wu-m'v‘w- .—T.b_s TT ICDN H U)_\_\ ‘ [I ~- T !| "T ' AT T T T T T 'l ,1 ‘TT T T HT IT T 3| T r T " T TT + r" T l T T —_ —- THE EFT ET. TS CT‘ "’"TT‘KTAL TATT CUAGE UN TTTTTT’TL TMP TL‘TST :iS 3T UT‘T TTTA ‘OWN CLT TT:TT:U.TTTC.»TTTC:‘T ‘ O'T’TCE'S Thesis for the Degree of M A M TTCHTGAN STATE UNTVE TSTTY KAREN TCSEPHTNE PA‘A 'LOVTCTT 1969 Eermw ‘mxh‘ Y Y C 3 ARY ITTTITITTTTTTTTTTTTITTITOTTTTTTTTTTTTBTLTTTTTTT L i 2~ W :5 155m THE LFFLCTS OF OFFLMSIVE LANGUAGE (XI IHITUJXL I IHUJSSIIJIS OF THCJCNH W "1"" T"?C\F */\\‘ O’WH‘TVCL" (,C’lr.;id:._i_ .g‘lTiTt- o L;(~/U;'- 1—: CO By Karen Josephine Pawlovich Submitted to Hichigan State Uni i in partial fulfillment of tfle requirements for the QOQPCE o HACTLW OF :RTS Department of Communication 1969 ' (r1 ~~ . 1.:in1- {AuACT n-r, '1 11-1:1 (\ . ,‘- 1' I\ ‘ ‘7/‘1 D. 1 <7 -- M A iTJIJ .1411. C, (J OF L)I-‘£-IJ;|!JI‘,£ IJIEL‘KJ “248:4 (1‘6 IvIlIfXL I PILCSIJUS 3F UJKLOJJ C 3”EUIICAT:>I SOURCLB , ‘ --, ,- “L‘ - , . ' '. e3 :gren Jo eyulfie PaulOVlCH m; - x: :,. .- 7. , i- :,- c, lJ. purgosc O; «is sine; Hus bu anCbtlDatC the relation E1338 ~" *‘ ' ”' --vC ‘. \~'-."~* -- '- 1‘ x r“: ‘ . vr-u b-tu can d3; re 3 of ldfi .3¢3 cliensiv3ncso, ”“x of t;e source, and ratings . _ x -i :‘ : 1.7 .C . 3 , A- . - M- - mu, ~91 - -- . 3,. n- a... of tLe cr3oi1ility oi an unLntMn COMMUHlLutOF. in: chCLo lit] dlmenolbLo of egnsnisi, ea ety, aha coapctcncC were uSQQ. It Nd" pleuictse tflit ‘ w,...: -. , ° .\ -., -. .3, r-vr: -.fi-,,,, m ° , 1 CdeMLSJ ru' tiLJs .culu lHCISLLC d3 ligfihfibu o: GnolfnuCSJ increasee, n . "'1‘ ‘ '\ r. ~ '.' ”-V Vfi- , ‘ . ‘ ‘—f“ ‘ I1 - fi" (‘ - tnut oufttj and co a»t3 cc rdtlubg ”LUlQ tecr-cie as Janbug,e increas e 03 OLD ll ll ll 13 14 16 17 Table (.0 Page Basic Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Summary of the Analysis of Variance for the Dimension of Dynamism . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Cell Means and Scheffe's test for Differences on the Dynamism Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Summary of the Analysis of Variance for the Dimension of Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Presentation of Cell Means for the Dimension of Safety . 1H Summary of the Analysis of Variance for the Dimension Of competellce o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 114’ Presentation of Cell Deans for the Dimension of COIHIXZ‘. terl C8 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ls APPENDIX LU LIST OF APPLHDICES Explanation and Introduction of Tape . . . . . . Dialogue Recorded on Tape . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire Administered . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance for the Dimensions of Credibility for the Pro-POlice R018 0 o o o o o o o o 0 Presentation of Means for the Pro-Police Credibility DiTLlGIISiOI". Ratings 0 o o o o o o o o o O o 'tJ DJ E Q (I) 35 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In the past, profanity has been considered a problem for sailors and machine shOp workers, but recently the emphasis has been shifting. Magazines such as Parents, Ladies Home Journal, and Seventeen have pub- lished articles that pertain to the handling of persons who use "bad language". When the awareness of the public causes it to begin raising questions about the perceived offensiveness of various profane terms, and others' perception of individuals who use profanity, it is fruitful for researchers to seek answers to the questions that are being asked. The present study deals with such problems. In the broadest sense, it is concerned with the potential role of profanity in the process of impression formation. More specifically, it is aimed at answering the following questions: (1) When individuals are forming impressions of an unknown communicator, does the use of profanity by that communicator affect the impressions that are formed? (2) Does the degree of offensiveness influence the magnitude of the effect of pro- fanity on impression fOrmation? (3) Does the sex of the unknown communicator influence the magnitude of the effect of profanity on impression formation? Obviously, we frequently form impressions of a stranger on the basis of an initial sample of his communication behavior. In fact, when our first contact causes us to say that a person is dynamic, shy, insensitive, crude, intelligent, or honest -- to mention but a few of many possible judgments-- it is likely that our summary impression has been largely determined by the form and content of the person's conversation. Suppose that a part of the persods initial conversation consists of profane language. The profanity will probably influence our impression of the communicator. For instance, we might perceive the user of profanity as a dynamic, aggressive person, but at the same time question his good judgment, character, and social sensitivity. Numerous variables may, however, influence the extent to which profanity is a mediating factor in arriving at the impression of previously unknown individuals. One variable is the degree of offensiveness of the profanity used by the unknown communicator. Societal mores regarding acceptable usage imply that certain profane terms will be only mildly offensive