Protestants, Me, and Ideal Self, were eval- uated across twenty—two (22) bi-polar adjectives. The data were collected by three procedures. The independent subjects were recruited through intro- ductory psychology and education courses as well as through a random sampling of dormitories. These sub- jects completed the questionnaire at their convenience and returned it to either their instructor during the next class meeting, or to a designated individual in their dormitory. The fraternity and sorority samples completed the questionnaire during one of their regu— larly scheduled meetings with the experimenter present during their completion. Craig Kenneth Polite For the five relationships tested, statistical analysis demonstrated that: 1) Blacks evaluated "Blacks" more positively than they evaluated "White Protestants"; 2) the more positive the evaluation of "Me" the larger the distance score between "Blacks" and "White Protes- tants"; 3) there was no relationship between the distance score between "Me" and "Ideal Self" and the way the sub— jects evaluated "Blacks"; 4) there was no difference in the way independents and fraternity and sorority affil— iates evaluated "Blacks"; and 5) the distance score be- tween "Blacks" and "Negro" was equal for both indepen- dents and fraternity or sorority members, both groups rating "Blacks" in a consistently more favorable manner than "Negro." The results were discussed in terms of the model proposed by Kurt Lewin (1948). He held that changes in ethnic group self concept were related to the amount of positive and/or negative chauvinism exhibited by the ethnic group. These changes occurred as a result of the shifting of the value orientation of the ethnic group involved. Craig Kenneth Polite The results of this research were criticized on the grounds of the sampling procedure employed and in regard to the external validity (generalizability) of the results and tOpics for future research were suggested. Approved: VKAMVMCMIX~ (ttkAfiaxme ‘3 Date: 1C1)“ /MCKV\ \C‘ivfl ~J Thesis Committee: Dr. Raymond Cochraneu‘Chairman Dr. Jeanne E. Gullahorn Dr. Eugene Jacobson BLACK SELF HATE IN FRATERNITY AND SORORITY AFFILIATES AND IN INDEPENDENT UNDERGRADUATES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BY Craig Kenneth Polite A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1971 c c. if ‘7 7 To My Family ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Dr. Raymond Cochrane for his always open door, his tremendous help, guidance, and encouragement in every stage of this project. Also my deepest appreciation goes to Dr. Jeanne Gullahorn for her help with a lot of the details that are involved with projects of this nature. A note of thanks should also go to Dr. Eugene Jacobson whose intellectual eXper— tise and challenging conversation did much to improve the quality of this research. Last, but definitely not least, my thanks go to a fellow graduate student, Mr. Bernard Silverman, without whose help this project would never have been attempted. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 BLACK SELF HATE . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 5 PAST SYMBOLS OF ACHIEVEMENT WITHIN THE BLACK COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES: A REVIEW OF ATTITUDES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 THE MEASUREMENT OF CONCEPTS AND ATTITUDES: THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL . . . . . . . . . . 23 SUMMARY AND HYPOTHESES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 THE LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . . 50 A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR SELF HATRED. . . . . 53 BLACKS' EVALUATION OF "BLACKS" AND OF "WHITE PROTESTANTS". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Page EFFECTS OF THE VARIABLE SELF CONCEPT. . . . . . 60 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRATERNITY AND SORORITY AFFILIATES AND INDEPENDENT UNDERGRADUATES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 FUTURE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 APPENDIX A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 APPENDIX B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 APPENDIX C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. EVALUATION OF "BLACKS" AND OF "WHITE PROTESTANTS". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 2. THE EVALUATION OF "ME" IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE DISTANCE SCORE BETWEEN "BLACKS" AND "WHITE PROTESTANTS" . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISTANCE SCORE FOR "ME" AND "IDEAL SELF" AND THE EVALUATION OF "BLACKS". . . . . . . . . . . 47 4. FRATERNITY AND INDEPENDENT AVERAGE EVALUA- TION OF "BLACKS". . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5. DISCREPANCY SCORES BETWEEN RATINGS OF "BLACK” AND "NEGRO" BY FRATERNITY AND INDEPENDENT STUDENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . 49 INTRODUCT ION Kardiner and Ovesey (1962, 302) maintain that it is a consistent feature of human personality that it tends to become organized about the main problem of adaptation and this main problem tends to polarize all other aspects of adaptation toward itself. The central problem of Negro adaptation is oriented toward the discrimination he suffers and the consequences of this discrimination for the self referential aspects of his social orientation. In simple words, it means that his self-esteem suffers because he is constantly receiving an unpleasant image of himself from the behavior of others toward him. In the past and to some extent today, the dominant ethnic group, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, have had, generally, very negative feelings toward black people. Their feelings toward blacks have manifested themselves in the form of slavery, the Ku Klux Klan, segregation, jim crowism, lynchings, and many other forms of physical and mental brutality. As a result of these negative 1 interactions with whites, many black peOple have developed a very low opinion of themselves and of other blacks, as demonstrated in a number of studies done between the 1930's and the 1960's. Today, with so much emphasis being placed on black pride and black cultural development, many of these feelings of inadequacy and worthlessness should be changing. Edwards (1970, 8) notes that astonishingly enough, many middle—class Negroes today still manifest an anti— black "hang up" over skin color. He maintains that de— spite such affirmations as "Black is Beautiful" and "I'm Black and I'm proud" permeating black society, many Negro middle-class members not only voice preferences for lighter skin color, but in their more candid moments will boast of their kinship ties to white forebears who osten- sibly enjoyed high status in the anti—bellum southern aristocracy. Today this exaggerated salience of skin color is not so much a reflection of the advantages for— merly gained by having light—colored skin in a racist white society, as it is a manifestation of the psycho- logical insecurities of some middle-class American Negroes. Many whites today eXpect blacks from all classes and age groups to be militant, defiant, and overtly arrogant about, and proud of, their kinky hair and black skin, whatever its hue may in fact be. Yet many older, middle- class Negroes cling to this vestige of an era when light skin, in and of itself, was an advantage both inside black society as well as outside of it, possibly in order to maintain their separation from the black masses, who tend to be dark skinned. This study will investigate the present status of self hate among black undergraduates. It is expected that, as a result of the black pride movement that has gripped the nation since 1964, an unfavorable image of "Blacks" by black undergraduates does not exist. It would be further eXpected that, since the pride movement, blacks exhibit the normal variations in both self and in ethnic group concept. It is expected that there would be a pos- itive relationship between satisfaction with self and the evaluation of one's ethnic group. The following literature review will examine rel— evant empirical findings and will present the theoretical rationale for the aforementioned expectations. The areas I will examine are: 1) Black self hate, 2) Past symbols of achievement within the black community, 3) Fraternities and Sororities: A review of attitudes, and 4) The mea- surement of concepts and attitudes: The Semantic Differ- ential. LITERATURE REVIEW BLACK SELF HATE In his analysis of the psychological considera- tions of color conflicts among Negroes, Bovell (1943) maintains that the white races fear they may be inferior to the colored races, and, therefore, they bolster their belief in their own superiority by making whiteness a prestige symbol and by exploiting the colored groups. Accepting the color standards of the white group, the Negro race in turn discriminates against its darker members. Bovell predicts that color conflicts will con- tinue among Negroes as long as they live in a white dom— inated culture and as long as differences in complexion exist among them. Parrish (1946) reported that several hundred color names were prevalent among Negroes, but only three to five widely recognized color categories have stereotypes at— tached to them. Light skin and other physical traits approximating those of Caucasians were highly regarded in 5 the Negro community. Extremely light skin color, however, evoked envy and resentment from darker persons who attri- bute conceit and snobbishness to those with light skin. Among Negroes, those with darker skins are condemned for being quarrelsome and pitied for their feelings of infer- iority. Three out of five Negroes considered ”Black" the worst color to be. Favorable attitudes toward persons of medium shades is a compromise between rejection of both light and dark. Parrish concludes that these color no— tions arose because dark skin color was associated with low status. Williams (1964) reports the connotations of color names among Negroes and Caucasians. Using the semantic differential, he demonstrates highly significant differ- ences in the connotative meanings of five "race—related" and five control color names. The "race—related" names are "Black," "White,” "Brown," "Yellow," and "Red"; while the color control names are ”Blue," "Green," "Purple," "Orange," and "Grey." For all colors, semantic differ- ential scores are virtually identical for Caucasian stu- dents studies in the South and in the Midwest. ReSponses of the pooled Caucasian group (both south and midwestern subjects) and a southern Negro group were shown to be greatly similar with many small but significant differ- ences. In both groups, the colors "White" and "Black” were shown to differ markedly in evaluative meaning with the former being rated quite "good" and the latter some- what "bad." In summary, Williams concluded that this finding was related to the custom of designating Negroes as "Black Persons" and Caucasians as "White Persons," or, in general, rating things associated with black as bad and those associated with white as good. Gregor and McPherson (1966) studied racial pre— ference and ego identity in the Republic of South Africa. A variation of the Clark Doll Test was administered to assess the attitudes of an eXperimental population of 160 subjects, including thirty white/subjects ages 5-7, 65 rural Bantu subjects, and 74 urban Bantu subjects ages 3-7. The urban Bantu subjects were further divided into two groups of 33 subjects who had intermediate interra- cial contact and 41 subjects in a maximum interracial contact situation. The white subjects evidenced ethno- centric attitude reSponses, showing systematic preference for the dolls who possessed their own socioperceptual traits. All white subjects identified themselves