.N‘ .w'M 5‘2":;i§ir ... 45L (- r‘fl\>4w-< "mu '4. Q m #0 -..- ugh-v . m, ”dun-V4 4 u......« 0 sum». 4......7“. .n- III-7w ”ff-:3 ‘4hh1 s flags“: I D 1",! i I um. r“ is - @133 at; .«n -u-. «1 mcmam STATE on ’ mm m mill/ll”? l 3 1293 01037 9844 lllll/lllll/Il/IUI/N ill/ll! This is to certify that the dissertation entitled The Relationship of Personal Contact, Media Exposure and Racial/Ethnic Self-Esteem With Stereotypes And Racial Prejudice presented by Kelly*SUZanne Ervin has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Psychology K? {/0 6/4 K 5 M Myer} professor 6“.” .KK") Date I I" L) MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 LIBRARY ivuohtgan State University ._._+ PLACE IN RETURN BOX to more this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before data duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ll Alli! 66’ 280 — MSU!e.A.'!.“' ‘ ‘ ' " "‘ THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERSONAL CONTACT, MEDIA EXPOSURE AND RACIAL/ETHNIC SELF-ESTEEM WITH STEREOTYPES AND RACIAL PREJUDICE by Kelly Suzanne Ervin A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1993 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP OF PERSONAL CONTACT, MEDIA EXPOSURE AND RACIAL/ETHNIC SELF-ESTEEM WITH STEREOTYPES AND RACIAL PREJUDICE BY Kelly Suzanne Ervin Literature which has attempted to identify the attributes that one racial/ethnic group believes are characteristic of another racial/ethnic group, and the racial/ethnic prejudice between racial/ethnic groups, is lacking in its' use of non-White populations. The present research provides evidence of . attributes that African-Americans believe are characteristics of Whites, Hispanics and Asians. In addition, the racial/ethnic prejudice that African-Americans feel towards these groups is examined. It has also been proposed that increased personal contact with members of different racial/ethnic groups and increased exposure to positive media images can .help to reduce this racial/ethnic prejudice. These ideas were tested in this study. In addition, the relationship between racial/ethnic sel f - esteem and racial/ethnic prejudice was also explored. Results indicated that African-Americans believe there are 92 different attributes which characterize Whites, 87 for Hispanics and 92 for Asians. Further analysis suggests that, for African-Americans, personal contact was significantly correlated with their prejudice for Whites. On the other hand, there was no relationship between African—Americans' personal contact with Hispanics and Asians and their racial prejudice for Hispanics and Asians. And, African-Americans' exposure to Whites via mass media was not significantly correlated with their prejudice for them, yet, it was significantly correlated with their prejudice for both Hispanics and Asians. More specifically, the more positive media exposure to Hispanics and Asians, the mmre prejudice African-Americans had for them. Racial/ethnic self-esteem was not correlated with African-Americans' racial prejudice for either Whites, Hispanics or Asians. Results also indicated that Whites believe there are 79 attributes which are characteristic of African-Americans, 10 of Hispanics and 8 for Asians. Personal contact was significantly correlated with Whites' prejudice for African- Americans and Hispanics, but not Asians. Media exposure was not correlated with Whites' prejudice for African-Americans and Hispanics and was negatively correlated with their prejudice for Asians. Racial/ethnic self-esteem was not correlated with Whites' prejudice for either African-Americans or Hispanics, but correlated with their prejudice for Asians. The importance of using non-White respondents in stereotype research is discussed. THIS DISSEHTA TIUH IS BED/CA TED T0 MY DEAR MOTHER & THf MEMORY OF MY [UV/HG FA THE/7: HAZEL W. EHWH & [A WHEHL‘E A. [HI/IN, SH. V Table of Contents List of Tables ................................................. vii Chapter 1: Introduction ......................................... 1 Purpose for study ............................... 1 Racial Prejudice ................................ 5 Personal Contact ............................... 6 Media Exposure ................................. 9 Racial/Ethnic Self-Esteem ..................... 10 Stereotypes & Racial Prejudice Whites have for African-Americans, Hispanics & Asians ............................................... 13 Stereotypes & Racial Prejudice African-Americans have for Whites, Hispanics & Asians ............................................... 21 Chapter 2: The Present Study ....................... 28 Hypothesis #1 .................................. 28 Hypothesis #2 .................................. 29 Hypothesis #3 .................................. 29 Chapter 3: Method .................................. 31 Materials ...................................... 34 Statistical Analyses ........................... 40 Chapter 4: The Results ............................. 46 Chapter 5: Discussion .............................. 80 Limitations of Research ........................ 9O vi Conclusions ......................................... 91 References .......................................... 92 Appendix A: Social Group Questionnaire ...................................... 112 Appendix B: Personal Contact Questionnaire ...................................... 125 Appendix C: Media Contact Questionnaire ...................................... 131 Appendix D: Evaluation Thermoneter Scale .............................................. 136 Appendix E: Collective Self-Esteem Scale .............................................. 140 Appendix F: Demographic Information Scale .............................................. 141 Appendix G: Factor Loadings Matrix ............................................. 142 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 10 11 12 13 14 vii List of Tables Reliabilities for Personal Contact Scale .................................. 36 Reliabilities for Media Exposure Scale .................................. 38 Attributes that African-Americans believe are diagonistic of Whites ....................................... 48 Eigenvalues of 116 attributes (Whites) ............................... 51 Attributes that African-Americans believe are diagonistic of Hispanics ....................................... 52 Eigenvalues of 116 attributes (Hispanics) ............................ 55 Attributes that African-Americans believe are diagonistic of Asians ....................................... 56 Eigenvalues of 116 attributes (Asians) ............................... 59 Attributes that Whites believe are diagonistic of African-Americans ....................................... 61 Eigenvalues of 116 attributes (African-Americans) ....................................... 63 Attributes that Whites believe are diagonistic of Hispanics ....................................... 65 Eigenvalues of 116 attributes (Hispanics) ............................ 67 Attributes that Whites believe are diagonistic of Asians ....................................... 68 Eigenvalues of 116 attributes (Asians) ............................... 70 Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 viii Means for Personal Contact ................................ 72 Means for Media Exposure ............................... 75 Means for Racial Self-Esteem & Racial Prejudice .............................. 77 Chapter 1 Introduction The stereotypes and racial prejudice that Whites have for African-Americans have been a focus of research since 1933. An abundance of information has been published that identifies the stereotypes and racial prejudice that Whites have for African-Americans (see Katz & Braly, 1933; Mydrall, 1944; Allport, 1954; Brink & Harris, 1964; 1967; Marx, 1967; Campbell & Schuman, 1968; Campbell, 1971; Condran, 1979; Apostle, et a1., 1983; Schuman, Steeh & Bobo, 1988; Case & Greeley, 1990 and Carmines & Champagne, 1990). Likewise, the stereotypes and racial prejudice that Whites have for Hispanics and Asians1 have also been documented, but to a much lesser degree (see Stephan & Stephan, 1985; Stevenson et a1., 1990; Katz & Braly, 1933; Wong, 1990; Leong & Hayes, 1990). However, there is very little information available about the stereotypes and racial prejudice that African- Americans have for Whites, Hispanics or Asians. W There were several purposes of this study. The first ' The racial group of Hispanics consists of eight subgroups: Chicanos, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Dominicans, non-White Hispanics, and South and Central Americans. The racial group of Asians consists of twenty-four subgroups: Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Asian, Indian, Korean, Vietnamese, Laotian, Thai, Cambodian, Pakistan, Indonesian, Hmong, Bhutanese, Borneo, Celebesian, Cernan, Indochinese, Iwo-Jiman, Javenese, Maldivian, Nepali, Sikkim and Singaporean (Johnson et a1., 1983) . Unless otherwise indicated, citations of research pertaining to these groups consider Hispanics and Asians as homogeneous groups. 