to some, and perhaps totally unoffensive to others. By contrast, more piquant terms are likely to be moderately offensive to some, and possible highly offensive to others. Generally, one would expect the latter terms to have a greater impact on the process of impression formation. , A study by Rossiter and Bostrom (1969) provided support for the notion that offensive profanity will influence initial perceptions of unknown communicators. After develOping a scale of the degree of offensiveness of 17 profane terms, these researchers manipulated the level of offensiveness of profane terms in several persuasive messages attributed to unknown communicators. Source credibility, as defined by Berlo, Lemert, and Mertz (1969), ratings obtained from subjects exposed to the various messages revealed that when profanity was highly offensive, dynamism ratings were high but ratings of safety and quali- fication were low. Rossiter and Bostrom conclude that safety and qualification are negatively related to offensiveness, while dynamism and offensiveness are positively related. A second variable that may influence the impact of profanity on impression formation is the sex of the unknown communicator. In matters of profanity, social norms have usually allowed greater latitude on the part of males. Thus, due to the role, the use of profanity, --particularly profanity at a relatively high level of offensiveness-- should be highly salient to the process of forming initial judgments about her. By contrast, the impact of profanity when the judgments are of unknown male communicators should be considerably less. While no prior research bears directly on this possibility, several studies indicate that males and females are responded to differently in sexually-oriented environments. Diggory (1956) found that recognition thresholds and emotional reactions as measured by galvanic skin reSponse were more pronounced for tachistosc0pically presented taboo words when the subjects were the opposite sex of the experimenter. Miller and Bacon (1967), using a sexually-oriented humorous visual stimulus and employing female experimenters, found significant differences in the way that male and female subjects responded to the stimulus. They suggest that these results may be attributed to either or both of two considerations: males and females may have reacted differently to the picture's sexually-oriented content, or male and female subjects may have reacted differently to the presence of a female eXperimenter. Taken as a whole, the preceding reasoning regarding the role of varying levels of offensiveness and the sex of the communicator in determining the importance of profanity in impression formation leads to the following hypotheses, which were tested in the present study: Hla: Persons exposed to a message containing highly offensive profanity will report higher dynamism ratings of the unknown communicator than will persons exposed to a message containing profanity of low offensiveness. Hlb: Persons eXposed to a message containing highly offensive profanity will report lower safety ratings of the unknown communicator than will persons exposed to a message containing profanity of low offensiveness. ch: Persons eXposed to a message containing highly offensive profanity will report lower competence ratings of the unknown communicator than will persons eXposed to a message containing profanity of low offensiveness. H2a‘ The effect of highly offensive profanity on the dynamism dimension of credibility, as stated in Hla’ will be greater if the unknown communiemor is a female, rather than a male. H2b: The effect of highly offensive profanity on the safety dimension of credibility, as stated in Hlb, will be greater if the unknown communicator is a female, rather than a male. 2c: The effect of highly offensive profanity on the competence dimension of credibility, as stated in file, will be greater if the unknown communicator is a female, rather than a male. CHAPTER II METHOD Experimental Materials The experimental materials used in this study consisted of six tape-recordings and a five page questionnaire. The script for the tape (see Appendix A) was written as a conversation between two university students on the topic of police brutality. The recording was six and one—half minutes long. In three of the conditions the female played the pro-police role, and the male read the anti-police role, using highly offensive profanity in one condition, profanity of low offensiveness in another, and no profanity in the third condition. In the other three conditions the male and female reversed roles, with the same procedures being used. The order of the taping was determined by the use of a random numbers table. The questionnaire (see Appendix B) consisted of: an intro- ductory page with directions for scale use, a personal data sheet, two pages of semantic differential type scales for measuring credibiiity, five questions to ascertain personal positions concerning the tOpic of police brutality, and an open—ended question for the students to comment on the study. The adjectives used for the semantic differential scales were those suggested by Berlo, Lemert, and Mertz (1969) as the 15 