with the white dolls. The black subjects evidenced xenocentric attitudes showing systematic preferences for the white dolls. Their preferences were not significantly different from those of the white subjects. There was a significant difference in the degree of identity confusion, that is, confusion as to the prOper attitudes and values, between the rural and urban Bantu. Identity confusion seems pos- itively correlated with the degree and intensity of inter— racial contact. James Martin (1964) studied racial ethnocentrism and the judgment of beauty. In his study he took samples of American Caucasian males, American Negro males, African (Nigerian) males and compared them on rankings of photo- graphs of Negro females according to facial beauty. These rankings were compared with rankings of the females by social scientists as to degree of negroidness. The beauty rankings of American Negroes and whites were correlated +.86; American Negroes and Africans +.44; and Africans and American whites +.64. It was also noted that all three samples rated least Negroid females as the most attrac— tive. The connotations of racial concepts and color names were studied by Williams (1966). Using the semantic differential, he employed fourteen concepts: He selected five concepts for their relevance to color and to color persons. These are Negro, Caucasian, Indian (Asiatic), Oriental, Indian (American). He selected four concepts for their ethnic national meaning. These are American, African, Chinese, Japanese. He selected five additional concepts for their general reference. These concepts are Citizen, Foreigner, Friend, Enemy, and Person. This study compared the connotative meaning of triads of color— linked concepts consisting of color names (e.g., black), color-person (e.g., black person) and ethnic concept (e.g., Negro). For Caucasian subjects studied in both the South and the Midwest, color—linked concepts were substantially more similar in meaning than were non—color— linked concepts (e.g., citizen). The evaluative (good- bad) connotations of ethnic concept were predictable from their associated color names. While Caucasian subjects saw each triad of color, code, and related concept as belonging to the same "meaning family" blacks did not. While agreeing with whites on meanings of color names 10 presented in non-racial context, they reSponded to racial constructs in a different manner than whites (e.g., black person and good were rated in a similar manner). The findings were interpreted as indicating that the color- coding of racial groups is related to the perception of these groups and the favorability toward them. In a case study presented by Kardiner and Ovesey (1962, 177) the dynamics of Black self hatred are vividly demonstrated. In this case they present W. S. who is a dark brown, 27—year-old government clerk. He is meticu— lously dressed in clothing far more eXpensive than his white collar status would warrant. Often the eXpression on his face is "dead-pan" and emotionally flat. In their summary of the case they hold that the frustrations the Negro has in his social role relative to whites increases the hostility and competitiveness between Negro and Negro. Another reason for his failure in his social relations with Negroes is that in every Negro he encounters his own projected self contempt. As he put it: "I can't get along with people because of the high standards I set. I know that prevents me from feeling an attachment to anyone else." He feels free to be critical and exacting 11 about every other Negro. It is as though he says: "You are no better than I am. You should all be what I want to be. If you were, I could reSpect you." Kardiner and Ovesey maintain that this expression is not one of self assertion but rather only one of projected self hatred. In regard to this study, they answer the question that one might ask: in what way does this particular person— ality scheme differ from that of a white man? They hold that it differs only in one respect. It is possible to find a white man with the same psychological constella- tions, but it would be hard to find one in whom the social Opportunities are so completely blocked. The subject's low self-esteem is not due to his persistent incompetence, but to a situation for which he is blameless-—the caste system. In another case study presented by Kardiner and Ovesey (1962, 179) a different form of black self hatred was demonstrated. R. R. was an unpaid subject, a 26—year- old veteran, seeking technological training. He is mod— erately tall, athletically built, and quite handsome. He has distinctively Negroid features, a very light tan skin, and characteristic kinky hair. Superficially he 12 appears well poised. He has a fine speaking voice, but as he talks he does not look at the interviewer. Rather he keeps his gaze averted. It was found that the subject describes the status and color conflict of the middle- class Negro with remarkable accuracy and completeness. He has two introjected images: the white man and the colored man. In this particular case the father because of his light skin is able to represent both. Each of these images has strong ambivalent feelings attached to it: hatred and love. R. R. tries to diSpose of the hatred aspects of both by projecting them into the outer world. This maneuver enables him to say, "It is not my- self that I hate, but rather the other fellow, the darker Negro." However, he cannot love the introjected white object either. In the end, he is left with nothing within himself that he can love. The resultant self hatred is all too frequently the common lot of many Negroes. The cases presented by Kardiner and Ovesey and posited as examples of black self hate can be criticized on a number of grounds. There seems to be a number of other explanations of the phenomena presented here. Liggett and Cochrane (1968, 4) maintain that in addition 13 to clear statements of factual information, a case history inevitably contains statements which represent the inves- tigator's Opinion or interpretations of the client's situa— tion and these are inevitably colored by the particular theoretical preconceptions of the investigator. These investigators furthermaintain that frequently case his- tories also include an account of presumed pressures on the client—-from housing or neighborhood conditions, low income or unsatisfactory employment or domestic stress, or from friends, neighbors, or religious groups. These criticisms of the case study method are not to say that the evidence presented by Kardiner and Ovesey is of little or no value. We know that the case study method is an invaluable tool in the study of human behavior; however, it is suggested that the worth of the case study be as— sessed in full light of the criticism so often leveled against this method. E. Franklin Frazier (1957, 210) noted that in fact many middle-class Negroes would deny having the desire to 'be white since this would be an admission of their feel— ings of inferiority. However, when the attitudes of this class toward the physical traits or the social l4 characteristics of Negroes are studied, it becomes clear that the black bourgeoisie do not really wish to be iden- tified with Negroes. He also notes that both men and women among the black bourgeoisie have a feeling of in— security because of their constant loss of status. Since they have no status in the larger American society, the intense struggle for status among middle-class Negroes is, as we have seen, an attempt to compensate for the contempt of whites; great value is therefore placed upon all kinds of status symbols. Academic degrees, both real and hon— orary, are sought to secure status. Frazier's work, which may easily be considered the most pOpular work done on the Negro and his society, has one prime limitation. Although he is very graphic in his descriptions and interpretations of Negro atti- tudes and life, he rarely if ever presents hard data to substantiate his assertions. This reduces much of his work to the realm of Speculation, and it should be treated as such. Noel (1964) studied group identification among Negroes. He maintained that group identification is char- acterized as a multi-dimensional phenomenon composed of 15 several types of group pride and group diSparagement. Data from 515 Negro respondents provided independent measures of militant pride and general disparagement enabling classification of the respondents as positive, negative, or ambivalent in their pattern of group iden— tification. Analysis indicated that positive identifi— cation with minority in—group is positively associated with social class. NAACP membership and interracial so— cial contact are negatively associated with frustration, authoritarianism, and generalized prejudice. It was concluded that the correlates of group identification vary significantly with the type of identification. Maliver (1965) studied anti-Negro bias among Negro college students. In an attempt to test the iden- tification with the aggressor hypothesis among Negroes, 160 northern and southern Negro males grouped by accept- ance or rejection of anti—Negro statements were compared on 23 personality variables. The predicted relationship between degree of anti-Negro bias and the variables Per— ception of Father, Fear of Rejection, and Absence of Fears was upheld. Accordingly, the general hypotheses about differences in self and parental percept and method of 16 coping with hostile interpersonal attack were rejected. Actual membership in civil rights organizations and par— ticipation in anti-segregation activities were found to vary, negatively, with anti—Negro bias. Lastly, Dennis (1968) studied racial change in Negro drawings. In his study, drawings of a man were obtained from an introductory psychology class at Howard University in 1957 and a comparable class in 1967. Only the drawings made by Negroes were considered. No clear cut representations of Negroes were obtained in 1957. In 1967, 18% of the drawings definitely represented Ne- groes. The findings are interpreted as a reflection in drawings of the recent black pride movement. PAST SYMBOLS OF ACHIEVEMENT WITHIN THE BLACK COMMUNITY Zanden (1966, 428) addressed himself to the prob- lem of status achievement within the black community. He holds that some minority group members undertake the cul- tivation of status symbols as a substitute for actual status in the society at large. In many cases minority 17 groups may seek to inflate their egos and self respect by overcompensation. Fraternal organizations with pomp, ritual and status—exalting ranks and titles held a spe- cial appeal to many EurOpean immigrants. Similarly, he notes, Negro voluntary associations and churches often afford Negroes an Opportunity for self expression and status recognition and an avenue to compete for prestige, to hold office, to execute power, and to win applause and acclaim. Along this same line, E. Franklin Frazier (1957, 385) noted that membership in a Greek letter society gives one a certain status in the community; however, it is no longer an indication of upper-class status. It represents rather a striving for status and the achievement of some recognition on the part of the middle—class and even some lower—class Negroes who gain at least the symbols of an improved status. Frazier notes further that as a rule upper-class Negroes continue to control the Greek letter societies. Although these societies continue to place considerable emphasis on social activities, they have increasingly influenced the Opinions and attitudes of Negroes toward their problems. Frazier (1966, 332) notes 18 other forms of status striving in his book The Negro Family in the United States. He maintains that in the absence of traditions along occupational lines, the var- ious occupational