1 2 was to identify the attributes that make up the stereotype that African-Americans have for Whites, Hispanics and Asians. The second purpose was to identify the racial prejudice that African-Americans have for these three groups. The third and fourth purpose was to replicate past research findings that have identified the attributes which make up the stereotype that Whites have for African- Americans, Hispanics, Asians, along with their racial prejudice for these groups. The fifth purpose of this study was to determine the relationship (if any) between personal contact with a racial group and the degree of racial prejudice felt towards that group and the sixth purpose was to determine the relationship (if any) between media exposure to a group and racial prejudice felt towards that group. And, the seventh and final purpose of this study was to determine the relationship (if any) between an individual's racial/ethnic self-esteem and racial prejudice. Given that one of the purposes of this study was to identify the attributes that make up the stereotype that African-Americans and Whites have for each other and Hispanics and Asians, the obvious question becomes, what is a stereotype? There is a substantial amount of literature which answers this question. Katz and Braly (1933) defined a stereotype as a collection of attributes that make up a jbelief about a group, Allport (1954) defined it as an «exaggerated belief and Brigham (1971) defined it as an 3 overgeneralization about a group. Hamilton and Trolier (1986, pg. 133) clarify these definitions by defining stereotype as, "a cognitive structure that contains the perceiver’s knowledge, beliefs, and expectancies about some human group". A stereotype is also considered to be the result of the cognitive process of categorization. That is, stereotype formation results from the fact that individuals don't process all the information that is available to them about people and other social objects (Taylor, 1981). For example, in an effort to simplify their complex social world by using easily identifiable characteristics such as race, (Hamilton & Trolier, 1986) individuals will perceive others as parts of a general category rather than as unique individuals (Rosch & Lloyd, 1978). Several research studies confinm that organizing information about others into general categories helps individuals to simplify the massive amounts of stimuli they have to process on a daily basis (Taylor, 1981; Taylor & Falcone, 1982). Although categorizing people into groups can be an efficient way to process the enormous amount of social information that individuals encounter, the process, although convenient, can lead to stereotyping. This has been demonstrated in several studies. Why does this happen? First, the process of grouping people into categories will facilitate and exaggerate any perceived differences between 4 persons from one's own racial group (a.k.a., an ingroup) and persons from a different racial group (a.k.a., an outgroup) and any perceived similerieiee within the outgroup (Tajfel, 1982; Wilder, 1981). Sherif et a1., (1961) demonstrated this effect of categorization quite eloquently in their classic "Robbers Cave" experiment. Sherif et al., also found that when an individual processes information about persons from a different group from one's own, he or she will have the propensity to think that members of that outgroup are all alike and very different from the ingroup. Several other studies have found support for this cognitive process (see Jones et al., 1981b; Rothbart et a1., 1984; Linville et a1., 1986 and Quattrone, 1986). This perception of perceived heterogeneity DBLHEEE groups and homogeneity wiehin a group is called the outgroup homogeneity bias (Tajfel & Wilkes, 1963; Wilder, 1981). Meaning, a belief that the majority of members of a particular group possess all the same characteristics. This bias is a fundamental part of the process of stereotyping. The research on stereotypes has traditionally focused on the cognitive structuring of the stereotype (Hamilton, 1981; Stephan, 1985, Taylor & Crocker, 1981 & Fiske & Taylor, 1984) and the affect (feeling) associated with the stereotype (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990). Fiske (1981, 1982) argues that stereotypes are knowledge structures that contain an affective component. 5 In other words, individuals may have different feelings associated with different stereotypes. Fiske and Pavelchak (1982) also argue that when an individual is thinking about a racially dissimilar person, both the cognitive knowledge structure (i.e., the stereotype) and the affect (i.e., the feeling) associated with the stereotype are activated. It appears that individuals will evaluate racially dissimilar people as a function of both their stereotype egg the feelings associated with the stereotype. Minding A more common approach used to study affect and stereotypes has focused on an overall feeling that exists between different racial groups or what is more commonly known as racial prejudice (Converse et a1., 1980; Zanna et a1., 1990). Racial prejudice is an attitude (can be positive or negative, but is more often than not, negative) towards members of a racial group, based solely on their membership in that racial group. Racial prejudice has also been defined as a feeling that ‘others' are dangerous, evil and inferior to members of one's own racial group (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Stephan, 1985). Perhaps the oldest explanation for racial prejudice is the realistic conflict theory. According to this perspective, racial prejudice stems from the competition between members of different racial groups for valued commodities and scarce (perceived or real) resources (Hovland & Sears, 1940; White, 1977, Hepworth & West, 1988). Although American society has been described in the past as a place where persons from different racial backgrounds interact, and blend into what has been termed, a big ‘melting' pot while sharing the earth's resources, recent evidence suggests that interaction between member of different races is not occurring in a manner once thought, and when it does occur it does in a very limited way. That is, the United States of America tends to be predominantly within-group in nature. In other words, Whites interact with other Whites, African-Americans with other African- Americans, Hispanics with other Hispanics and Asians with other Asians (Hacker, 1983). EEEEQEQL.QQ§£§QL Some have argued that the tendency for people to only interact with members of their same racial group helps to perpetuate racial prejudice and that increased personal contact with members of different racial groups can help to reduce racial prejudice. This idea is known as the contact hypothesis (Pettigrew, 1981). Several others (see Cook, 1984; Cook, 1985; Wilder, 1984; Aronson, Bridgeman & Geffner, 1978; Rothbart & John, 1985; Stephan & Stephan, 1985 and Nichols and McAndrew, 1990) have found that increased personal contact between persons from different racial groups can indeed lead to the recognition and acknowledgment of similarities and a de-emphasis on the 7 differences between them. In addition, increased personal contact between racial groups can allow for counter- stereotypical information to be encountered and processed. If this happens, racial prejudiced can be reduced. However, certain conditions must exist during personal contact for it to decrease racial prejudice. In particular, Cook (1984; 1985) and others (see Riordan (1978) and Wilder (1984) define the following six conditions that must be present during personal contact before racial prejudice can be reduced. (1) groups must be approximately equal in socio-economic status. If not, racial prejudice should increase, (2) groups must involve cooperation and interdependence while working towards shared goals, (3) inter-group contact must be informal and relaxed, (4) inter- group contact must occur within existing norms that favor group equality, (5) members of groups must act in ways that will encourage disconfirmation of negative stereotypes and (6) persons must view one another as typical of their respective groups. According to Stephan and Stephan (1985), there are six basic dimensions of personal contact that can occur among racially dissimilar people: 1) amount of contact (low to high), 2) quality of interactions (conflict ye. no conflict), 3) perceived rules for behavior required when interacting with racially dissimilar others (formal/structured rules ye. no formal/ structured rules), 8 4) quality of physical contact (positive ye. negative), 5) attitudes of significant others towards racially dissimilar people (positive ye. negative) and 6) perceived socio- economic status difference (of lower status, equal status, or of higher status) between one's own racial group and another. Stephan and Stephan argue that it is the positivity of this personal contact that will determine the racial prejudice between racially dissimilar groups. Consequently, Stephan and Stephan (1985) propose that an individual who has very little contact with others, has interactions that are tainted by conflict, uses formal rules when interacting with others, has negative physical contact with others, has perceptions that significant others have negative attitudes towards another racial group and has a perception that another racial group is of higher socio- economic status than one’s own racial group, will tend to have more racial prejudice for that racial group than an individual who has more contact, positive interactions and physical contact, perceptions of significant others’ positive attitudes and has a perception that their racial group is of either an equal or higher socio-economic status with that group. Another explanation for racial prejudice is that it is the result of social categorization. As explained earlier in this chapter, categorization is a process in which individuals view other persons as belonging to either their 9 group (the ingroup) or another group (the outgroup). Sharp contrasting feelings are attached to members of one's own group and members of an outgroup. Members of an outgroup are often strongly disliked and have negative feelings exhibited to them by members of the ingroup (Linville et a1., 1989; Schaller & Maas, 1989; Wilder, 1986). This tendency to have negative feelings for persons that don't belong to one's own group has been demonstrated in several studies (e.g., Stephan, 1985; Tajfel, 1982; Turner et a1., 1987; Gaertner et a1., 1989). Racial prejudice as an attitude also has roots in certain aspects