most representative of the three credibility dimensions. The test booklets were identical for all of the treatments. Subjects The subjects for the study were students in eight Michigan State University classes during the 1969 summer session. Six of these classes were introductory courses in the College of Communication Arts, and the remaining two were introductory writing courses in the College of Business Administration. Though both were introductory courses, the students ranged from freshman to seniors, and included a tdal of 80 males, and 81 females. Experimental Procedure The instructors for the classes told the students that a research project would be conducted, but they gave no other information. At the appointed time the female experimenter entered the classroom and set up the tape recorder, telling the class that the tape would explain itself and that at the conclusion of the tape they would receive questionnaires concerning it. When the questionnaires were handed out, no instructions were given by the experimenter. When all of the subjects had completed the booklet they were collected and the purpose of the research was eXplained. The tdal time of the treatment administration was 20 minutes. Independent Variables The independent variables in this study were: (1) sex of the unknown communicator and (2) degree of offensiveness of the profane terms. The variable degree of offensiveness was defined in accordance with the Rossiter and Bostrom study (1969). Two terms that their study indicated were of the lowest order of offensiveness for profanity were used in the low offensiveness conditions, and the two terms that were ranked as most offensive were used in thelfigh offensiveness conditions. The manipulation of the conditions was accomplished by insertion of one or another of the word pairs at selected points of the dialogue. The control conditions did not contain any profane terms. Dependent Variable The dependent variable used in this study was source credibility. The perceived safety, qualification, and dynamism of the source was measured. In accordance with the Berlo, Lemert, and Mertz (1969) study the following adjective pairs were recommended to index the dimensions of source credibility: SAFETY: Safe- Unsafe; Just-Unjust; Kind-Cruel; Friendly-Unfriendly; Honest-Dishonest COMPETBNCE: Trained-Untrained; BXperienced- Inexperienced; Skilled-Unskilled; Qualified—Unqualified; Informed— Uninformed DYNAMISM: Aggressive-Meek; Emphatic-Hesitant; Bold-Timid; Active-Passive; Tired- Energetic These terms served as the anchor points on a seven interval scale and the subjects were asked to indicate their ratings by narking the interval closest to their personal positions. These scales were scored so that a total score of 35 for any of the dimensions would be the most extreme positive ratings, and a score of five would be the most extreme negative rating. Procedures for Controling Preparation and Presentation p£_Stimulus There are three areas into which the control procedures can be classified: instrument control, administration control, and social control. Instrument control was accomplished by keeping the six different tapings as similar as possible in tone and vocabulary. The same two individuals recorded all of the tapes. The profanity was inserted at the same places in the dialogue, and the volume of these words was kept at the same level. Administration control was accomplished by having the same female experimenter run all of the subjects. The only directions that were given were: The tape is self-explanatory, so I will not give any directions. Please listen closely, for at the conclusion of the tape you will be receiving a questionnaire related to it. The rest of the directions, which were placed on the tape itself (Appendix C), indicated that the subjects were to respond to the tape by giving their opinion of it. The questionnaire was distributed, and was prefaced with a set of instructions for its completion. Social control was achieved by using students who did not feel that participating in research is particularly unusual. The instructors for the class gave no introduction beyond a personal acknowledgement of the eXperimenter. Experimental Design The study was designed to see how the sex of the source and the degree of offensiveness of the source's language would affect the 10 three dimensions of the source's credibility. Therefore, the basic design for the study was a 3 by 2 factorial analysis of variance, with each cell containing the rating for the three credibility dimensions. The independent variables were (1) sex of the unknown communicator and (2) the degree of offensiveness of the language divided into high, low and control conditions (Table 1). In this latter condition, no profanity was used. The dependent variable of credibility was divided into three dimensions: (1) dynamism, (2) safety, and (3) competence. TABLE 1: Basic EXperimental Design Sex of Source Male Female High A B Degree of Low C D Offensiveness Control E P The subjects were given only one of the six conditions (A-F). There was no prior testing that would measure the subjects' feelings about either the topic of police brutality of profanity. CHAPTER