classes strive to maintain standards of consumption set by the economically better situated members of the middle—class society. Since standards of consumption are regarded as an index to success in busi- ness and the professions, they determine to some extent the status of individuals and families in the middle—class; therefore among this class there is much striving involv— ing debt on houses, clothes, and furniture to maintain an appearance of wealth. Zanden (1966, 430) holds that status may be sought through "being seen" at exclusive places, having long fingernails (which takes one out of the manual laboring class), joining clubs, and counting prominent peOple as friends. Negro neWSpapers' society pages reflect the love for positions of social prominence and for membership in clubs with high sounding and mysterious titles. Some typical club and lodge names are The Original SOphisti— cated Eight, Les Jolies Jeune Filles, Twentieth Century Cavaliers, Sons and Daughters of Moses, etc. l9 Frazier (1966, 327) maintains that, in fact, since education is the chief means by which the Negro escapes from the masses into the middle—class, it is not surpris- ing that the colleges uphold middle—class traditions. He also notes that in the North, where the status of the members of the middle—class is not fixed and where they do not enjoy a privileged position behind the walls of racial segregation, one may find considerable instability in personality organization. FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES: A REVIEW OF ATTITUDES Scott (1965) studied the American college soror— ity. He noted that too often the fraternities and to a lesser extent the sororities have failed to come to terms with the central aim of a university: the develOpment and dissemination of knowledge. He maintains that the time-wasting prOpensities of fraternities and particularly of the sororities demonstrate sheer genius in the art of organizing trivia. The rigid separation between the aca- demic and social, which fraternities and sororities tend to insist upon, empties both phases of life of meaning; 20 too often the fraternity system encourages the complacent acceptance of pious platitudes for gOSpel truth and pur- sues surface values. Katz's (1930, 198) study of student attitudes showed that among the reasons for coming to college, the scholarly purposes of college training came to the fore more frequently among "neutrals" than among fraternity students. Relatively more "neutrals" than fraternity members indicated they valued scholarship, intellectual ability and industry; whereas fraternity members tended to emphasize pOpularity and influence in extra—curricular activities. Fraternity members had a slightly greater prOportion of students among their number who doubted that honor grades were obtained by intelligence combined with hard work. Miller (1959), as cited in Feldman and Newcomb (1969, 209), studied academic climate and student values. Comparing white Greeks and independents across a number of colleges he found that not only were fraternity members typically less pro—civil rights than independents, but that the differences between the two groups were smallest for the freshman class, and became progressively greater 21 with each class in college. Generally Speaking, he says that fraternity members at these same colleges were more politically and economically conservative than indepen— dents, and in comparisons at different college class levels, the differences between the two groups were much larger for seniors than they were for juniors or SOpho— mores. Adams (1965), as reported by Feldman and Newcomb (1969, 219), found that in three different years (62, 63, 64) fraternity students at Michigan State University were somewhat more likely than students not in fraternities to have "collegiate" orientations and somewhat less likely to have "academic” or "nonconformist" orientations. He notes, however, that the differences were significant, statistically, for only one of the three years, 1964. Levine and Sussmann (1960) as reported by Feldman and Newcomb (1969, 197), found an interesting interaction of sociability and socioeconomic status at a select tech— nical college. Both family income and gregariousness affected the rates at which students at this school ap- plied for membership and were accepted into social fra- ternities. Both the realtively wealthy youth, regardless 22 of his sociability, and the relatively poor youth, who was sociable in a preferred way, were more acceptable than were students who were both poor and socially in— eXperienced. Miller (1958) studied differences between male Greeks and independents at a number of colleges and uni- versities regarding their attitudes toward civil rights, labor, and political—economic issues. Using separate multi—item scales to measure ”liberalism" he found that independents were more liberal than Greeks in each of the three areas, and in general this held when controlling for such variables as socioeconomic status, religion of students, and type of college. However, he noted certain exceptions and interactions. While Jewish independents were more pro-civil rights than Jewish Greeks at all levels of socioeconomic status, among Protestant students of low socioeconomic status, fraternity students were more pro—civil rights than were non—affiliates. Although in— dependents were more pro—civil rights than were fraternity members at both Ivy League and state supported colleges, the differences between the two groups of students were greater at the former than at the latter schools. 23 In a concluding statement on their review of fra- ternity attitudes, Feldman and Newcomb (1969, 222) hold that in general the results of studies involving Greek letter fraternities are ambiguous. Most clearly shown is the tendency for members of Greek letter groups, in com— parison with other students, to come from higher social and economic backgrounds, to be more gregarious personally and active in campus affairs, and to be more self confi- dent and self assertive. In some of the studies, Greeks, in comparison to independents, have been found to be more socially, politically, and economically conservative, more prejudiced, and less academically and intellectually oriented. THE MEASUREMENT OF CONCEPTS AND ATTITUDES: THE SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL The semantic differential was develOped to measure the meaning that particular words or concepts have to people. According to Nunnally (1967, 540), meaning is a global term: in the ultimate it includes all possible reactions that peOple have to words or things. There are, 24 however, some facets of meaning that can be usefully dis- cussed with reSpect to the semantic differential. It is useful to distinguish three overlapping facets of meaning: 1) denotation, 2) connotation, and 3) association. Deno— tation concerns an objective description of an object in terms of its well defined characteristics. Connotation involves the implications the Object in question has for a particular person. Overlapping with denotation and connotation is association. It consists of other subjects that are brought to mind when an individual sees or hears about a particular object. The semantic differential measures primarily the connotative aspects of meaning particularly the evaluative connotations of objects. For that purpose, it is considered by many to be a valid mea- sure of the connotative meaning of words and concepts. Osgood (1957, 20) states that the semantic differ- ential is essentially a combination of controlled associa— tion and scaling procedures. The subject is provided with a concept to be differentiated and a scale of bi-polar adjectives against which to do it, his only task being to indicate, for each item (pairing of a concept with a scale), the direction of his association and its intensity on a seven—step scale. 25 Osgood (1957, 29) notes that the Operationally simple procedure proves to be complex behaviorally. The location of a concept in the semantic Space defined by a set of factors is equated with the evocation by the con— cept of a set of component mediating reactions. Direction in Space is equated to what mediators are evoked (from among reciprocally antagonistic pairs), and distance from the origin is equated to how intensely these are evoked. Each position on one of the semantic differential scales is assumed to be associated with a complex of mediating reactions, the dominant component depending on the polar terms, x and y, and its intensity depending upon the qualifiers, "extremely" or "quite," etc. These different mediators are associated, in encoding, with checking the various scale positions. Through the functioning of a generalization principle, the concept will elicit checking of that position whose dominant mediator component most closely matches in intensity the correSponding component in the process associated with the concept itself. Since the position checked on the scales constitutes the coor— dinates of the concept's location in semantic Space, we' assume the coordinates in the measurement Space are 26 functionally equivalent with the components of the repre— sentational mediation process associated with this con- cept. Nunnally (1967, 536) states that numerous factor analytic studies of semantic differential scales lead to the conclusion that there are three major factors of meaning involved. The factors do not always have exactly the same content in different studies and in some studies more than three prominent factors are found. The remark- able fact, however, is that three factors with similar content have occurred in so many analyses under such varied conditions. The most frequently found factor is the evaluative factor. It is defined by pairs of adjec— tives like the following: good-bad, faireunfair, wise- foolish, honest-dishonest, etc. This is generally the strongest factor in the semantic differential, accounting for the greatest prOportion of variance. The second strongest factor is potency, including such adjective pairs as strong-weak, light—heavy, masculine-feminine, etc. The third strongest factor is activity, defined by such adjective pairs as active—passive, tense-relaxed, quick-slow, etc. 27 Grigg (1959) studied the validity of the semantic differential technique. The purpose of the study was to test whether the semantic differential scores of a group of normal subjects reflected greater distance between "ideal self" and "neurotic" than between "self" and "neu— rotic" and whether semantic differential scores obtained when judging an actual case of neurosis would shift in a predicted direction as a result of experimental manipula— tion of the basis of judgment. It was hypothesized that the experimental subjects' second rating of Miss X (a neurotic) would be closer to their meaning for neurotic than their first rating and the control group would show no change. Forty-two psychology undergraduates were subjects. After rating concepts of self, ideal self, and neurotic, they rated Miss X after reading a carefully edited, highly favorable selection. Then 30 subjects read a selection identifying her as a neurotic and rated her again, while a control group rated her again without reading the second passage. The results indicated that normals place their ideal self significantly further from the concept of 28 neurotic than they place their concept of self. Secondly, it was found that the experimental group placed Miss X closer to the neurotic rating after their second reading than the first. No Significant change appeared in the control group's ratings. It was concluded that the re- sults were favorable to the validity of the semantic dif- ferential. That is, we know that when peOple know someone is ill they tend to ascribe those