of social cognition, that is, the manner in which people notice, store, recall and use information about others. Attitudes are cognitive frameworks, or knowledge structures that are used for organizing, interpreting and recalling information (Fiske & Taylor, 1984) and to the extent that prejudice is an attitude, individuals pay more attention to, and remember more frequently social information that is consistent with their prejudiced views more so than information that is not consistent with these views (Bodenhausen, 1988; wyer, 1988). W A final explanation for racial prejudice is the idea that people acquire negative feelings towards others because they see such views being expressed by parents, friends, teachers and mass media. This social learning view of 10 prejudice suggests that people adopt these negative feelings because by doing so, they are directly or indirectly rewarded (e.g., receiving praise or approval) (Rajecki, 1989; Fazio & Zanna, 1981). Social learning theory suggests that it is possible that media exposure to prejudiced views can help to perpetuate racial prejudice. Media exposure is the amount of exposure individuals have to different racial groups via mass media. What is the effect of negative and/or positive portrayals of different racial groups in mass media on racial prejudice? It may be a case in which if members of various racial groups are not present in mass media in great numbers, or if they are present, but portrayed in negative ways, this exposure to racial groups via mass media could increase racial prejudice (Greenberg, 1986). In addition, if members of different racial groups are portrayed as engaging in hostile interactions with one another, this in effect may justify any negative feelings viewers may already have towards these groups, or, in other words, help to perpetuate racial prejudice (Weigel et a1., 1980). Thus, viewers whose only contact with racially dissimilar people is through mass media may deduce from :media portrayals that the images are accurate reflections of reality (Greenberg, 1986). i 1 E ic lf-E Another variable that may also affect racial prejudice 11 is racial/ethnic self-esteem. By definition, racial/ethnic self-esteem is an individual's evaluation of his or her self as a function of membership in a racial group (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992; Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990; Ervin & Jackson, 1990) and is a component an individual's overall social identity (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). According to Tajfel (1981, pg. 255), an individual's social identity is: "that aspect of the individuals' self-concept which derives from their knowledge of their membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership". The distinction between overall social identity and racial/ethnic self-esteem is that the former refers to the evaluation of oneself as a function of membership in all social groups and the latter refers to the evaluation of oneself only as a function of membership in a racial group. Social identity theory argues that individuals are motivated to maintain a positive self-esteem and will engage in behavioral and/or cognitive strategies to protect it (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). This motivation is particularly evident when individuals perceive some form of threat to their self-esteem. For example, Tajfel and Turner (1986) 12 suggest that when an individual perceives that another group is of a higher status in society than that individual's group, this perception of belonging to a group of "lower status" should threaten that individual's self-esteem. Meindl and Lerner (1985) provide support for this view. Consequently, this individual will engage in a cognitive strategy of creating favorable comparisons between members of his or her group and the ‘threatening’ group in an attempt to protect and maintain his or her collective self- esteem by either having prejudice for that group or using negative stereotypes to describe that group. For example, individuals may derogate members of other racial groups perceived to be of higher status to ensure favorable comparisons. This explanation suggests that perhaps African- Americans, Hispanics and Asians should have racial prejudice for Whites if they believe that they are of a lower status than Whites in American society. However, this view would not explain why Whites would have racial prejudice for African-Americans, Hispanics or Asians given that it may be feasible to assume that most Whites probably perceive themselves as being of a higher status than African- Americans, Hispanics and Asians in American society. Janetheless, protecting collective self-esteem.may be an explanation for racial prejudice among racial groups. The following discussion is an overview of the research 13 from the past sixty years on stereotypes and racial prejudice that Whites have for African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians. In addition, the little research available on the stereotypes and racial prejudice that African-Americans have for Whites, Hispanics and Asians is also discussed. r i 1 i Pr 1 Nb H v F r Afrieg-mricane, Hiepgics e eeiane There are two excellent sources that examine the history of Whites' stereotypes of and prejudice for African- Americans. Apostle et al.'s, (1983) book, The Anaeemy of Reeiel Ageieeeee and Schuman, Steeh and Bobo's 1988 Reeiel Aegieeeee in Ameriee: Trende end Ineegpreeetiene offer good reviews of the literature in this area that began in 1933 when researchers began to survey Whites about their stereotypes and feelings for African-Americans. Since 1933, there has been an explosion of research findings that identify how Whites evaluate African-Americans. From 1933 to the present, surveys that assessed Whites stereotypes and evaluations of African-Americans have been quite regular. The bulk of White stereotypes and racial prejudice data comes from national public survey organizations and scholars generating stereotype research (Smith & Dempsey, 1983). However, there is a qualitative difference in the type of data gathered by the national organizations and the type of data gathered by stereotype researchers. For example, The National Opinion Research 14 Center (NORC), The Institute for Social Research (ISR), The American Institute of Public Opinion (AIPO) which is known for its "Gallup Poll", and the Harris Organization (HO) all asked "i - ifi " questions and not questions that would have identified stereotypes or racial prejudice. In other words, the questions pertained to issue-specific concerns such as busing, school integration, public facility integration, government intervention, affirmative action and interracial dating/marriage. Data from these issue-specific questions were used to portray a picture of Whites' overall evaluations of African- Americans. However, questions that are critical to this type of evaluation were not asked. That is, questions concerning Whites' belief of common characteristics of all African-Americans and their overall feelings for them were omitted. A common theme found in the research conducted by the national organizations was the issue of racial equality between African-Americans and Whites. Several studies have shown that although large majorities of Whites accept the principle of racial equality between Whites and African- Americans (see Smith & Sheatsley, 1984; Hyman & Sheatsley, 1956; Hyman & Sheatsley, 1964; Greeley and Sheatsley, 1971; Taylor, Sheatsley and Greeley, 1978) they do not endorse various methods used to implement racial equality (Carmines & Champagne, 1990). For example, Kinder and Sanders (1987) 15 and others (Lipset & Schneider, 1978; Bunzel, 1986) have found virtually little support among Whites for implementation of racial equality via affirmative action. And, it has also been suggested that this resistance to affirmative action and other legal policies designed to enforce equality between Whites and African-Americans stems from.Whites' general belief that all African-Americans are generally less capable than Whites (Sniderman & Hagen, 1985). The data collected by the national organizations showed that responses to questions pertaining to evaluations of African-Americans varied depending upon the situational context. Rovner and Sedlacek (1974) and Schuman et a1., (1988) supports this view. For example, they found that Whites evaluated African-Americans more positively if African-Americans were employed in service-type occupations and viewed them less positively in situations that required African-Americans to be in close personal contact with Whites. They also discovered that level of education, geographic region and age had an affect on Whites’ evaluations of African-Americans. In general, young Northern Whites who achieved high education levels had more positive overall evaluations of African-Americans than their older, less educated Southern counterparts. On the other hand, stereotype researchers have basically ignored issue-specific questions and have 16 concentrated on forming indexes of the attributes that make up the stereotypes Whites hold for non-Whites. One of the earliest recorded indexes of Whites' stereotypes of African- Americans is contained within Katz and Braly's (1933) classic paper entitled: "Recial seereotypee of One Hendred gellege Students". Katz and Braly surveyed one hundred White students attending Princeton University and identified twelve attributes that make up Whites' stereotype of African-Americans. The attributes are: superstitious, lazy, happy-go-lucky, ignorant, musical, ostentatious, very religious, stupid, physically dirty, naive, slovenly and unreliable. Since then, Richards (1950) and Dovidio and Gaertner (1986) have replicated Katz and Braly's findings and more recently, Stangor