III RESULTS Each subject's ratings of the unknown communicator were divided into the three dimensions of credibility; safety, qualification and dynamism were anayzed independently. A two-way analysis of variance was performed on the ratings of the 161 subjects to test the relation- ship between the independent variables of sex of the source and the degree of language offensiveness and the dependent measure of the source's credibility. Test pf the Theoretic Hypotheses Hypotheses la and 2a: Hypotheses la and 2a predict that the source's dynamism ratings will increase when the language used becomes more offensive, and that this effect will be greater when the source is a female. These hypotheses were tested by a two factor analysis of variance. The analysis (see Table 2) indicated that the sex by degree of offensiveness interaction and the main effect of sex of the source were significant, but that the main effect for offensiveness was not significant. ll IN ‘— TAQLE 2 Summary of the Analysis of \ariancefbr the Dimension 1.}‘71'1EJHISID. of Source _d_f_ _l_‘3_ : p_ Degree of Effen"iv:ness 2 1.17 1.H7 n.s. Sex of tee courco 1 6.93 7.15 .05 Sex 7 offensiveness 2 2.73 3.H2 .05 Error 153 0.09 r-T . , ‘ '- I v: ' “¢ ‘ 1‘ 1ne means for he Cells were A at cenpared. lecause the (L. -C, w‘-\ .L '31“le source's mean ratin 5 did not follow the direction of increasing dynamism with increasing offensiveness the more conservative Scheffe's test (Hefiemar, 165) was used. The means and the significance t for differences between the means ane presented in Table 3. ests TABLE 3: Cell Jeans and Schelle's test for Differences on tfle Dynamism Dimension Degree of Language Sex of Source Offensiveness r.) Male Female High (a) 24.2 (b) 2u.5 LOW (C) 23.3 (d) 24.” Control (e) 20.5 (f) 26.2 Scheffe Test |.—+ re |r-+ rm (a) (c) 2.9 ns (b) (d) 0.3 ns (a) (e) 10.8 .05 (h) (f) 2.1 ns (c) (e) 8.9 .05 (d) (f) 2.1 ns 13 Hypothesis la was supported for a male source using language of varying degrees of offensiveness. The means were in the direction predicted and differed significantly. When the female source used offensive language, the same reaction did not occur. Because of this, Hypothesis 2a was not supported, nor was Hypothesis 1a when the source was a female. Hypotheses lb and 2b: Hypotheses lb and 2b state that a source's safety ratings will decrease as the degree of language offensiveness increases, and that this effect will be greater for a female source than for a male source. The analysis of variance for these data can be found in Table H. TABLE H: Summary of the Analysis of Variance for the dimension of Safety Source 53: HS_ .5 ll Degree of Offensiveness 2 2.27 2.50 n.s. Sex of the Source 1 1.90 2.10 n.s. Sex X Offensiveness 2 2.34 2.3M n.s. Error 155 .91 The analysis showed no significant differences in any of the \ treatment conditions. The means for the cells are presented in Table 5. Because of the lack of statistical significance, no selected ‘1 comparisons of cell means were computed. 10 TABLE 5: Jresentation of Cell Means for the Dimension of Safety I :kx;ree (Affiffewy‘VV\rers .c' (V‘Tiource ale Female High (a) 12.” (b) 11.5 Low (c) 12.1 (d) 13.1 Control (e) 15.7 (f) 12.3 5—14 hypotheses 1c and 2c; Zypotheses 1c and 2c predict that the 14- O {- Q Q) competence ratings of urea w 11 decrease as the degree of language fensiveness increases, and that this effect will be greater for a female source than for a male source. An analysis of variance for the competence ratings can he found in Table 6. The analysis yielded a s gnificant sex by offenSiveness interaction and a significant main effect for sex of the source. The degree of offensiveness effect was not significant. TABLE 6: Summary of the Analysis of Variance for the Dimension of Competence. S ource _c_1_i: 2S _I_‘_ p Degree of Offensiveness 2 0.06 1 n.s. Sex of the Source 1 9.71 8.57 .05 Sex X Offensiveness 2 9.23 3.73 .05 Error 155 1.13 Examination of the competence means revealed that the obtained interaction was not consistent with theoretic expectations. Originally 15 it was predicted that as degree of offensiveness increases, ratings of competence will decrease, and that the effect will be more pronounced for female sources. Actually, the lowest mean competence rating for the female source occurred in the Control condition, where no profanity was used (Table 7). By contrast, the male source's ratings were highest in that condition, as predicted. Thus the pattern of the ratings fails to conform with predictions. The means are presented in Table 7. Because the means represent no interpretable theoretical trend, no individual comparisons were calculated. TABLE 7: Presentation of Cell Means for the Dimension of Competence Degree of Language Sex of Source Offensiveness 35551 Female High (a) 14.2 (b) 11.3 Low (c) 12.2 (d) 12.7 Control (e) 15.2 (f) L10.0 It was thought that the lack of support for the hypothesized relationships may have resulted from differences in actual male and female sources taping ability. To see if this was the case, an analysis of variance was calculated for the other role taken by the two persons. This analysis, and the presentation of the means, can be found in Appendix