characteristics of the illness that they think the person should have and this was reflected in their semantic differential reSponses. Smith (1963) also did a validation of the semantic differential. In testing the validity of the general speech rating scale (Smith, 1959), which is in the seman- tic differential form, he had instructors rank students in 18 sections of basic Speech according to Speaking ability. The two best and the two worst from each sec- tion formed the pOpulation of Speakers of interest. The students and their instructors completed the general speech rating form. A significant relationship was found between the two groups of subjects and the subjects' rating of them— selves as speakers. A significant relationship was also 29 found between the two groups of subjects and their in- structors' ratings of their Speaking ability. The stability characteristics of the semantic differential were studied by Norman (1959). The purpose of this study was to investigate the stability of the semantic differential over time and subjects using data from the atlas of semantic differential profiles and D values of 360 concepts. Eighteen groups of 30 subjects each rated single sets of 20 concepts from random groupings of atlas con— cepts. After four weeks subjects performed the task again. The choice of concepts from the atlas rather than a sampling of individuals' concepts permitted determina- tion of subjects' sampling variability on ratings and D values with effects due to concept and scales held con— stant. The results indicated consistency of individuals' ratings: the average Shift was slightly more than one scale unit. It was concluded that group mean ratings and D's Show high stability over time in absence of systematic intervening treatment. Changes in perception of self and others during human relations training were studied by Burke and 3O Bennis (1961), using the following concepts: 1) the way I actually am in this T-group; 2) the way I would like to be in this T-group; and 3) my perception of others in the T-group. After training, the profile similarity between perceived actual self and perceived ideal self increased. Changes in perceived actual self were greater than the changes in perceived ideal self. Kjeldergaard (1961) studied the attitudes toward newscasters as measured by the semantic differential. To accomplish this a group of 20 adults, 9 men and 11 women, watched a new television news program on a closed channel hook—up in a TV studio. Semantic differential ratings were obtained at three different times: prior to the pro— gram, immediately following the program, and 15 weeks later. The results indicated: 1) For an individual who did not appear on the program, but with whom the entire .group was familiar, the instrument Showed highly reliable and consistent results. 2) This technique proved to be extremely sensitive to the changes in verbal stereotypes which took place as a result of watching the preview. The post program ratings accurately predicted the follow—up 31 ratings. 3) There was an indication of both "face val— idity" and corroborating evidence from interviews attest— ing to the validity of the technique. Kelley and Levy (1961) studied the discriminabil- ity of concepts differentiated by means of the semantic differential. Kelley maintains that implied in the use of the semantic differential is the assumption that the profiles generated by means of it reflect the connotative components of the concepts or stimuli so depicted and that distance between two profiles would vary directly as the difference in the connotative meaning of their referents vary. It was the aim of this study to test this hypothesis. To test this, subjects were presented with a number of semantic differential profiles, each of which was accompanied by a pair of alternative concepts that differed from each other by varying degrees as indicated by the D score. In each case, one member of the pair of concepts was represented by the profiles and it was the subjects' task to determine for each profile which con— cept was represented. The results indicate that the means between the three groups were significantly different from each other. 32 It was concluded that the assumption that the semantic differential profile reflects some aSpect of the meaning of the concept depicted by it appears to be justified. It was further concluded that it points to an upper limit of validity of some semantic differential procedures. Lastly, MaClay and Ware (1961) studied the cross- cultural use of the semantic differential. The purpose of this study was to eXplore the cross-cultural validity of the semantic differential. For the purpose of this study they regarded an instrument as having cross-cultural validity to the extent that it reflects cross-cultural differences known to exist as a result of previous ethno- graphic study. The criteria for validity are (1) Is there some set of basic semantic dimensions that is universal? (2) Can the instrument organize and classify cultures in a scientifically interesting way? To accomplish this, 83 subjects representing three Indian groups rated seven concepts on 15 scales in a manner suitable for non-literate subjects. The results indicated that of 21 comparisons (HopiZuni, Zuni—Navajo, HOpi-Havajo X 7) 17 were significant beyond the .05 level. Secondly, 95 or 315 individuals' comparisons between pairs 33 of cultures for each concept scale were significantly different. It was concluded that the semantic differen— tial can tap non—observable elements of a culture such as values, ideas, and beliefs. This literature review has indicated that the semantic differential is a valid, reliable, sensitive, and versitile instrument for measuring the meaning of various concepts. The completion of the semantic dif— ferential is simple and consequently very useful for research employing questionnaires. Accordingly, it was decided that this instrument would be better than most for research involving ethnic perceptions. SUMMARY AND HYPOI‘HESIS The ethnic self concept literature has indicated that as a result of many of the negative interactions with whites, blacks have develOped a very low Opinion of themselves and of other blacks. Blacks' low Opinion of themselves and of other blacks has been demonstrated in quite a few studies performed in the recent past. As Williams (1964, 1966) has indicated, blacks as well as whites subscribe to the thinking that the color black and everything associated with the color black have come to take on a negative meaning; while white and anything associated with it have come to take on a positive mean- ing. This general feeling manifests itself again in the study by James Martin (1964), which indicated that blacks, as well as whites, choose as most beautiful, those black women whose facial features most closely approximate that of the Caucasian. Since approximately 1964 a new wave of black pride and black cultural develOpment has gripped not only blacks 34 35 in this country but blacks all over the world. Accord- ingly such affirmations as "Black is beautiful" and "I'm black and I'm proud" have pervaded almost every Sphere of society. In the wake of such astronomical social de- velopments one might easily ask the question: what is now the status of black self hate? The first hypothesis is an attempt to answer this question. Specifically it is hypothesized that because of the present emphasis on black pride and black cultural develOpment, that black undergraduates will evaluate "Blacks" along the evaluative dimension of the semantic differential, as favorably as they will evaluate "White Protestant." Much of the literature and many of the leading orators of this social revolution have indicated that the personification of "Blackness," or to be truly black, is to be inherently different from whites. That is, they maintain that the value systems of truly black individuals should be very different from the value system that many whites seem to have. It seems, following much of the rhetoric of today's black pride movement, that blacks who take pride in themselves that is, those who have a high positive regard, will evaluate themselves differently 36 than they will evaluate whites. It is therefore hypothe— sized that among black undergraduates the more positive the evaluation of "Me," along the evaluative dimension of the semantic differential, the larger will be the distance score (the difference between two scores obtained by sub— tracting the second score from the first) between "Blacks" and "White Protestants" with the former being rated most positively. Much of the ethnic self concept literature indi- cates that a man who has poor self—regard in relationship to what he considers his ideal self would in many cases look unfavorably upon his ethnic group, particularly if that which binds him to his ethnic group is also that which is looked upon disfavorably by the larger society. In short, if a man has low self—regard, he will rarely view his ethnic group in as positive a light as would an individual of his group who has high positive self—regard. In examining this relationship, it is hypothesized that the smaller the distance score between "Me" and "Ideal Self," on the evaluative dimension of the semantic dif- ferential, the more positive will be the indifiidual's evaluation of "Blacks." 37 The writings of a number of individuals, although primarily E. Franklin Frazier (1957), have indicated that the black middle—class has been historically conservative and ambivalent in their feelings about their being black. Frazier says, "Many middle class Negroes would deny having the desire to be white since this would be an admission of their feelings of inferiority. However, when the atti— tudes of this class are studied, it becomes clear that the black bourgeosie do not really want to be identified with Negroes." He notes further that symbols of achieve— ment within the black community and particularly of the bourgeosie, include such things as membership in a fra- ternity or sorority, "being seen in exclusive places," a college degree, and being pictured on the society page of the local neWSpaper. With the aforementioned observations in mind, one may have cause to wonder what effect the recent black pride movement has had on the black middle-class. We know that the black middle-class are, in a sense, marginal peOple in that they have all that is economically and socially necessary for entry into the larger white middle- class, with the exception of white skin. Since the Skin 38 color of these individuals is all that is keeping them from joining the dominant middle-class, it is reasonable to assume that these individuals would come to dislike that which is keeping them from making "advancements." This state of affairs may not be the case with lower- class blacks because they have both skin color and eco— nomic factors which are keeping them from making that kind of advancement. Hypothesis four is an attempt to determine whether the middle-class blacks actually feel less positively about blacks than non—middle-class blacks. Specifically it is hypothesized that those undergraduates who have fraternity or sorority affiliation will, along the evaluative dimension of the semantic differential, rate "Blacks" in a less favorable manner than will those undergraduates who have no fraternal affiliation. With the tremendous amount of redefinition that proceeded with the cultural revolution, a number of blacks have made it clear that they do not like being referred to as Negroes but prefer to be called blacks. They main— tain that this is a Slave name in that it was given to them by whites when blacks were brought to this country as Slaves. This thinking has progressed to the point 39 that the term Negro is used by blacks as an insult or a way