et a1., (1991) found that, in addition to the attributes mentioned above, Whites believe also that African-Americans are: athletic, rhythmic, sociable, aggressive, lazy and inferior to Whites. The traditional method used to assess racial stereotypes has been the adjective checklist procedure. Using this method, respondents are requested to select attributes (from a list of adjectives) that they believe are most descriptive of a racial group (Gilbert, 1951; Karlins, et a1., 1969 & Zanna, 1990). Although the most common method used, the adjective checklist method has however been criticized for the specific demand it forces upon the respondent. That is, many have argued that the adjective 17 checklist method forces respondents to choose and assign ‘researcher generated' attributes to groups, attributes that they may never have considered on their own (see, Converse, 1964; Brigham, 1971; Fairchild & Cozens, 1981; and Marin, 1984). Marin (1984) suggested that the best way to ascertain stereotypes from respondents is to allow them to generate their own lists. Turning toward the issue of Whites' racial prejudice for African-Americans, the evidence is more piece-meal in nature than the evidence that is available for stereotypes. That is, this type of information is usually embedded within larger studies that had the major intent of assessing stereotypes or discriminatory behavior. These studies usually included only a few "How do you feel about African- Americans?" questions. And, the data suggest that since 1964, Whites' feelings for African-Americans has averaged a 60 on an evaluation thermometer scale (Converse et a1., 1980). The evaluation thermometer scale ranges from 0 (extremely unfavorable feelings) to 100 (extremely favorable feelings) and this rating of 60 represents a slightly favorable feeling that Whites have for African-Americans. However, in other studies, when Whites were asked about their feelings for specific ‘types' of African-Americans, they showed a greater tendency to indicate less positive feelings. For example, Converse et a1., (1980) found that 98% of Whites in their sample rated their feelings for civil 18 rights leaders on an evaluation thermometer scale between 51-74 (neither favorable to fairly favorable) while only 2% rated their feelings for civil rights leaders as very favorable (between 97-100). Similarly, Whites' feelings for Black militants were the most extreme with the majority of Whites rating their feelings for Black militants a 0 (extremely unfavorable) while only .2% indicated positive feelings between 97-100 for Black militants (Kinder & Rhodeback, 1982). Firebaugh and Davis (1988) conducted a meta-analysis and found that anti-Black attitudes as measured by questions in 1972, 1976, 1980 and 1984 via General Social Surveys have declined as a whole with these attitudes declining more rapidly in the South than in the North. Thus it would appear that Whites are becoming more accepting of the African-Americans. Yet, Staples (1987) and Lambert and Taylor (1988) also found that Whites also seem to reject the concept of a multi-cultural/multi-racial America by consistently expressing negative attitudes and feelings towards members of non-White racial groups. In terms of Whites' evaluations of Hispanics, in 1950, Richards identified White college students' stereotype of IHispanics as having 10 attributes: 1) low moral standards, 2) thieves, 3) dirty /filthy, 4) help to keep wages low, 5) lazy/shiftless, 6) spreaders of disease, 7) artistic, 8) ignorant, 9) inferior (to Whites) and 10) a group that 19 doesn't have a lot of opportunities. Many researchers have found that Whites' evaluations and feelings for Hispanics are generally negative (Johnson, 1950; Pinkney, 1963; martinez, 1969; Kaplan and Goldman, 1973; Guichard and Connolly, 1977; Bernat and Balch, 1979; Fairchild and Cozens, 1981; Marin, 1982). Purdy and Edmonds (1988) report that White college freshman categorized Hispanics into one of two groups: low ye. high types. According to Whites, low-type Hispanics have not effectively assimilated into mainstream (read, White) America and have not achieved occupational success, financial wealth or a acceptable command of Anglo-American ways. On the other hand, high- type Hispanics have achieved high educational and occupational levels, financial security and have assimilated well into mainstream America. more recently, Triandis et a1., (1982), Marin, (1984) and Stangor et a1., (1991) reported more encouraging findings in that White college students stereotypes of Hispanics include attributes of: cheerful, traditional, proud, aggressive, family-oriented, hard-working, and proud. The research that documents Whites' stereotypes and prejudice for Asians is quite sparse. Although in 1950, Richards was a vanguard in this area by being the first to use Asians as a target population. He provided the first index of twenty-one attributes that make up the stereotype Whites have for Asians. The Whites in Richards (1950) study 20 reported that they believed Asians are: 1) spreaders of disease, 2) industrious, 3) artistic, 4) help to keep wages low, 5) mean, 6) sly, 7) good workers, 8) should be barred from the US, 9) possess low moral standards, 10) educationally oriented, 11) possess constructive imaginations, 12) possess civil pride, 13) loyal, 14) trustworthy, 15) cooperative, 16) peaceful, 17) friendly, 18) contribute much to civilization, 19) possess good character, 20) don't have a lot of opportunities and 21) are brave people. And, more recently, Stangor et a1., (1991) found that intelligence, industriousness, gentleness, selfishness, being nationalistic and passive were also attributes assigned to Asians by White college students. In 1984, Marin studied the stereotypes that White college students had for the Japanese. However, he did not include these findings in his published report. Therefore, Marin's contribution regarding the stereotypes that Whites have for Japanese remain unknown to the public and the scientific community. In addition to an index of attributes, Richards (1950) also provided evidence of Whites' feelings, or racial prejudice for Asians. Using the evaluation thermometer scale he found that Whites' felt more favorable towards Japanese, Chinese and Filipinos than they did towards African-Americans and Hispanics. Unfortunately, the few studies mentioned above that have looked at and reported 21 Whites' stereotypes of and prejudice for Asians can be considered only the beginning of a very important research area. ‘Much more research needs to be done in order to understand how Whites evaluate Asians. r i 1 Ethni Pre udi African-Ameri n Hav Fer Whieee, Biepaniee e eeiees The first substantial national survey that questioned African-Americans about their evaluations of Whites was in 1964 (Brink & Harris, 1964). In this study, African- Americans were asked issue-specific questions regarding the concepts of racial equality and civil rights. The content of this study was divided into three issue-specific areas: How they thought Whites felt about their socio, political and economic advancement; what they believed motivated Whites to hold their views on African-American advancement; and their perception of Whites’ overall evaluation of them. There were no questions assessing African—American's stereotypes (or attributes) of Whites nor their racial prejudice towards them. However, Brink and Harris (1964) did find that 42% of the African-Americans sampled felt that all Whites wanted to keep them from advancing, 25% felt that some Whites wanted them to have a ‘better break' in society, 17% felt that Whites did not care one way or another about the advancement of African-Americans and 16% claimed that they were not sure how Whites felt about African-American advancement. When 22 questioned about their perception of Whites' motivation underlying their views, African-Americans respondents proffered several reasons: 1) fear of losing domestic help, 2) general fear of African-Americans, 3) perceptions that all African-American men want to marry White women, 4) to feel better about themselves by believing they are better than African-Americans, 5) a psychological need for discrimination, 6) blind emotionalism, 7) ignorance, 8) guilty conscience and 9) a lack of personal contact. The majority of the African-American respondents in the Brink and Harris study indicated that they believed that Whites' evaluations of them had improved from 1958 to 1963. That is, 53% felt that Whites had a better attitude towards African-Americans overall, 32% felt there had been no change, 14% were not sure and 2% felt that attitudes were getting worse. Brink and Harris (1964) discovered that only 4 out of every 10 African-Americans sampled felt that Northern Whites felt any better about them than Southern Whites. This finding would appear to contradict the Schuman et a1., (1988) finding that young Northern Whites who achieved high education levels had more positive overall evaluations of African-Americans than their older, less educated Southern counterparts. However, given the significant differences in time periods, 1964 ye. 1988 this data should not be compared. However, those who did feel that Northern Whites 23 treated them better than Southern Whites believed so because of the stricter laws against discrimination in the North and not because of better attitudes towards them. They also found that African-Americans believed that White real-estate and service businesses provided the major obstacles to racial equality, believed that White religion did not recognize racial discrimination as a moral issue and, ironically showed great optimism for improvement in Whites' evaluations of them. This optimism is evident in the fact that 73% of the African-Americans sampled believed that Whites would have a better