D. The results of the dynamism dimension showed no significant differences between the two persons. For the safety and competence dimensions, the female sources ratings were significantly higher than the male source. yvqs O "I This study investi: offensiveness and its effect on the formation of initial imnre 3: ions Jout the credibility or male and feme le comiuni cation sources. The r- 0 effect was measured in terms of dynamism, safety and competence; 1 -, ,. J" : ° 1,2, w”: M ‘ -, ,2 7‘ - ' T, '- tae tqre- crccieility cl enlens isolate; sy rerlo, nenert, and '1 0 r- . r . oi erent treat n a o _H . '< a“ _: "-‘ ‘ _ . ‘ _ ”Y- bULfiCle>xh3f€ assl_amxl'to one oi meat si conditions. In two conditi ors , stiJecLs listened to a taped inte action in which a male or a ferale source used high v offensive language; n two of the conditions, the nale or Rre 1e source used language of low offensi ve ness; and in two conditions, no profanity was used. The profanity was interjected at selected points in the in the C4 dialogue. One hundred and sixty-one s ;jects participate L The predicted relationships were only oartially suopo orted by the analyses. As }re edi CtQCL, the male source was perceivee as inificantly more dynamic in the highly offensive language condition, but this relationsilin did not hold for the female Source. Uhile it was uredicted that both safety and competence ratinjs would decrease 1 as the offel isiveness of the language increased, this hypoth e Sized 16 l7 inverse relationship was not supported for either the male or female sources. Hypotheses 2 a, b, and c predicted that the relationship posited in the first hypotheses would be even greater for the female source. Since the first hypotheses were not supported, it was impossible to confirm the second set of hypotheses. Discussion There are several reasons why the niationships hypothesized sorted. First, there are several possible in this study were not supp methodological problems that may have precluded a successful test of the hypotheses. The experimental message used in the study was a taped discussion. It is possible that the tape could have included subtle differences between the male and female sources, even though every attempt was made to keep the presentations comparable. Some support for this possibility can be found in the results of the analysis of the no profanity, pro-policy role. In this neutral baseline role, there were significant differences between the male and female source on the dimensions of safety and competence, suggesting that variables other than the use of profanity may have been Operating. It is also possible that the subjects were functioning at a level of selective perception that resulted in their reacting to only small seements of the taped interactions. Some impressions gained while observing the subjects listening to the six and one-half minute tape add support to this interpretation. It appeared that at least some of the subjects felt that the tape was a "put-on," and thus did not give full attention to the interaction. Perhaps this problem could be alleviated by informing the students that the original discussion was retaped by professionals. This would then explain the fact that the tape sounded rehearsed. It should be noted that the message contained a set of terms that were judgedin be high or low in offensiveness by a college population. however, the Bostrom and Rossiter (1969) study forced subjects to discriminate on degree of offensiveness by rank—ordering these terms. The outcome was a relative, ordinal ranking, and it is impossible to determine absolute differences in offensiveness between the various terms. Indeed, it is conceivable that the actual differences in offensiveness between the highest and lowest terms are small. If so, one would not expect large differences in the judgments of impression formation baween subjects exposed to messages containing terms of varying degrees of offensive language. The population from which subjects were drawn for this study may also have affected the outcome. All subjects were enrdled in classes which stress from the outset that meanings are in people and not in words. With this axion being repeated almost daily, they may have reacted indifferently to the profanity. This becomes a more relistic possibility when one considers that the six treatment conditions were composed of intact groups. Moreover, examination of the six treatment means provide further support for this possibility. It appears that there were differences in the control conditions for the anti-policy role, but when the profanity was interjected, these source ratings tended to level off. If there were 0 her variables to which the subjects were reactint the inclusion of profanity. Perhaps subjects were cautious about reacting intensely to the sources when they used language of either high or low offensiveness. The experimenter in all of ti corfitions was the same “emale. ‘5 5 This might have raised some problems. In the conditions where the students were exposed to profanity, they may have made a connection between the exnerimenter and the terminology used in the tan;. It H. ~ .0831?» ‘3zt 'eiib' s cias s; A We )JC °n i ged ° he 9 P 119 in (:1: (H 13.13 th fOI‘ldI VB 16 D incluc’ ln tI‘3 perimenter to see if {3 C ('3 La rt r— 0 O :1 Li L; !