of demeaning other blacks who have not progressed, in their thinking, with the revolution. In keeping with the Frazier (1957) doctrine, that the black middle—class is conservative, it appears that perhaps many middle—class blacks have not moved as swiftly as non—middle—class blacks, to this supposed new stage of cultural awareness. Accordingly, many of these people may not View the term Negro in quite the negative light as their non—middle—class contempories. The last hypoth- esis, hypothesis five, is an attempt to determine exactly how both middle—class and non-middle-class blacks view the two terms "Blacks" and "Negro." It was hypothesized that the distance score, on the evaluative dimension of the semantic differential, between "Blacks" and "Negro" will be larger for those undergraduates who have no fra— ternal affiliation than for those who are fraternity or sorority affiliates. METHOD Subjects A non-probability aggregation of unpaid, black independent undergraduates was polled at Michigan State University during March and April of the 1969-1970 aca- demic year. The aggregation consisted of 25 women and 20 men for a total of 45 subjects, representing 2% of all black undergraduates. Subjects were selected from undergraduate psy— chology and education courses. To obtain this number of subjects, in addition to those available in psychology and education courses, other were obtained via a selec— tion of dormitories. Inherent in this method of data collection is a sampling problem. Because of a number of factors operat- ing on blacks at Michigan State University and around the country, it is exceedingly difficult to get large numbers of people to complete a questionnaire. By just having the responses of those who completed the questionnaires, 4O 41 this no doubt severely limits the external validity of this research. In addition to the black independent undergrad— uates, one black social fraternity and one black sorority were paid twenty-five dollars each for their participa- tion in this piece of research. As a result 23 men from Omega Psi Phi fraternity and 28 women from Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority participated, representing approximately 21% of all black social fraternal organizations on the campus, took part in the survey. Instrument The subjects were administered a form of the se— mantic differential (see Appendix B) on which they were instructed to respond candidly. The 22 bi—polar adjec- tives selected to appear on the instrument were those that had previously been demonstrated, by Osgood (1957) and other researchers, to have very high loadings on the three dimensions of the semantic differential. Along with these adjectives, a number of untested adjectives were included in the questionnaire. The concepts that were evaluated were Me, Negro, Blacks, White Protestant, 42 and Ideal Self. This represents not only concepts that had been previously evaluated but some new concepts de— signed specifically for this survey. Procedure The subjects were told, "The purpose of the survey is to discover what five different concepts mean to you." The questionnaire was completed in two ways. The independents were given the questionnaire in class and asked to take it home, complete it, and return it at the next class meeting. Those independents surveyed in the dormitories were asked to take the questionnaire to their room, complete it, and return it to a designated person in their respective dormitories. The fraternity and sorority were administered the questionnaire at one of their regularly scheduled meet- ings and were asked to complete it immediately. In this case the eXperimenter was present during the completion of the questionnaire. To hold constant the demand characteristics of the experimenter's race, a black experimenter was employed in the collection of the data. RESULTS In order to determine those adjectives which com— prise the evaluative dimension, a principle components factor analysis was employed. The analysis was performed on the Control Data Company 3600 computer using the Factor A: Principle Components and Orthogonal Rotations PrOgram (Williams, 1969) of the Computer Institute for Social Science Research at Michigan State University. The output of the program offers principle axis, Varimax and Quartimax factor loadings. For the purpose of this study only the Varimax factor loadings are reported. A large amount of concept-scale interaction was demonstrated. Therefore, few of the adjectives performed consistently across the five concepts involved in the analysis. The five concepts on which the analysis was performed were Negro, Blacks, Me, Ideal Self, and White Protestant. The general evaluative dimension was determined by averaging the evaluative factor loadings of the adjectives compris— ing the concept specific evaluative dimensions. Those 43 44 eight adjectives with the highest average loadings con- stitute the general evaluative dimension. The eight bi— polar adjectives selected were Intelligent—Unintelligent, Clean—Dirty, Industrious-Lazy, Cultured—Uncultured, ReSponSible—IrreSponsible, Good—Bad, Strong—Weak, and Active-Passive. It should be noted here that the bi- polar adjectives, Strong-Weak and Active-Passive, have not in the past loaded on the evaluative dimension, but in this analysis they tended to take on evaluative con- notations. These eight bi—polar adjectives are the basis of all the analysis done in this research effort. Hypothesis I Because of the present emphasis on black pride, it was predicted that the black undergraduates would evaluate "Blacks" as favorably as they would evaluate "White Protestants." To test this the scores for the eight adjectives comprising the general evaluative di— mension were averaged so that each subject had two scores, one for "Blacks," the other for "White Protestants." A T-test for related measures was employed to test the null hypothesis that there exists no difference between the 45 means (Table 1). It was found that blacks evaluated "Blacks" in a more positive fashion than they did "White Protestants" (t = 10.13; p < .05, two tailed test). TABLE 1 EVALUATION OF "BLACKS" AND OF "WHITE PROTESTANTS" Source N X. S2 t df p Blacks 2.39 .970 96 10.13 95 p<.05 White Protestants 3.77* 1.01 T—test for related measures; two tailed. *Lower scores indicate a more positive evaluation. The data were next eXamined to determine whether a consistent relationship existed between the way blacks evaluated "Blacks" and the manner in which they evaluated "White Protestants." The results indicated that no rela— tionship exists between these two variables (r = .15). Hypothesis II In testing the assertion that proud blacks would evaluate themselves differently than they would evaluate "Whites," a median Split performed on the average 46 evaluations of "Me" resulted in dichotomizing those scores of individuals with good evaluations of "Me" (below median) and those with bad evaluations of "Me" (above median). In addition, a median Split was determined for the average discrepancy scores between "Blacks" and "White Protestants." A discrepancy score is the difference between two scores calculated by subtracting the second score from the first. The average of differences are then calculated and called the average discrepancy score. A 2 X 2 chi square (Table 2) was performed to test the relationship between the average evaluation of "Me" and the average distance score between "Blacks" and "White Protestants." The results were found to be statistically Significant (X2 = 12.12, p < .01) (Table 2). TABLE 2 THE EVALUATION OF "ME" IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE DISTANCE SCORE BETWEEN "BLACKS" AND "WHITE PROTESTANTS" ME high regard low regard D Score Small 14 32 46 Black and White Protestant Large 33 17 50 47 49 n=96 47 Hypothesis III Much of the ethnic self concept literature indi- cates that a relationship exists between individual self- regard and the way the individual views his ethnic group. In searching for a relationship a 2 X 2 chi square was performed to test the relationship between the discrep- ancy score between "Me" and "Ideal Self" and the average evaluation of "Blacks." The results (Table 3) indicated that no relationship exists between two variables (x2 = .871; p > .05). TABLE 3 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISTANCE SCORE FOR "ME" AND "IDEAL SELF" AND THE EVALUATION OF BLACKS D Score "Me" and Blacks Evaluation Ideal Self Small D Large D Positive 32 24 56 Negative 19 21 4O 51 45 n=96 48 Hypothesis IV Studies of the black middle—class and those who aspire to it indicate that a difference exists between middle-class and lower—class blacks in the way in which they view their ethnic group. Since Frazier (1957) held that fraternities were a middle—class phenomenon, it is assumed here that fraternity students are middle—class or aSpire to the middle-class. To test for a difference between the average evaluation of "Blacks" by fraternity and independent undergraduates, a T-test for independent measures was used (Table 4). The results indicate that there is no difference in the way fraternity and inde- pendents view "Blacks" (t = .33; p > .05, one tailed test). TABLE 4 FRATERNITY AND INDEPENDENT AVERAGE EVALUATION OF "BLACKS" N X" S df T p Fraternity 2.41 1.02 96 95 .330 p>.05 Independent 2.35 .921 T-test for independent measures, one tailed. 49 Hypothesis V This hypothesis examined whether the directional distance score, on the evaluative dimension of the se- mantic differential, between "Blacks" and "Negro" would be larger for those black undergraduates who have no fra- ternal affiliation than for those who are fraternity or sorority affiliates. In testing this a T-test for inde- pendent measures was employed. The results (Table 5) indicate that there is no difference in the way the two groups view the two concepts (T = 1.27; p > .05, one tailed test). TABLE 5 DISCREPANCY SCORES BETWEEN RATINGS OF "BLACK” AND "NEGRO" BY FRATERNITY AND INDEPENDENT STUDENTS X'Discrepancy X Blacks Score t df p Fraternity 2.41 -.795* 1.27 95 p>.05 Independents 2.35 -l.15 *Indicates that the concept "Negro" has been evaluated less favorably than the concept "Blacks." T-test for Independent measures; one tailed. DISCUSSION THE LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Before a discussion of the results of this thesis can be undertaken, a number of major methodological prob- lems Should be considered. These problems are (1) the sampling procedure and (2) the external validity. Sampling As was mentioned in the methods section, a non- probability sample was taken of black independent under- graduates at Michigan State University. Because of a number of factors Operating around the university the gathering of large numbers of blacks, for the purpose of participating in a survey, is extremely difficult. Because of this, a procedure that is at best Open to question was employed in the data collection. In conjunction with a teaching assistantship held by the experimenter, a number of students in his class 50 51 were asked to volunteer to complete one questionnaire and to give the instrument to ten of their friends for them to complete. They were instructed to give the question— naire only to their friends who had no fraternal affilia- tion. In an attempt to get more subjects, approximately one hundred questionnaires were given to volunteers in a predominantly black urban affairs class at the university. They were asked to take them home and complete them. A total of forty-seven (47) black independent undergraduates completed and returned the questionnaire. This repre— sented a response rate of approximately 24%, far below what is considered to be adequate. Such sampling is far from random and severely limits the quality of this piece of research. Rosenthal and Rosnow (1969) discussed some of the differences between volunteers and non—volunteers. They maintain that on the basis of studies conducted both in the laboratory and in the field, it seemed reasonable to postulate with some confidence that the following char- acteristics would be found more often among peOple who volunteer than among those who do not volunteer for be- havioral research: 1) higher education level, 2) higher 52 occupational status, 3) higher need for approval, 4) higher intelligence, and 5) lower authoritarianism. They further maintain, however, with less confidence, that volunteers tend to be more sociable, more arousal seeking, more unconventional, more often first born, and younger than non-volunteers. Yet, perhaps an even more cogent observation was made by these researchers. They noted that in survey—type research volunteers tend to be better adjusted than non—volunteers, but in medical research volunteers tend to be more maladjusted than non- volunteers. With all of the differences between volun- teers and non—volunteers, it is easy to see that the re- sults of this research may be generalized only to a vol— unteer pOpulation. It Should be noted here that the race and appear— ance of the experimenter may have been such as to elicit more "militant" responses from the subjects. That is, the race of the E may have constituted a demand charac— teristic in that the subjects may have wanted not to appear out of phase with the Black Pride Movement. 