attitude for African-Americans in five Years, 14% were not sure, 11% felt attitudes would stay the same and only 2% felt Whites' attitudes would get worse. And, in fact, Schuman et a1., (1988) and Firebaugh and Davis (1988) provide support for this optimism by finding that Whites' negative attitudes towards African-Americans have steadily declined since 1972. Overall, Brink and Harris contributed greatly to a very neglected area of research regarding African-Americans evaluations of Whites. That is, they have provided a historical framework of how African-Americans think about Whites on a variety of issue-specific subjects. However, what is still missing is an investigation of African- Americans’ stereotype of Whites and their racial prejudice towards Whites. Nonetheless, what is interesting about the Brink and Harris (1964) study is that they were able to 24 document very candid personal testimonies from the African- Americans they surveyed. Statements such as: "They don't like us, they are afraid of us" and "Negroes and whites [sic] founded this country together, they fought for our country's freedom together. They need one another now as never before" are just a few of the narratives provided by the African-American sample. And, in 1967, Brink and Harris conducted another national survey of African-Americans' evaluations of Whites. The questionnaire used in this study had 45 issue- specific questions that ranged in subject matter from employment, housing, pay equities, voting, public facilities, transportation usage, integration, school integration, politics, civil rights leaders, perceptions of White attitudes towards African-Americans, Black Power, riots, the armed forces and war. A major longitudinal study that was undertaken to asses African-Americans evaluations of Whites was the Farley, Hatchett and Schuman 1979 Detroit study. They found that during the period of 1968 to 1976, the majority of African- Americans sampled believed that Whites were indifferent to their advancement of racial equality and they also endorsed the principle of using violence towards Whites to obtain racial equality. They also found that African-Americans did not trust any Whites, and felt that Whites were constantly trying to keep them from advancing economically, socially and politically. 25 Also during this time, Schuman and Hatchett (1979) were asking African-Americans issue-specific questions about Whites. Yet, their findings do not differ much from the Brink and Harris (1963; 1967) or Farley et al. (1979) findings. In other words, from 1963 to 1979 African- American attitudes towards issue-specific concerns (e.g., integration) have remained consistent. Again, progress was being made in terms of ascertaining African-Americans views of different political, social and education issues but the basic questions of stereotypes and prejudice were being overlooked and has yet to be addressed in the research. In 1977, Guichard and Connolly formed the first and only index of attributes that make up the African-Americans' stereotype of Whites. Using the adjective checklist procedure, they found that African-Americans believed that all Whites possessed the following attributes: industrious, intelligent, artistic, sportsmanlike, cruel, lazy, shrewd, superstitious, scientific and pugnacious. In regards to African-Americans' racial prejudice for Whites, it wasn't until the early eighties that this question was posed to African-Americans. Converse and his colleagues (1980) found by using an evaluation thermometer scale, African-Americans rated their overall feelings for Whites with an average score of 68. This slightly favorable feeling does not appear to be significantly different from the prejudice rating of 60 that Whites gave to African- 26 Americans in the same study. Unfortunately, there are no published reports of African-Americans’ stereotypes and prejudice for Asians and the only information available regarding any kind of evaluation that African-Americans have of Hispanics can be found in the Brink and Harris 1963 study. Specifically, Brink and Harris did not gather measures of African-Americans' stereotype or prejudice of Hispanics per say, but gathered information on African- Americans' perceptions of Puerto Ricans' opinions regarding the African-American struggle for racial equality. It would appear from the previous discussion that there is an abundance of information concerning Whites', African- Americans', Hispanics' and Asians' evaluations of each other. However, upon closer inspection, one finds that this information is far from complete. Most of the available information investigating intergroup evaluations is in terms of issue-specific topics, such as, integration or affirmation action. Specifically, most research has focused on how Whites think about these issues in terms of African- Americans. There is some research on the racial prejudice Whites have for African-Americans but it is scare and outdated. There is also some research available on issue- specific topics regarding African-Americans' evaluations of Whites but this research began in 1964 and seems to have ended with the Schuman and Firebaugh studies of 1988. The scarcity of research investigating African- 27 Americans' stereotype and racial prejudice for other racial groups clearly emphasizes the importance of this current study which, in part, is to identify the attributes that make up the stereotype that African-Americans have for Whites, Hispanics and Asians and identify the racial prejudice they have for these groups. Thus, this current study addresses a very important, yet neglected issue of inter—group stereotypes and racial prejudice. Chapter 2 The Preeent Study One of the objectives of this study was to identify the attributes that make up the stereotype that African- Americans have for Whites, Hispanics and Asians. Other objectives included: identifying the racial prejudice that African-Americans have towards these groups, replicate past research that has identified the attributes which make up the stereotype that Whites have for African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians, identify Whites’ racial prejudice for African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians, determine the relationship (if any) between personal contact and media exposure with racial prejudice and determine the relationship (if any) between racial/ethnic self-esteem and racial prejudice. A few of the objectives did not lend themselves to the formation of explicit hypotheses. For example, the objective of identifying the attributes which make up the stereotype that African-Americans and Whites have for each other and Hispanics and Asians, were not investigated as specific predictions. However, the remaining objectives of this study were investigated in terms of predictions and thus the following hypotheses were formed and tested. Emtneaiajl Respondents who have more positive personal contact 28 29 with a racial group will have less racial prejudice toward that group than those who have less positive personal contact with that group. mm Respondents who have been exposed to more positive media images of racial groups will have less racial prejudice toward those groups than those who are exposed to less positive media images of those racial groups. mum Respondents who have more positive racial/ethnic self- esteem will have more racial prejudice for racial groups than those who have less positive racial/ethnic self-esteem. Definieiene (1) eeeeeeeype - For this study, the generally accepted empirical definition of stereotype was used. That is, a stereotype is a cognitive knowledge structure which contains a collection of several attributes believed to be characteristic of a particular racial group of people. (2) geeial Prejugiee - A general overall feeling (positive or negative) that an individual has for members of a different racial group than one's own. This feeling is based solely on the evaluated person's membership in a particular racial group. (3) geyeeeel_geeeeee - Personal contact is a combination of six related dimensions. These dimensions include amount of contact, quality of interactions, rules for behavior, 30 physical contact, attitudes of significant others and socio- economic status differences. These six dimensions combined represent an overall picture of the type of personal contact that could exist between members of different racial groups. For example, higher scores on these dimensions would indicate more positive personal contact and lower scores would indicate less positive personal contact (Cook, 1984; Cook, 1985 & Stephan & Stephan, 1985). (4) MEQ1B_§§29§DEQ - Media exposure is defined as a combination of six dimensions of mass media exposure to different racial groups. That is, amount of exposure to different racial groups via mass media, how verbal interactions between different racial groups are represented in the media, the difference between one's own personal opinion of different racial groups versus mass media's portrayal of these groups, how physical interactions between different racial groups are represented in mass media, perceptions of significant other's attitudes towards mass media's depiction of different racial groups and, the manner in which mass media depicts socio-economic differences between different racial groups. Media exposure in this study included all forms of mass media (e.g., television, film, newspapers, etc.). Chapter 3 Meehod Me 100 African-American (54 males2 and 46 females) and 130 White (64 males and 66 females) undergraduates attending Michigan State University and Bowie State University participated in the study. The African-American respondents ranged in age from 17-34 years with a mean age of 19 years. 54% of the African-American respondents were males and 46% were females. 