-’- '"5 (D tn 0 *5 ft 6 fr] ,ulycts to rate the ex the presentation of the conditions changed the impressions of her. ' also be ioted that the means for both the male and female unknown source in all conditions were considerably lower for saiety and competence than is normally found for credibility ratings of persons interacting. This could in part be due to the language 1e tape. Though offensiveness was defined in this study as the use of varying degrees of profanity, it is possible that the students also felt that terms such as pigs and cons when included in the general form of the interaction, are equally offensive and undesirable. Finally, it may be that contemporary societal norms militate against conformation of the hypotheses tested in this study. Students may hear such terms frequently enough that the terms lose the unfavorable connotations traditionally associated with them. Here again, it should be emphasised that the terms may be relatively, rather than absolutely different in offensiveness. If thb study were to be replicated the methodological problems mentioned above should be considered. Due to the lack of previous research on profanity, it is difficult to suggest theoretical refinements that would improve the procedures. It is possible, however, that interpersonal variables may affect reactions to the use of offensive langucge, and future research might well deal with this possibility. 21 bIBLIOCRAPHY ertz, Robert, "Dimensions for Evaluating r u . A nerlo, David, Lemert, James and i the Acceptability of Message Sources" Uichigan State University, D R. for A». in press, 1969. Boyle, Robert, Swearing, John William DD, London, printed by 1695. T. Cockerial, sen' + jun" Crobaugh, Clyde, Abusive Words of Vow to Cuss Effectively, Copia Verorum, Knoxville, Tennessee, 1956. Johnson, Burges, The Lost Art of Profanity, Hobbs—Merrill Co. Indianapolis, how York, 1348. Mcfiemar, Quinn, Psychological Statistics, Wiley Publishing rouse, ndedness and 7 , Mi chifj an New York, 962, p. 285. Miller, Gerald 8 Bacon, Paula, "Open-and Closed—Hi 0 Recognition of Visual humor", Unpublished, l 6 State University. nontagu, Ashley, The Anatomy of Swearing, Macmillian and Co., London- "Profanity, 'Justification,' u Collier, 1967. Rossiter, Charles N. and Bostrom, Robert J., and Source Credibility", unpublished study, Ohio State University, s, J.C. Hemmo and Bain, ' ' Cg;- Cursory history of Swearin 1" (\- 190s. Sherman, Julian, A Strand NO 18b4. APPENDIX A LXPLAhATIOH AHD IITRODUCTION OF TAPE L3 The Introduction and explanation of tfie stun? for the subjects .. . V .. -14- l .3“ : as was found on the be innin, 1.1 of the taped conditions: [,i,‘,v\ ,— ‘chfi T _‘ . f. ‘__ .v~ ‘, ' rs s", :v- 1“- '1' O. O . ihe lollo»ing:b a recordin; inst was Laud by two unlJCP8114 personal data, and then proceed to discuss the teptc of “Olice brutality. Please listen c oselv to tnis cerversation for your Opinions t.) concerning the trxnsrction will be as? :ed at the conclusion of the recording. APPLEBIX n DIALOGUJ PECORDED OH TAPE IO U“. Dialogue 1. My name is Sue (Stu) Culter, I'm a junior at M advertising, I grew up in a suburb of Detroit ,--is an introduction? .S.U., my major is that good enough for *2. Yea, I guess, I feel like I'm applin3 for a job with this damn (fucking) tape-recorder. I'm Joe (Joan) Powers, my major is television and radio, I'm almost a junior, and I also grew up outside of Detroit. Well, to the topic, and do I have some things to say about those pigs. I had some friends that were in Chicago, and the stories that they tell, man it was wild. T‘e cops used Lillgr clubs, sticks, mace, pipes, any— thing to beat on t1"1o 3e kids. I. But, loot at the Detroit riots, you-know, the police didn't lift a fing :er until ther received orders from the higher-ups, they just stood on the street and watched the looting. 2. You think that's good? That's whe n I would eXpect them to do something. But I must say '1'hen they did 3et their orders, they took them to heart, all sorts of animal instincts came out -- even up to murder. 1. Ah, don't you think that you're luMping t21ings together just a little to much? You're talking at outisolated cases, instead of the policy force as a whole. 2. I consider it close to a whole, sure I remember we were even taught a song as children about the ”kind" policeman who would help us 3 et hon1e if we 3:ave our name and address. hell (fuck), I wouldn't even 3ive them my student ntm.ber unles s I have too. I. haven't you ever contacted the policy for help or information? 2. Sure, but t at's another point, I had to contact them. They certainly never seem to be around when I nee for .11iPJxlll‘ on 11y fro nt lawn, and then I 1.141 s a day doing somethin3 screwy and dangerous on the r seem to be a cop on the road then I met a tie} :et tifte on drivers oad, and there never 1. The police are people you—know, tic-‘5~ can't le eveQ'where at once, e and they do have a hard jeh, even if they agr-e or Sf naL i: :3 T'ith the offenders they have to up1old t1; laws of the society unt_l tees: lei-rs are clzal‘n3ee. _ .1... , . 