53 External Validity External validity is. to a large extent. a func- tion of the sampling procedure employed in the original piece of research. Taking into account the aforementioned discussion of the sampling employed. it is difficult to know to whom the results of the study may be generalized. At best. it is believed that the results may be general- ized to other black social fraternity or sorority affil- iates who are in attendance at a large midwestern uni- versity. In regard to making generalizations about inde- pendent undergraduates. it is believed that these findings may be generalized to only those black undergraduates who are lower classmen (freshmen and sophomores) who volunteer to complete the questionnaire and who attend a large mid- western university. Anything beyond this would be totally unfounded. A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR SELF HATRED It has been suggested that members of the lower social strata tend to accept the fashions. values. and 54 ideals of the higher strata (Lewin. 1948). In the case of the underprivileged groups it means that their opinion about themselves may be influenced by the low esteem the majority has for them. This infiltration of views and values may heighten the tendency of the minority group member to separate himself from things which denote his minority group. Although Lewin addressed himself pri- marily to the plight of the Jew. the same theoretical framework can be employed in analyzing the situation of' the blacks in this country today. In much the way that Lewin Speaks of Jews. blacks in this country have been influenced by the low self esteem that the whites have for them. To be white is to be inherently superior. while to be black is to be inferior. That white is good and black is bad has been such a fundamental belief in this country that blacks have come to believe it and feel that they are bad by their very nature. Lewin maintains that in every group one can dis— tinguish strata of beliefs. attitudes. and values which are culturally more central. and others more peripheral. The central stratum contains those values. habits. ideals. and traditions which are considered essential and 55 representative for the group. It is these beliefs of the central stratum that are prized in a positively chauvinistic fashion. when a group exhibits ethnocentrism and are demeaned in a negatively chauvinistic fashion when a group exhibits self hatred. Such things as being ashamed of one's ethnic group or attempting to disasso- ciate oneself from his ethnic group are considered ex- amples of negative chauvinism. while being proud of one's ethnic group and maintaining association with it are ex- amples of positive chauvinism. It follows from this. that when the balance between positive and negative chau- vinism is such that the group exhibits more negative chauvinism than positive chauvinism. that the group is said to exhibit self hatred. In regard to the black people. it is just those ideas and attitudes of the central stratum which the dominant society considers negative. The attitude that black cannot be anything but ugly is something that the white society has perpetrated on itself and on the blacks who live in this society. Simply on the basis of color. blacks have always had the worst jobs and housing and have been politically disfranchised. 56 In terms of group dynamics. Lewin holds that one can distinguish two types of forces in regard to the members of any group; one type draws a member into the group and keeps him inside. while the other drives him away from the group. He further maintains that an im— portant factor for the strength of the forces toward and away from the group is the degree to which the fulfill- ment of the individual's own needs is furthered or ham- pered by his membership in the group. The forces imping- ing on the blacks in this country may be best character— ized by those driving him away from his ethnic group. The effects of these forces may be multiplied in that self actualization is severely hampered by the blackness of an individual's skin. Such an analysis more than adequately explains the tendency of blacks. in the past. to be as white as possible—-simp1y to do everything in their power to be less black and more white. What Lewin concludes about self hatred in Jews is essential in the conceptualization of this phenomenon. He says. "Self hatred seems to be a psychopathological phenomenon. and its prevention may seem mainly a task for the psychiatrist. However. modern psychology knows 57 that many psychological phenomena are but an expression of the social situation in which an individual finds himself. In a few cases. Jewish self hatred may grow out of a neurotic or otherwise abnormal personality. but in the great majority of cases it is a phenomenon in persons of normal mental health. In other words. it is a social psychological phenomenon. even though it usually influences the total personality deeply. In fact. neu- rotic trends in Jews are frequently the result of their lack of adjustment to just such group problems." It is within this framework that I will attempt to discuss the results of this thesis. BLACKS' EVALUATION OF "BLACKS" AND OF "WHITE PROTESTANTS" The results obtained in the present study indicate that blacks not only evaluate "Blacks" as favorably as they do whites. but they evaluate ”Blacks" much more favorably than they do whites (t = 10.13; p < .05. two tailed test). This result would be in accord with the basic premise of this thesis that blacks have undergone 58 a change in the way they view themselves and the way they view whites. Prior to this recent upsurge in black pride. research would indicate that the opposite result would have been found (Bovell. 1943; Williams. 1964. 1966. etc.). The hypothesized relationship. that blacks would evaluate "Blacks" only as favorably as they would whites was not found to be the case. An explanation of these' results may best be found within the framework that Lewin proposed. It would now seem as though the balance be- tween positive and negative chauvinism has been tipped in favor of positive chauvinism. With increasing black awareness those beliefs of the central stratum. which had previously been negative in connotation. are beginning to be expressed. No longer are people willing to define beauty only in degrees of whiteness. With this a new sense of worth has come out of this black pride movement. Blacks are saying that black by its very nature is not inferior but is as good as white. With this. the balance between the forces pulling the individual away from his group and those pulling him toward his group has been shifted in favor of the forces that pull an individual toward his ethnic group and keep 59 him there. The forces pulling the individual away from his ethnic group have been lessened by the fact that self actualization is now possible within the confines of blackness. It appears justified. therefore. to explain the present results. that blacks evaluated "Blacks" more positively than "White Protestants” in terms of positive chauvinism; that is. positive chauvinism which is the basis of positive identification. It should be mentioned at this point that these results could conceivably be interpreted as black preju- dice. that is. blacks being prejudiced against whites. This interpretation would fall somewhat short of adequate because inherent in positive identification is a certain amount of devaluation of other ethnic groups. This is not to say that when an individual feels good about him- self or his ethnic group that he must feel as though other groups are of little or no value and that they should be like his group. What it does imply is that an individual may feel good about his group and also see some positive aspects in other groups but it does imply that he feels as though his group is better. When 60 these results are viewed in this light. it is easy to see that a very positive and necessary phenomenon has evidenced itself in this finding. EFFECTS OF THE VARIABLE SELF CONCEPT The effects of self concept on the evaluation on one's ethnic group have been examined in the past and the findings may best be characterized by saying that those individuals who have a high positive self regard will View their ethnic group in a more favorable light than those of that group who have a low self regard. The results of this study were partially consistent with this generalization. When examining the effects of the evaluation of "Me" as it relates to the similarity with which an indi— vidual evaluates ”Blacks” and ”White Protestant" (Table 2). it was found that those individuals who have a high eval- uation of "Me" regard themselves as more different from whites than do those with a low evaluation of "Me" 2 (X = 12.12. p < .05). These findings lend credence to the claims of many individuals that in being black and 61 being satisfied with one's blackness that you will by necessity view yourself as being quite different from whites. On the general evaluative dimension. blacks view "Blacks” as being more Intelligent. Clean. Industrious. Cultured. Responsible. Good. Strong. and Active than "White Protestants." In terms of the Lewin model. these results may be interpreted to indicate that those central stratum values of positively ethnocentric blacks are different from the blacks' perception of the central stratum values of "White Protestants." This. coupled with the previously discussed results of this thesis. would lend further weight to the contention of a new kind of identification among university blacks. In examining the relationship between satisfaction with one's self. that is. the discrepancy score between "Me" and ”Ideal Self." and the evaluation of one's ethnic group. the resulting chi square indicates that no such relationship exists (X2 = .871. p > .05). These results (Table 3). initially. seem to be in conflict with pre- vious research. However. it should be noted that much of the previous data dealt. primarily. with self 62 perception and its relationship to the evaluation of one's ethnic group; this data. on the other hand. deals with satisfaction with self and its relationship to the evalu— ation of one's ethnic group. The results indicate that these may be somewhat different phenomena. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FRATERNITY AND SORORITY AFFILIATES AND INDEPENDENT UNDERGRADUATES Katz (1930). in research on student attitudes. showed that in a statement of reasons for coming to col— lege. the scholarly purposes of college training were mentioned more frequently among independents than among fraternity students. Relatively more independents than fraternity members were seen. according to this study. to value scholarship. intellectual ability. and industry. while fraternity members tended to emphasize popularity and influence in extracurricular activities. Such findings. if applicable to today and to blacks. would cause one to wonder to what extent the black pride movement has affected the lives of the somewhat non- academically oriented fraternity students. E. Franklin 63 Frazier maintained that those people who join fraternities or sororities are more ambivalent in their feelings about being black. He maintained that these people more often than others felt that their blackness was a handicap. It was predicted. carrying the Frazier doctrine to its logical end. that fraternity and sorority affiliates would view "Blacks" in a less favorable manner than would their inde- pendent counterparts. Analysis of the data (Table 4) dem- onstrated that this is not the case (t = .330; p > .05). one tailed test). A second hypothesis couched in the same theoretical framework indicated that the fraternity and sorority affil- iates would see a smaller difference in the concepts "Blacks" and “Negro" than would independent undergraduates. The results (Table 5) indicate that fraternity students and independents saw the concepts as being equally differ- ent (t = 1.27; p > .05. one tailed test). Although the difference was not statistically significant. and both groups viewed the concept "Negro” in a less favorable manner than "Blacks." the fraternity students saw a some- what smaller difference in the concepts than did their 64 independent counterparts (IndependentS--X = -.795; Fra— ternity affiliates——X = —1.15). The results are in the predicted direction. The results of both these analyses still bring into serious question the theoretical framework in which they found their basis. In attempting to interpret these results. a number of alternative theories will be pre- sented. First. it may be held that the model presented by Katz and others about the difference between fraternity and independent students is not applicable to blacks. The assumption was made. based on work by Frazier (1957) that black fraternities were very similar in their atti- tudes. intellectual orientation and activities to their white counterparts. That black and white fraternities may or may not be similar is something that is not within the realm of this thesis and any comment that could be made regarding differences would be mere speculation. Secondly. it may be hypothesized that undergrad— uate independents are sufficiently middle—class so that the phenomenon about which Frazier (1957) wrote was not visible. 65 Lastly. and in terms of the Lewin model. it may be thought that fraternity as well as independent students have been caught up in the pride movement and that those forces pulling the individual toward the ethnic group and keeping him there have been strengthened by the fact that today. to a greater extent than ever before. self actual- ization is not hampered by the hue of the individual's skin. Any of the above speculations are capable of ex- plaining the results. Each is such that it may be subject to empirical analysis and only such analysis will yield an answer . FUTURE RESEARCH It seems clear that in future research attempts should be made to explore the effects of this kind of revolutionary thinking. on the part of the blacks. as it relates to almost every sphere of the black man's exis- tence. With this emergence Of the black pride movement many questions arise as to how this new pride will affect the psychological make—up of self esteem. In examining 66 this area a number of fundamental topics of research come to mind. With this new movement it appears that the black male is. to a greater extent than ever before. asserting himself in every sphere of his environment. Accordingly. he is asserting himself in the home and thereby moving from a household where the woman has the chief breadwinning capabilities to the more culturally typical Situation where the male is in the position where he can provide adequately for his family. The primary question that comes to mind is how does this new role affect and in what specific ways has it affected his self concept. Perhaps an even more pressing question in this regard would be how has this new role of the black male affect his family organization. As a result of this movement other fundamental research topics come readily to mind. One might investi- gate the question of how has the black pride movement af- fected academic performance of black youth or how has it affected the on-the-job performance of the black adult; has there been any change and. if so. in what ways have the changes occurred. It would be interesting to inves— tigate further the differences in value orientation 67 between the socio—economic classes among blacks and at- tempt to discover in which ways they are attitudinally similar and dissimilar. Parker and Kleiner (1964) studied the relationship between ethnic identification and status position and also between identification and mobility. They report results supporting the Frazier (1957) thesis that Negroes in the higher status positions tend to have values more similar to those of the white middle-class. stronger desires to associate with whites. more internal- ization of negative attitudes toward other blacks. and relatively weaker ethnic identification. than individuals in lower status positions. These results seem to be in total disagreement with the theme of the black pride movement. It would be interesting to repeat this piece of research to determine whether the reported relation— ships still exist today. Following close on the heels of the pride movement is a new field of psychology. often referred to as Black Psychology. While still in its embryonic stages. this field is giving some new direction to psychological re- search involving blacks. The emphasis here has shifted to an action oriented research; that is. a research aimed 68 at alleviating the plight. or helping to make better the situation in which blacks in this country exist. Black pride has given birth to this new field of study and will. if I may be permitted to predict. provide the main impetus for its continuation. It is within the framework of this that I view the prospects for future research in the area of self esteem among blacks. REFERENCES REFERENCES Adams. D. V. 1965. An analysis of Student Sub-culture at Michigan State University. unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. Bovell. G. B. 1943. Psychological Considerations of Color Conflicts among Negroes. Psychoanalytic ReVieWI 30: 447-459. Dennis. Wayne. 1968. Racial Change in Negro Drawings. Journal of Psychology. 69 (1). 129-130. Edwards. Harry. 1970. Black Students. New York. New York: The Free Press. Feldman. K. and Newcomb. T. 1969. The Impact of College on Students. San Francisco. California: Jossey- Bass. Frazier. E. F. 1966. The Negro Family in the United States. Chicago. Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Frazier. E. F. 1957. The Negro in the United States. Chicago. Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Gregor. A. and McPherson. D. 1966. Racial Preference and Ego Identity among White and Bantu children in the Republic of South Afriea. Genetic Psychology Monograph. 73 (2). 217-253. Grigg. A. E. 1959. Validity Study of the Semantic Dif— ferential Technique. Journal of Clinical Psye chology. 15. 179-181. Kardiner. A. and Ovesey. L. 1951. The Mark of Oppression. Cleveland. Ohio: World Publishing Company. 69 7O Katz. D. and Allport. F. H. 1931. Students' Attitudes: A Report of the Syracuse University Reaction Study. Syracuse. New York: Craftsman Press. Inc. Kelley. J. A. and Levy. L. H. 1961. The Discriminability of Concepts Differentiated by Means of the Semantic Differential. Educational and Psychological Mea- surement. 21. 53-58. Kjeldergaard. P. M. 1961. Attitudes Toward Newscasters as Measured by the Semantic Differential: A Descrip- tive Case. Journal of Applied Psychology. 45. 35— 40. Lewin. Kurt. 1948. Resolving Social Conflict. New York: Harper. Levine. G. N. and Sussmann. L. A. 1960. Social Class and Sociability in Fraternity Pledging. American Journal of Sociology. 65. 391-392. Ligget. John and Cochrane. Raymond. 1968. Exercises in Social Science. London: Constable. MaClay. H. and Ware. E. E. 1961. Cross-Cultural use of the Semantic Differential. Behavioral Science. 6. 185-190. Maliver. Bruce L. 1965. Anti—Negro Bias among Negro Col- lege Students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2 (5). 770-775. Martin. James G. 1964. Racial Ethnocentrism and Judgment of Beauty. Journal of Social Psychology. 63 (1). 59—63. Miller. N. 1958. Social Class and Value Differences Among American College Students. Unpublished doc- toral dissertation. Columbia University. Miller. N. 1959. Academic Climate and Student Values. Paper read at 54th annual meeting of American Sociological Association. 71 Noel. D. L. 1964. Group Identification Among Negroes: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Social Issues. 20 (2). 71-84. Norman. W. T. 1959. Stability Characteristics of the Semantic Differential. American Journal of Psy— ChOlogYI 72: 581—584. Nunnally. J. J. 1967. Psychometric Theory. New York. New York: McGraw Hill Co. Osgood. C.. Suci. G.. and Tannenbaum. P. 1957. The Mea- surement of Meaning. Urbana. Illinois: Univer- sity of Illinois Press. Parrish. C. H. 1946. Color Names and Color Notions. Journal of Negro Education. 15. 13-20. Rosenthal. Robert and Rosnow. Ralph. 1969. Artifacts in Behavioral Research. New York: Academic Press. Scott. J. F. 1965. The American College Sorority: Its Role in Class and Ethnic Endogamy. American Sociolpgical Review. 30. 514-527. Smith. R. G. 1963. Validation of a Semantic Differential. Speech Monograph. 30. 50-55. Williams. A. 1967. Factor AnalysiS—-Factor A: Principal Components and Orthogonal Rotations. Technical Report NO. 34. East Lansing: Michigan State University. Williams. J. E. 1964. Connotations of Color Names Among Negroes and Caucasians. Perceptual and Motor Skills: 18 (3): 721-31. Williams. J. E. 1966. Connotations of Racial Concepts and Color Names. Journal of Personality and So— cial Psychology. 3 (5). 531—540. Zanden. J. W. 1966. American Minoritnyelations. New York. New York: The Ronald Press Company. APPENDIX A APPENDIX A Results of a varimax factor analysis on five semantic differential concepts rated on twenty—two adjective pairs. The factor loadings as the factor tentatively identified as a general evaluative factor are given. The eight adjective pairs marked with a * were used throughout the study because of their consistently high loadings on this factor. 72 73 Concept AdjeCtiVeS Self Ideal Negro Black White Self Protestant Submissive—Dominant ~0.597 -0.139 -0.296 —0.647 -0.407 Pompous-Humble 0.017 -0.007 0.127 -0.029 —0.008 Impulsive-Self—Controlled -0.151 -0.315 0.273 -0.345 -0.027 Honest-Dishonest 0.543 0.537 0.065 0.595 0.190 Inte11igent-Uninte11igent* 0.596 0.571 0.706 0.657 0.517 Greedy-Generous -0.358 -0.517 0.020 -0.358 0.000 Dirty-Clean* -0.473 -0.571 -0.548 -0.662 -0.304 Tolerant-Intolerant -0.067 0.492 0.104 -0.016 0.297 Industrious—Lazy* 0.453 0.762 0.382 0.747 0.785 Irrational-Rational -0.282 —0.415 —0.612 ~O.603 -0.354 Conformist-Non-Conformist -0.203 -0.040 -0.239 -0.527 0.024 Successful-Unsuccessful 0.671 0.618 0.082 0.350 0.754 Beligerant-Peaceful 0.030 —0.443 0.175 -0.052 -0.284 Uncultured-Cultured* -0.745 -0.600 —0.525 -0.640 -0.750 Sexually Attractive—Unattractive 0.631 0.492 0.699 0.252 0.581 Responsible-Irresponsib1e* 0.441 0.741 0.581 0.548 0.534 Bad-Good* -0.581 -0.726 f0.527 -0.720 -0.266' Strong-Weak* 0.763 0.653. 