67% of the African-American respondents reported belonging to the middle class, 18% to the lower middle class, 9% to the upper middle class and 6% to the wealthy class. The White respondents ranged in age from 18-35 years with a mean age of 21 years. 49% of the respondents were males and 50% were females. 50% of the White respondents reported that they belonged to the upper middle class, 34% to the middle class, 13% to the lower middle class and 2% to the wealthy class. All respondents were registered in various psychology courses and were given extra course credit for participating in the study. 2 Due to the lack of African-American males participating in research projects at Michigan State University, 40 of the 54 African-American males were undergraduates attending Bowie State University in Bowie, Maryland. There were no significant differences between these two groups of males on any of the measures included in this study. 31 32 Procedures Participants in this study were surveyed in either group (3 to 25 persons) or individual sessions. Although not planned, the gender and racial compositions of the group sessions were combinations of: same race/mixed gender, different race/mixed gender and same race/all African- American males. This author administered approximately 60% of all the questionnaires used in the study while two undergraduate psychology honor students administered the rest.3 After signing up to participate in the study, participants were brought into a laboratory where they sat at tables and chairs which resembled a classroom setting. After participants signed consent forms, the following instructions were orally given to the participants: "In this study, we are interested in the characteristics that people associate with members of various groups in the United States. One of your tasks in this study will be to indicate what characteristics you believe that Whites, African-Americans, Hispanics and Asians possess. In addition to this, you will complete two questionnaires that will ask you what type 3 This author is an African-American female and the two research assistants were also female, while one was African-American and the other was White. 33 of personal contact you have with these different racial groups and what type of media exposure you have had to these groups. You will also complete a questionnaire that asks you how you feel about these groups and how you feel about yourself. And last, you will complete a form that will ask you for demographic information. There are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions on these questionnaires and your responses will be kept strictly anonymous. Therefore, do not write your name or student ID number on any of the questionnaires. Your honest answer is most appreciated." After the introduction, participants were given a packet containing the following questionnaires: a social groups characteristic questionnaire, a personal contact questionnaire, a media exposure questionnaire, an evaluation thermometer scale, a racial/ethnic self-esteem scale and a demographics questionnaire. These questionnaires were counterbalanced in each packet so that participants completed the set of questionnaires in different orders. There was no time limit imposed on the participants to complete the packet, however the average time taken to complete it was approximately 1 1/2 hour. Upon completion of the questionnaire packet, participants returned the completed packet of questionnaires to the researcher, were 34 debriefed, thanked for participating and dismissed. HBSQELALE Soeiel ereups Qharacteristice geestionnaire This is a shortened version of a three part questionnaire‘ developed by Jackson, Bodenhausen, Hodge, Sheppard & Ervin (1991) in which respondents indicated which attributes they believed were characteristic of a particular racial group. Respondents did this by assigning percentages (%) to 116 adjectives in terms of what percentage of members of a particular racial group they believed possessed any of those particular attributes. For example, the attribute of "lazy" was one of the 116 adjectives. If a respondent was evaluating Hispanics, he or she would indicate what percentage of Hispanics he or she believed are lazy. Thus, a score of 40 would indicate that the respondent felt that 40% of all Hispanics are lazy. In addition to the different racial groups, respondents also indicated which attributes they believed were characteristic of their own racial group (Appendix A). W This questionnaire was based on Stephan and Stephan's (1985) personal contact scale. Via 18 questions which ‘ The original version of this questionnaire consisted of three parts: (1) assessed the attributes respondents perceived were characteristic of a racial group, (2) the attributes respondents perceived as typical of the general USA population and (3) respondents' affect (i.e. , feelings) for these attributes when associated with different racial groups. 35 represented six components of personal contact, respondents indicated the type of personal contact they have with different racial groups, the norms of their racial group for behaving towards members of different racial groups, whether or not these norms are well established, their evaluation of the physical contact between them and members of different racial groups, their perception of significant others’ attitudes towards racially different people and their perceived socio-economic status. Each personal contact questionnaire was designed so that respondents did not answer any questions regarding their own racial group (Appendix B). Component reliability and overall reliability for the personal contact scale used for both White and African-American respondents can be found in Table 1. W This questionnaire, developed by the authorfi assessed the types of exposure respondents have to different racial groups via mass media. There are 18 questions on the scale 5 The author received guidance and suggestions from Dr. Bradley Greenberg, professor of telecommunications at Michigan State University when developing this measurement. 36 Table 1. Reliabilities for Personal Contact Scale (for White & African-Americans respondents) African- Dimeeeiene Whieee Americane Amount of contact .65 .66 Type of interaction .75 .78 Rules for behavior .89 .77 Physical contact .71 .72 Perceptions of significant others attitudes .78 .82 Socio-economic status .91 .64 Overall reliability' .92 .88 ' Overall reliability for both personal contact and media exposure scales was computed using Lord and Novick’s (1968) formula for maximizing the reliabilities of a composite scale when components of the scale are fixed. This formula provides differential weights to each dimension reliability to maximize the overall reliability (for further discussion of this statistical formula, see Thomsom (1940), Mosier (1943), Peel (1948) and Green (1950). 37 which represent six components of media exposure. For example, some of the questions are: "indicate the amount of exposure you have had with Hispanics by way of the mass media"; "think about the interactions you’ve seen in the media between African-Americans and your own racial group. In your opinion, are these interactions typically ...... (conflict free or with high conflict)"; and, "compared to the way Asians are presented in the media, indicate your racial groups’s socio-economic status". Each media exposure questionnaire was customized for the respondents race so that respondents did not answer any questions regarding their own racial group. For example, African-American respondents did not respond to any questions referring to their exposure to African-Americans via mass media (Appendix C). Component reliability and overall reliability for the media exposure scales for both White and African-American respondents can be found in Table 2. Ev 1 i n Th r cal Pr 1 Me r The evaluation thermometer scale first used by Richards (1950), and then by Converse et al., (1980) and Zanna, 38 Table 2. Reliabilities for Media Exposure Scale (for White & African-American respondents) African- Dimeeeiene Whitee Americene Amount of media exposure .79 .50 Type of interaction depicted in media .51 .60 Difference between personal opinion and media depictions .67 .75 Media depictions of physical contact between different racial groups .60 .64 Perceptions of significant others attitudes of racial media depictions .80 .68 Media depictions of differences in socio-economic status .81 .74 Overall reliability .87 .83 39 Haddock & Esses (1990) measured respondent’s racial prejudice for different racial groups. Using a scale of 0 - 100 (extremely unfavorable to extremely favorable) respondents indicated their overall feeling for a specific racial group. Unlike the personal contact and media exposure scales this scale is not a multiple-item additive scale (Appendix D). ial thnic S lf-E o la Luhtanen & Crocker’s (1992) collective self-esteem scale was used to assess racial/ethnic self-esteem as defined by social identity theory. This scale measured an individual’s evaluation of his or her self as a function of his or her membership in various social groups. For this study, the scale was modified by substituting the term ‘social group’ with ‘racial group’ to directly measure how an individual evaluates his or her self as a function of being a member of a particular racial group. The scale incorporates Tajfel and Turner's (1986) theoretical notions that the following concepts: worthiness of membership in a social group, private evaluation of membership in a social group, awareness of public evaluation of the social group, and importance of membership in the social group to overall identity are additive constructs in the formation of social identity. Thus, the Racial/ethnic self-esteem Scale used in this study measured respondents’ evaluation of their ‘self’ as a function of their membership 40 in their racial group, rather than all groups. Therefore, theoretically similar constructs were additive in the formation of racial/ethnic self-esteem (i.e., worthiness of membership in racial group + private evaluation of membership in racial group + awareness of public evaluation of racial group + importance of membership in racial group = racial/ethnic self-esteem) (Appendix E). Luhtanen and Crocker (1992) report a high overall reliability of .88 and a high overall reliability of .81 was also confirmed for this study. D r h i nn ir A demographics questionnaire was used to assess the respondents personal biographical information such as which racial group they belonged to, gender, age and socio- economic class. It also requested respondents to indicate which specific subgroups (if any) of Hispanics and Asians they thought of when answering questions about them (Appendix F). ageeieeical Anelyeee W The social groups characteristics questionnaire was used to identify the collection of attributes that make up the stereotype that African-Americans and Whites have of themselves, each other, Hispanics and Asians. All responses for each attribute for each racial group were compared with the responses for each attribute for the respondent’s own 41 racial group. Meaning, the respondent’s racial group served as a baseline or criterion from which the attribute percentages were compared. This comparison is based on the McCauley and Stitt (1978), and Zanna, et al., (1990) argument that attributes are considered part of a stereotype only if those attributes are perceived as being significantly more or less prevalent in a particular racial group other than one’s own racial group. T-tests of significance were computed on each of the 116 characteristics to identify which were considered characteristic of each racial group compared to respondent’s own racial group. For example, reconsider the attribute of lazy. The stereotype that African-Americans have for Whites, Hispanics and Asians would be formulated in the following manner: If African-American respondents indicated that they felt that 60% of all African-Americans are lazy, this 60% would serve as the criteria for all the other racial groups. Meaning, if African-American respondents believed that 80% of Hispanics are lazy, 20% of Asians are lazy and 55% of Whites are lazy, the 80%, 20% and 55% would be statistically compared to the 60% to determine if "laziness" was believed to be more or less prevalent in these groups compared to African—Americans. If these numbers were significantly different, then, lazy would be considered as one of the attributes that make up the stereotype African-Americans 42 have of Hispanics since it is thought to be more prevalent in this group than in African-Americans (80% ye. 60%). Likewise, lazy would also be considered one of the attributes that make up the stereotype African-Americans' have for Asians since it is believed to be leee prevalent within the Asian racial group than it is among African- Americans (20% ye. 60%). On the other hand, the probable insignificant difference between the percentage of Whites (i.e., 55%) African-Americans believe are lazy compared to the percentage of African-Americans (i.e., 60%) they believe are lazy would indicate that lazy is no; an attribute that makes up the stereotype African-Americans have for Whites. That is, African-Americans do not believe that lazy is a characteristic trait of Whites given that they believe there is no difference between the laziness of Whites and African- Americans. This comparison procedure was done for each of the 116 adjectives listed on the social groups questionnaire. The end result was separate lists of attributes that were considered more prevalent, less prevalent or no different for each racial group and it is this collection of attributes that made up the stereotype for each racial group. This author acknowledges that other tests of comparison could have been used to determine which characteristics were characteristic of a racial group (e.g., Dunnett’s test or an analysis of variance) and would have 43 been just as appropriate as the t-test of significance. However, the t-test of significance was the most simple and straightforward analysis for this dissertation. Principal components analysis with a varimax rotation was computed on the 116 characteristics for each racial group to identify clusters of attributes that were similar and to eliminate those attributes that did not significantly contribute to the overall stereotype. £§££9221_QQBLAQS Respondents used a rating scale of 1 to 9 (1 = least positive, 9 = most positive). The scores from each question were summed and averaged to produce a composite score. This score represented personal contact with higher scores indicating more positive personal contact and lower scores indicating less positive contact. That is, more positive personal contact would be reflective of high levels of contact, conflict free interactions, no established norms for personal contact with members of different racial groups, positive physical contact, positive attitudes of significant others and a perception of equal inter-racial group status. Pearson’s product-moment correlation (Pearson’s R) was computed to determine the relationship between personal contact and racial prejudice. In addition, Pearson’s R was used to determine if the perception of being of a lower status in society than a particular racial group is positively correlated with racial prejudice towards that 44 particular racial group. This analysis was used to test Tajfel and Turner’s (1986) theory that negative feelings for a different group will increase if there is a perception of being of a lower socio-economic status than that group. Weir: Respondents also used a rating scale of 1 to 9 (1 = least positive, 9 = most positive) and the scores from each question were summed and averaged to produce a composite score for media exposure with higher scores indicating more positive media exposure to different racial groups than lower scores. Positive media exposure was represented by high scores for: amount of exposure to different racial groups via mass media; positive depictions of verbal interactions between different racial groups; the difference between one’s own personal opinion of different racial groups versus mass media’s portrayal of these groups“; depiction of physical interactions between different racial groups; perceptions of significant other’s attitudes towards mass media’s depiction of different racial groups and the manner in which mass media depict socio-economic differences between the different racial groups. Pearson’s R was computed to determine the relationship between media exposure and racial prejudice. ‘ Because a large difference between one’s personal opinion of a racial group and media’s depiction of that racial group could mean that the individual is not relying heavily on media images to formulate his or her assessment of that group. 45 ci 1 hnic If- e l The racial/ethnic self-esteem.measure was the sum and average of respondents’ responses on the sixteen items on this scale with higher scores indicating more positive racial/ethnic self-esteem.and lower scores indicating less positive racial/ethnic self-esteem. Pearson's R was computed to determine the relationship between racial/ethnic self-esteem and racial prejudice. Aggieienel Anelyeee T-tests were computed to determine any gender differences in racial prejudice and within-subject t-tests of variance were computed to determine any significant differences between African-American’s and Whites’ personal contact and media exposure with different racial groups. And, a t-test of significance was computed to determine any significant differences in racial/ethnic self-esteem between the African-American and White respondents. Chapter 4 The Reeelee Before proceeding with the results of this study, a description of the subgroups that African-Americans and Whites thought of when evaluating Hispanics and Asians will be provided. Presented with the task of evaluating Hispanics, 85% of the African-American respondents indicated they thought of Hispanics "as one group" whereas, 7% thought of Mexicans, 4% thought of Chicanos, 3% thought of Puerto Ricans, and 1% thought of Dominicans. And, 93% of the African-American respondents indicated they thought of Asians "as one group" when evaluating them, 3% thought of Japanese, 2% thought of Chinese, 1% thought of Koreans and 1% thought of Indonesians. These percentages suggest that African-Americans engage in the homogeneity bias when evaluating others of different racial groups. Even though there are eight different subgroups of Hispanics and 24 different subgroups of Asians, the majority of the African- American respondents in this study evaluated them as homogeneous groups. 63% of White respondents indicated they thought of Hispanics "as one group" while 16% thought of Mexicans, 9% thought of Puerto Ricans, 8% thought of Chicanos, 3% thought of Cubans and 1% thought of Dominicans. On the other hand, 85% thought of Asians "as one group", 10% thought of Japanese, 4% thought of Chinese and 1% thought of Koreans. 