1 l q -11 L L17 anti not..-) £30.43 A. 2. host of them are uneducated fools, theylaid a a J of the booze and Loo for the selves so they can QHJOV it -—hut some one 1&1} else 3038 to jail for exactly the same thing and as far as the laws of .oc1eL "ors, th ey d on't usually even know what's new —- all they worry about i how t1er can get somet in; outa a deal, and if they'll ‘ I“ k) meet the ti cket et ota tor the 81V. _/ 26 rfi; » ,~ r 1' v-x v». v‘ _ . »L- . * 4\ ,V rs, v -\ . -\r"\ em ~-_ (a 1 x : - v ~,—-. 4—,. a l. L1c; 11aye 11 olrunf 30L, “t1ey .la}. L1aicnil>'to t.ezty c et31,? 1Waki. :zure 1‘ ~ v —. v '1 --‘ ~1~ 1 '\ ‘2' If. 4 4“ fl —-1 . -— "'r\ . ‘ . tnat no OLc steals ire. tla cockie jar, they aren'L ueVils in blue . . _ 1'-“ i. . urll 7(‘3'13111 , 3f. O‘.l-;.\IAL/-vy . *2. Eben? aix;1t't? Hell, let an‘bell you .....weld_ Emafore I tell that .2 3 ' v x \ * ’1 -' O ‘ v '7 < ‘,-. ‘ ‘1 r" F‘ a ‘ ’ 1' “ . W ‘)"' story let to tell you one where tie pOllce here nice, I so re; line 1' ' ‘ ~A ‘3‘ "r: v ‘v y- - -. v ‘ - ~_ r - ' a ‘ — -1 v tnat there are a Low CNCGQthAb to evary rule. I has at a part; a “-,' ‘f‘ 'y/ ‘1.r -V- ,_..3 V : ! "r-u '\ v-‘ ~vr p;- —- ". 7 ‘ v—\- 3 COlee (t weens a3o, and well, it was a party wiere the kids wanted 4 to be evicted to avoid the l>ace, well, everytiing was 33in3 s:oothly, they vtnx. jIIs bri.t;in3 111 the secxn1d keg, 1dun1 tn: lenndlord . lloed ‘ ' I: -v "‘ v-N ~' 1 ‘ ‘r . \’ 'v ‘ r‘ v‘ r around the back oi t apartment, the parking lot, well, he sa4 a couple of guys -—to put t1 1e :ituation delicately, the girls were lined up on the inside to use the john so the "uys to avoid t11e delay went outside well t1 he landlord, that damn fool (mut erfucI-cer), called t11e cops. When the ceps came they never even came into thsepartment. They asked the tenant to keep the noise down, and asked him if he knew who the boys were--- he said he didn't, the cop said okay, but if they got another complaint that they would have to check ID of the people there to see if they were 21, well, most of the girls there were under age so the party moved elsewhere -- now, I thought that he was an understanding officer. 1. Understanding yes, but he didn't really adhere to the rule of the society. 2. They did ticket every car on the wrong side of the road. 1. Well, I have a story that was so amazing that I almost didn't believe it myself the next day. I had been drinking from two in the afternoon and at four in the morning I decided to pick up my car that I had left at a friends house. Well, I couldn't find it -- it wasn't where I had left it. We had been talking earlier about cars being towed away so I called the E. Lansing c0ps to see if they knew where my car was -—-- do you think anyone would mind if I smoked? 2. Probably not I. NNHH —- I don't see anything that could be used as an ashtray, I've been thinking about quiting anyway -- oh, well back to the story, -— I called the cops and they didn't know where the car was but said if I couldn't find it they would give me a ride home. I went upstairs and woke up one of the guys that lived there and he said that he had pus shed my car in the garage so there would be room in the driveway for other cars -- and that he had Sprung my door and it wouldn't close -- so my car was in the front of four others, and the door wouldn't close, well, I wouldn't have done this stone sober —- I called the ceps back and told them that I had found my car but...in summary I couldn't drive it and I asked if they would still give me a ride back to my place. They asked the address and the partol car was there in five minutes and they took me home. They didn't ask any questions, they didn't even question the fact that I reeked of alcohol, and it was (— cheaper than a taxi, and easier than walkin .7 a two miles. -..> should try that but t.‘ 1e wav that the police pick on me and my 2. I .1 friends, I'd probably be taken straight to the station for some tiling. I. see; tnat you have had a lot more contact with the ceps than th '8 why we think 2. Yea, I just must be lucky. I chool when my and hassel us —- soret in3s anyone, certainly glad those days l. fire we being graded on this con of them different started all the way back steady and I used to park, andthe police would come over I'll never underste ly. in high dd, ‘J K“. \I weren't botherin3 are 0V9 I“ o versation? 2. hell (fuck) I hope not, we haven't really been sticking to the topic. The E.L. boys and their funny corner sirens are not what is typically considered a brutal cop. l. .nen we started this conversation you mentioned imace, i.s it called naec becauLo it's wade out of the spice, or is it ‘ istoricall) related to t Spiked ball and chaiI q - . * .J. I. .- l, 4. .- 1,331 3.. .L '.,4.1, ,.. 3.3,, _- Y 2. I really don t know, puL it ”lira In an inLerestLLU question. 1. I've got another one, do you t ink it str ron3 police control is an dicatLet of what' to come? like a state co: tooll eseciety? 