0.800 0.380 0.676 Active-Passive* 0.699 0.796 0.729 0.276 0.212 Loved—Unloved 0.459 0.762 0.636 0.111 0.660 Masculine-Feminine 0.104 -0.019 0.762 ‘0.011 0.442 Insecure—Secure -0.588 -0.676 -0.604 —0.181 -0.495 APPENDIX B The purpose of this questionnaire is to discover what thirteen different concepts mean to you. The thirteen concepts are: AMERICAN SOCIETY, MOTHER, NEGRO, JEW, ME, BLACKS, WHITE PROTESTANT, IDEAL SELF, "NIGGER", FATHER, IDEAL SOCIETY, ”KIKE", AND WHITE CATHOLIC. The concept to be evaluated will be at the top of each page, while the scales on which it is to be rated will be directly beneath it. For example, suppose the concept at the top of the page was LULLABY, and under it were the following scales: loud I 2 3 4 5 6 7 soft insensitive 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 sensitive On the loud-soft scale, let 1 stand for very loud, 2 for moderately loud, and 3 for slightly loud. Let 4 stand for neither loud nor soft. Let 5 indi- cate slightly soft, 6 moderately soft, and 7 very soft. If the concept of lullaby suggests softness to you more than loudness you might circle the num- ber five, six, or seven (circle only one number per scale), depending on just how soft it seemed to you. Similarly you might circle one, two, or three if lullaby suggested insensitive to you more than sensitive or five, six or seven if you felt lullaby suggested sensitive more than insensitive. We want your pgrsonal impressions of the concepts. In some cases you may wonder how a certain scale can apply to the concept you are rating, but we have found that you will be able to make the decisions quite easily if you respond nuickly but carefully on the basis of first impressions. Note that your name is not required on this questionnaire--your responses will be anonymous. Please respond in accord with your own feelings rather than in a manner you feel to be socially acceptable. We want to know how you actually fee1--not how you think you ought to feel. Don't be afraid to indicate nega- tive feelings about particular concepts if that's the way you honestly feel. Work from the first to last page in order. Finish this questionnaire before going on to the remaining questionnaires. 74 submissive pompous impulsive honest intelligent greedy dirty tolerant industrious irrational conforuist successful beligerent uncultured sexually attractive responsible bad strong active loved masculine insecure pa .3 4 75 AMERICAN SOCIETY S dominant humble selfecontrolled dishonest unintelligent. generous clean intolerant lazy rational non-conformist unsuccessful peaceful cultured sexually unattractive irresponsible good weak passivt untamed hfeqlnine l£¢ur¢ submissive pompous impulsive honest intelligent .sreedy dirty tolerant industrious irrational confonmist successful beligerent uncultured sexually attractive responsible bad strong active loved (masculine insecure Fl dominant humble self-controlled dishonest unintelligent. generous clean intolerant O lazy rational non-conformist unsuccessful peaceful cultured sexually unattractive ‘irresponsible I good week passive unloved feminine secure submissive PVIPOUO impulsive honest intelligent greedy dirty tolerant industrious irrational conformist successful beligerent uncultured sexually attractive ’responsible had strong active loved (masculine insecure pd dominant humble 'self-eontrolled ' dishonest unintelligent generous clean) intolerant' i... rational non-conformist unsuccessful peaceful . cultured sexually unattractive irresponsible 8004 weak passive unloved feminine secure 78 submissive pa N g,. k U! pompous mui" 1 2 .‘ 3 I. 5 honest 10:.11180nt l 2 3 a s ““d’ 1 2 3 I. 5 die 3’ 1 2 3 a s tolerant 1 2 3 4 5 indus tr 1008 1 2 3 4 5 irrational 1 2 3‘ 4 5 conformist 1 2 3 4 S successful 1 2 3 4 5 beligerent 1 2 3 4 5 uncultured sea-sally attractive responsible 1 2 3 4 5 b“ 1 2 3, 4 s "m“ 1 2 3 4 s I active 1 2 ,3 4 S 1”“ 1 2 3 4 s ‘mlsculine 1 2 3 4 S insecure 1 2 3 4 5 dominant humble“ self-controlled dishonest unintelligent generous clean intolerant lasy retional non-conformist unsuccessful peaceful cultured sexually unattractive irresponsible good weak passive unloved. feminine ICCUIC submissive _ mou- impulsive honest intelligent steady dirty tolerant industrious. irrational conformist successful beligerent uncultured sexually attractive responsible bad strpng . active loved Iasculine Insecure pa dominant humble self-controlled dishonest unintelligent generous clean intolerant lazy rbtional non-conformist unsuccessful peaceful cultured sexually unattractive irresponsible good weak passive unloved feainine IOQIIII “.2... ‘ . submissive 90-900- impulsive honest intelligent 83¢;d! dirty tolerant indhstrious' irrational conformist successful beligerent . uncultured ' sexually attractive responsible- bad strong 3 active loved masculine insecure pd BLACKS 80 dominant bumble psalfecOntnollsd: dishonest» unintelligent 3e carom clean = intolerant lazy rational noneconformist unsuccessful peaceful . cultured sexually unattractive irresponsible good week passive unloved feminine secure l -\'.. submissive poepous impulsive honest intelligent study ' dirty tolerant industrious}? irrational conformist successful beligerent *uncultured sexually attractive ' responsible bad strong active loved. masculine insecure p-a . 4 81 WHITE PROTESIAHT S dominant humble self-controlled dishonest unintelligent. generous clean ' intolerant lazy rational non-conformiet unsuccessful’ peaceful cultured sexually unattractive irresponsible good week passive unloved feminine secure n'. I I'll 82 IDEAL SELF submissive 1 2 3 4 5. ”“9““ 1 2 3 4 5 impulsive 1 2 3 4 5 honest I 2 3. 4 5 intelligent 1 2 3 4 5 8r°edy 1 2 3 4 5 dirty 1 2 3 4 s tolerant 1 2 3 4 5 industrious 1 2 3 4 5 irrational l 2 3 4 5 conformist 1 2 3 4 5 successful 1 2 3 4 S beligerent 1 2 -3 4 5 uncultured sexually attractive l 2 3 4 5 responsible 1 2 3 4 5 b°d 1 2 3, 4 5 s“°“3 1 2 3 4 5 activ e 1 2 3 4 s loved 1 2 3 4 S masculine 1 2 3 4 5 insecure dominant humble self-controlled dishonest unintelligent. generous clean intolerant lazy rational non-conformist unsuccessful peaceful cultured sexually unattractive irresponsible good weak passive. unloved feminine secure 83 "NIGGERN submissive 1 2 3 4 5 p°mp°us 2 3 4 s impulsive 1 2 3 4 5 honest I 2 3 4 5 intelligent 1 2 3 4 5 greedy l 2 3 4 5 dirty l 2 3 4 5 tolerant 1 2 3 4 5 industrious 1 2 3 4 S irrational 1 2 3 4 5 conformist 1 2 3 4 5 successful 1 2 3 4 5 beligerent 1 2 ’3 4 5 uncultured sexually attractive responsible 1 2 3 4 5 bad 1 2 3, 4 s "r°“3 1 2 3 4 5 ti “c V3 1 2 3 4 s loved I 2 3 4 5 masculine 1 2 3 4 5 insecure dominant humble self-controlled dishonest unintelligent generous clean intolerant lazy rational non-conformist unsuccessful peaceful cultured sexually unattractive irresponsible good weak passive unloved feminine secure subaissive 90.9000 impulsive honest. intelligent stud! dirty tolerant industrious irrational conforuiet successful beligerent uncultured sexually attractive responsible bed strong active loved Iasculine insecure pa dosinant bustle selfscontrolled 'dishonest unintelligent generous clean intolerant lasy rational- nonsconfornist unsuccessful peaceful cultured- sexually unattractive irresponsible good vest passive unloved feminine ICC“. submissive pompous impulsive honest intelligent greedy dirty tolerant industrious irrational conformist successful beligerent uncultured sexually attractive responsible bad strong active loved masculine insecure p.- IDEAL SOCIETY 3 4. 5 dominant humble self-controlled dishonest unintelligent generous clean intolerant lazy rational nonsconformist unsuccessful peaceful cultured sexually unattractive irresponsible good weak passive unloved feminine secure submissive pompous impulsive honest intelligent study dirty tolerant industrious irrational conforuist successful beligerent uncultured sexually attractive responsible bad strong active loved masculine insecure pa dominant humble self-controlled dishonest unintelligent generous clean intolerant lazy rational non-conformist unsuccessful peaceful cultured sexually unattractive irresponsible good weak passive unloved feminine secure 87 WHITE CATHOLIC submissive 1 2 3 4 5 p°@w’ 1 2 3 4 s impulsive 1 2 3 4 5 honest I 2 3 4 5 intelligent ' 1 2 3 4 5 3’°“’ 1 2 3 4 5 dirty 1 2 3 4 s tolerant 1 2 3 4 5 industrious 1 2 3 4 5 irrational 1 2 3 4 S conformist 1 2 3 4 5 successful 1 2 3 4 5 beligerent 1 2 .3 4 5 uncultured sexually attractive responsible 1 2 3 4 5 b“ 1 2 3, 4 5 "'°“3 1 2 3 4 5 active 1 2 . 3 4 5 1°”“ 1 2 3 4 s masculine 1 2 3 4 5 insecure dominant humble self-controlled dishonest unintelligent generous clean intolerant lazy rational non-conformist unsuccessful peaceful cultured sexually unattractive irresponsible good weak passive unloved feminine secure 88 For the minorities listed below, rate the degree to which you think they are accepted in American society according to the following scale: 1. Completely accepted 2. Mostly accepted 3. Only somewhat accepted 4. Only somewhat rejected 5. Mostly rejected 6. Completely rejected A. Puerto Ricans B. Italians C. English D. Jewish E. Mexicans F. Irish G. Negroes H. Catholics I. Orientals The following section expreses opinions about a number of political and social issues. Indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statements below according to the following scale: . Completely agree . Somewhat agree . Agree only a little, Slightly favor . Disagree a little, Slightly opposed . Somewhat disagree . Completely disagree O‘U‘IAWNH The military and industry could do a better job if they were left to manage their own affairs. Arabs in Palestine have legitimate grievances in trying to regain their homeland. A person should generally tell other what he honestly thinks, though he may be resented for it. Protests against the war in Vietnam serve to weaken the nation. A.B.M. is important to the U.S. defense. Israel should retain its captured territories as defense against the Arabs. I would probably turn down a job that would leave me less room to express my views on political matters. The refugee problem in the Middle East is due primarily to the Arabs, using these people as political pawns. The United States should recognize Red China. The right of free speech is a principle which should never be com- promised. ' 89 Sex: Male Female Overall G.P.A. (As close to exact as possible) Are you a member of a social fraternity? Yes No My religion is: Jewish Catholic Protestant Atheist Other The religion of my parents is: Jewish Catholic Protestant Atheist Other Race: Caucasion Black Oriental Other On most political issues, I perceive myself as: 1. Left 2. Liberal 3. Moderate 4. Conservative What was or is your father's occupation? Right__ What was or is your mother's occupation? What would you rate you family's present annual income as: Less than $5000 $5000-$7999 $8000-$ll999 $12000-$14999 $15000-Sl9999 $20000 and over APPEND IX C PROFILE RESPONSES FOR intelligent 2.19 3.12 clean 1.46 2.08 industrious 2.34 3.03 cultured 1.39 2.23 responsible 2.42 3.20 good 1.55 2.45 strong 1.80 3.62 active 1.98 3.11 X = "Blacks" . = "Negro" "BLACKS" AND "NEGRO" unintelligent dirty lazy uncultured irresponsible bad weak passive 9O 91 PROFILE RESPONSES FOR intelligent 1.91 clean industrious cultured 1.50 1.66 1.00 2.39 1.68 1.16 1.00 responsible 2.00 good strong active "Me ll "Ideal Self" 1.47 1.21 1.00 2.26 1.66 2.26 1.60 "ME H AND "IDEAL SELF" unintelligent dirty lazy uncultured irresponsible bad weak passive "I7'1111111711111111|“