2. I think that's what sore of the ruckus is about. If t e universiL, can turn students in, and if they can be kicked out of so ool for things that they did ille3ally O'i f campus. It se ens rat11er ironic that the police use force to put do In canpus deronsr tra ti ons when the kids are peacefully stu:)orn, axd if t‘e kids start to use force watch out, the judge (ill throw tIC book at tie“. l. I uppose that it has sometling to do with protecting tke pem onel and lirOperty ri3hts of the citizen. To protect the ri3hts of some peeple it is someti es ne essary to take away the ri3hts of others. It's the ole vicious circle tri oz! 2. Sometimes it has nothing to do with property-— like with dru3s, if I want to take speed, or smoke 3rass, I don't see where t1 e police should be able to exert any more pressure or control over me th if I want to have a drink. I. are enforced for person from comsn :7 t it ir; suicide 30in" a bad pun-~3ive 2. Are they you'll excuse them l1at ml—Jt be cnanvec in the future, soon, but I eprotedion of the Citizens--like to arrest someone after they commit imagine that laJs -ey can stop a suicide—~if a life sentence° 1. Oh, no, you-know O '3. *2. That's just a bit of the PlulCUlOUSDeSS I see occuring around those damn (motherfucking) ceps. Going back to the topic--my mind just doesn't seem to be on the track. I guess I really don't care about the police brutality unless I'm the one it's happening to. The offensive language used was either the term in parenthefis, or the term directly before it. In the no profanity control condition the terms were not included in the sentence. The asterisked lines are those that were manipulated in the treatments. APPLE‘IDIX C Q2 22; 8 TI (32.1?2211 RE: A 9.22122 I 23 T2125; D 30 He are interested in finding out how peOple react to persons in a communication situation. You are being asked to fill out several scales indicating how you personally feel about these persons. The following example should help you in marking these scales. Suppose you have heard a conversation between two people and you are to mark a scale indicating how you felt about one of those peeple. The scale looks like this: Bad : : : : : : Good Very Quite Slightly Half Slightly Quite Very Bad bad bad Bad Good Good Good We would like for you to tell us whether you felt the person wasxrery bad, quite had, slightly bad, half bad and half good, slightly good, quite good, or very good. You would place a mark (X) above the line that MOST CLOSELY represented your feelings. There are no right or wrong answers. We just want your feelings. Hark only one Space. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR MLLP Please Fill Out the Following: {:9 (7'1 0 O O Number of Credits earned by the completion of this term: ex: Hale Female hometown Area: Farm Suburb City Employment at the present tine: Part Time Full Tire 1,7 ‘-’.' 1 3‘ O 'I OPJC Tired honest Qualified Informed U Pannive liilld Untrained F’I' . Q. :in.lu iffnquali 51.6: C; Cnijifornked Active Unfriendly IDCXperlCDCC” Experienced [hljtrst itant 0') he Energetic Dishonest Unquali fie d Uninformed Active Unfriendly Inexperienced Please Fill out the Following: Do you think that the police are considered brutal in some situations? Yes he have you observed actual situations where the police used violence? Yes no have you personally, or a close friend, been in a situation where the police used force to control you? Yes No Within the past six months, have you seen incidents on television where the police used force to control the offenders? Yes he Do you feel that in some incidents where the police do not use excess force to control the persons involved, that they should? Yes No If you wish to make any comments on the conversation please feel free to do so below. 'hAfiK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR “SSISTAHCL. APPENDIX 1:» ANALYSIS OF VI‘iRIAlICE FOR THE DIE-IEI‘ISItT’Ii—IS OF CRL'DIBILITY FOR THE PRO-POLICE ROLE 3 ‘52 Analysis of Vaniance for the Dimensions of Credibility for the Pro-Police Role Source :1: I-ES E p_ The Dimension of Dynaznir’rz'a ------------------------------------------------- Degree of Offensiveness 2 0.65 .78 n.s. Sex of the Source 1 0.05 .06 n.s. Sex X Offensiveness 2 o.u9 .06 n.s. Error 155 0.83 The Dimension of Safety --------------------------------------------------- Degree of Offensiveness 2 0.26 .28 n.s. Sex of the Source 1 5.99 6.57 .05 Sex X Offensiveness 2 0.85 .94 n.s. hrror 155 0.91 The Deminsion of Competence ----------------------------------------------- Degree of Offensiveness 2 o.uu .43 n.s. Sex of the Source 1 32.32 30.88 .05 N N 0 CL) Q Sex X Offensiveness 2.26 n.s. Error 155 1.05 I J .‘ '."(_' 3L) . I I L. [V .._1 OF N" ".jT‘I '\ ."'n1 (*1 fr“’ I);\1.JE).1-Jl‘ .l..."\i l Ikll.‘ FOP TE? “—1 b 4— . CP lO-POLICh ‘ Di _‘ Jul T) F'VJ‘ ‘4. ,. :le _.‘.. Presentation of Means for the Pro-Police Role Credibility Dimenxion Ratings Degree of Offensiveness Sex of Source Hale Female The Lynamism Dimension ----------------------------------------------- 121321 18.4 19.6 Low 18.6 17.8 Control 17.9 17.9 The Safety Dimeuion -------------------------------------------------- high 14.4 13.6 Low 15.4 13.7 Control 15.6 12.2 The Competence Dimension --------------------------------------------- high 18.8 16.4 Low 22.0 15.1 Control 20.6 16.1 HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV LIBRQRIE 113111WIIHIIHIIIHHIIII!“ 111211” 221 1293101978074