46 47 Similar to African-American respondents, it appears that Whites also engaged in the homogeneity bias when evaluating Hispanics and Asians, thus supporting previous research findings (Jones et al., 1981b; Rothbart et al., 1984; Linville et al., 1986 and Quattrone, 1986). The Aeerieeeee The; Meke up ehe Stereoeype of African- Amerieeee, Whieee, Hiepeeiee and eeieee Afrieee-Ameriean reeponeee§s: First, out of 116 characteristics, t-tests identified e; attributes that African-Americans believed were characteristic of Whites. That is, 92 attributes were believed to be either more or less prevalent among Whites than African-Americans (Table 3). A principal components analysis with a varimax rotation revealed that the 92 attributes loaded on 13 factors. The attributes that loaded on the first four factors accounted for 67% of the total variance. The first four factors were used as the criterion for establishing the list of attributes that made up the stereotype that African- Americans have for Whites. This criteria was used because each of the remaining twelve factors contributed only minimally to the total variance (Table 4). Table 3 Attributes That African-Americans (AAs) Respondents Believe Are Diagnostic Of Whites Believe is more prevalent % of African-Am. % of Whites ' h (Meee) (SD) (Meee) Ambitious 48 96 12.66 59.10 Assertive 52 22 18.78 67.95 Business-wise 55.48 15.10 74.20 Competent 44.90 16.11 65.34 Conscientious 25 60 23.18 33.03 Conservative 60.85 19.84 67.34 Criminal tendencies 22.07 19.47 59 65 Cruel 30 43 17.68 48.71 Deceitful 34 75 13.51 43 75 Dependable 31.76 19.49 55.30 Dirty/Smelly 13.26 10.15 53.64 Eccentric 36.54 20.13 67 09 Effeminate 30.25 11 60 47.51 Efficient 49.22 19.17 64.05 Emotional 49.43 16.08 71.84 Fair-minded 30.17 12.95 48.12 Fearful 47.07 23.54 57 72 Feminine 50 79 11.23 60 90 Friendly 59.73 18.80 60.90 Generous 36.62 20.37 48.99 Happy-go-Lucky 47.47 23.96 64.38 Hardworking 60.43 15.84 63.31 Ignorant 32.02 15.29 42.87 Imaginative 38 13 19.52 46.25 Independent 49.21 16.35 59 82 Individualistic 36 70 17.31 48 73 Industrious 52.33 14.48 57.59 Meddlesome 30.91 13.21 46.26 Noisy 38.01 16.35 44.54 Old-fashioned 36 49 15.14 52.15 Patriotic 39 35 10.72 48.06 Persevering 44.09 14.49 55 09 Plans ahead 29.26 25.37 57 83 Polite 50.65 18.11 56 78 Productive 59.97 18.83 69 32 Prompt 39.99 17.85 50.71 Quiet 41.55 13.14 46.30 Reliable 45.28 12.24 63 34 Rigid/Inflexible 27 60 14.08 52 90 Self-centered 29.76 23.92 48.83 Self-disciplined 31.73 26.61 46.54 Self-sacrificing 39.52 18.36 46 95 Sexually perverse 28.70 26.33 50.40 Show off 27.02 26.39 58.63 Sly 23 15 23.04 40.15 Sophisticated 56.68 13.57 62.21 Stingy 30.62 16.06 44.63 Understanding 33.42 28.02 56.30 Uses Drugs 50 10 13.47 53.97 48 Table 3 (cont’d) Believe is less prevalent egeng Whiges ghee AAs Aggressive Angry Artistic .Athletic Bossy Competitive Cooperative Cultured Defensive Devout Flamboyant Forgetful Good-natured Grateful Helpful Intelligent Interesting Isolated/lonely Knowledgeable Logical Masculine Materialistic Militant Musical Optimistic Passionate Poor Prosperous Proud Realistic Rebellious Religious Shy Sociable Strong family commitment Superstitious Thrifty Tradition loving Trusting Unpredictable Uneducated % of African-Am. M). .55 (SD) 16. 18. 19. 21. 12. 19. 23. 19. 16. 17. 20. 22. 18. 17. 12. 16. 17. % of Whites From the four heavily loaded factors, each attribute that had a factor loading of at least .70 was then considered as one of the attributes that made up the stereotype that African-Americans have for Whites. Based on this criteria, a total of 18 attributes made up the stereotype: conservative, polite, fair, conscientious, individualistic, strong family commitment, uneducated, devout, grateful, progressive, passionate, criminal tendencies, show-off, quiet, uses drugs, generous, bossy and dirty. Second, out of 116 characteristics, t-tests identified 81 attributes that African-American respondents believed were characteristic of Hispanics (Table 5). Principal components analysis with a varimax rotation loaded the 87 attributes on 13 factors. Similar to the attributes that made up the stereotype African-Americans have for Whites, the attributes that made up the stereotype for 51 Table 4. EIGENVALUES OF 116 ATTRIBUTES Attributes That African-Americans Believe Are Diagnostic of Whitee Mgr 131mm L—P of Var MC P 1 18.15147 19.9 19.9 2 17.24649 19.0 38.7 3 13.58754 14.9 53.8 4 12.28166 13.5 67.3 5 6.21171 6.8 74.2 6 3.80438 4.2 78.3 7 2.93334 3.2 81.6 8 2.07243 2.3 83.8 9 1.63953 1.8 85.6 10 1.43424 1.6 87.2 11 1.30595 1.4 88.6 12 1.14206 1.3 89.9 13 1.09587 1.2 91.1 Table 5 Attributes That African-Americans (AAs) Respondents Believe is more prevalent emgng Hiepaniee than AAs Active Artistic Competent Conscientious Believe Are Diagnostic Of Hispanics Criminal tendencies Cruel Cultured Dependable Dirty Deceitful Efficient Fair Generous High morals Ignorant Individualistic Industrious Isolated Mediative Patriotic Persevering Plans ahead Progressive Prompt Reliable Reserved Rigid Self-disciplined Sexually pervers Show-off Shrewd Shy Sly Stingy Understanding Wise Believe is lees prevalent ' i Aggressive Alert Anxious Assertive Athletic Bossy Business wise Competitive Conservative Cooperative Defensive Democratic e t AAS % of African-Am. (Meee) 37. .69 .90 .60 .07 .43 .23 52 44 25 22 91 :42 .43 (SD) .70 .46 .11 .18 .47 .68 .74 % of African-Am. (Meg) (SD) 67.55 16.76 54.30 19.11 56.27 16.41 52.22 18.78 66.90 21.81 58.30 12.31 55.48 15.10 65.87 19.64 60.85 19.84 65.75 23.24 73.54 16.62 74.49 10.89 52 % of Hispanics (SD) (MBQQ) % of Hispanics Maw). .80 .00 50 49 19. 16. 22. 15. 16. 19. 21. Table 5 (cont’d) Believe is less prevalent eegeg Hiepeeiee ehan AAs Dependent Eccentric Feminine Flamboyant Forgetful Friendly Good looking Good natured Grouchy Happy-go-lucky Hard working Intelligent Interesting Knowledgeable Lazy Logical Materialistic Militant Musical Noisy Old-fashioned Optimistic Physically violent Productive Prone to use drugs Proud Quarrelsome Realistic Religious Romantic Self-centered Self-sacrificing Sexually loose Sociable Superstitious Thrifty Tradition loving Trusting Well-adjusted % of.African-Am. .085581 53 (SD) % of Hispanics iflfiéfli 1521 37 10 15.90 60.19 16.36 48.05 14.32 48.43 17.13 36.37 16.68 49.02 18.77 38.70 22.95 49.93 13.53 44.79 15.96 40.64 12.70 49.49 31.82 55 19 18.87 60.50 13.55 55.08 18.41 43.85 12.53 53.06 19.28 28.26 23.57 41.37 15.18 37.53 23.09 33.41 17.59 57.21 19.41 36.42 15.68 42.03 13.91 51.30 21.43 45.45 16.34 59 85 13.38 32.39 13.28 37.02 18.08 40.47 21.75 34.64 20.03 24.34 13.94 33.34 19.18 45.24 22.32 49.54 15.44 37.10 16.61 29.78 15.42 58.61 16.44 41.97 15.01 48 88 17.02 54 Hispanics loaded heavily on the first four factors. That is, the first four factors accounted for 66% of the total variance (Table 6). Again, using the criteria of factor loadings of at least .70, the following 17 attributes made up the stereotype that African-Americans have for Hispanics: Hispanics are more moral, dependable, fair, understanding, individualistic, deceitful, cruel, stingy, mediative, superstitious. And furthermore, they believe they are less self-centered, dependent, criminal tendencies, athletic, quarrelsome, friendly and isolated. Third, t-tests identified 22 attributes that African-Americans believed were characteristic of Asians (Table 7). Principal components analysis with a varimax rotation loaded the 92 attributes on 15 factors with four heavily loaded clusters that made up 69% of the total variance (Table 8). 55 Table 6. EIGENVALUES OF 116 ATTRIBUTES Attributes That African-Americans Believe Are Diagnostic of Hiepanics Faceer Eigenvalee Pct of Var Cum Pct 1 29.14160 25.1 25.1 2 19.71837 17.0 42.1 3 16.88372 14.6 56.7 4 11.69425 10.1 66.8 5 5.91437 5.1 71.9 6 4.23781 3.7 75.5 7 4.04102 3.5 79.0 8 2.89538 2.5 81.5 9 2.61395 2.3 83.7 10 2.33014 2.0 85.8 11 1.90181 1.6 87.4 12 1.75091 1.5 88.9 13 1.69849 1.5 90.4 14 1.49274 1.3 91.7 15 1.28305 1.1 92.8 16 1.23306 1.1 93.8 17 1.05049 .9 94.7 18 1.03689 .9 95.6 Table 7 .Attributes That African-Americans (AAs) Respondents Believe Are Diagnostic Of Asians Believe is more prevalent % of African-Am. % of Asians n i h AAs (geee) (§D) (Meee) Ambitious 48.96 12.66 67.45 Alert 54.30 19.11 71.27 Anxious 65.77 17.42 64.85 Competent 44.90 16.11 54.15 Contented 43.49 11.06 56.88 Criminal tendencies 22.07 19.47 30.25 Dependable 31 76 19.49 55.61 Devout 53.45 17.52 66.12 Dirty 13 .26 10.15 31 75 Eccentric 36.54 20.13 45.69 Fair minded 30.17 12.95 44.48 Generous 36.62 20.37 62.06 Good natured 53.11 18.64 64.89 Hard working 60.43 15.84 68.32 High morals 48.61 18.35 57.40 Imaginative 38.13 19.52 56.77 Industrious 52.33 14.48 57.02 Intelligent 67.75 16.18 76.37 Meddlesome 30.91 13.21 40.13 MBdiative 32.61 12.89 41.10 Old fashioned 36.49 15.14 51.48 Patriotic 39.35 10.72 56.60 Observing 44.09 14.19 62 49 Polite 50.65 18.11 66.88 Plans ahead 29.26 25.37 65.51 Productive 59.97 18.83 75.18 Prompt 39.99 17.85 71.98 Prosperous 60.00 14.66 63.96 quiet 41 55 13.14 49.38 Realistic 57 74 10.16 76.80 Reliable 45 28 12.24 75.12 Reserved 26.13 19.34 62.63 Rigid 27.60 14.08 42.64 Show off 27.02 26.39 46.91 Self discipline 31.73 26.61 56.86 Self sacrificing 39.52 18.36 46.07 Sexually perverse 28.70 26.33 42.31 Sly 23.15 23.04 44.58 Sophisticated 56.68 13.57 69 30 Understanding 33.42 28.02 45 73 Wise 34.48 30.78 64 20 56 Table 7 (cont’d) Believe is less prevalent WM Aggressive Angry Artistic .Athletic Bossy Competitive Conscientious Cooperative Deceitful Defensive Dependent Democratic Effeminate Emotional Feminine Flamboyant Forgetful Friendly Good looking Grateful Grouchy Happy-go-lucky Honest Ignorant Individualistic Interesting Logical Materialistic Mercenary Militant Mbody Mus1ca1 Noisy Optimistic Passionate Physically violent Poor Prone to use drugs Proud Quarrelsome Rebellious Religious Romantic Self pitying Sexually loose Shrewd Sociable Superstitious Thrifty Uneducated Unpredictable % of African-Am. 1&2). % of Asians (Mega) .68 58 And, the following 19 attributes made up the stereotype that African-Americans have for Asians: good-natured, moral, imaginative, fair, eccentric, wise, reserved, intelligent, self-sacrificing, patriotic, devout, superstitious, optimistic, religious, sexually perverse, polite, show-off and musical. Whiee Reepeneente:' The same t-tests, principal components analyses and a criteria of factor loadings of at least .70 was used as the criterion to define the attributes that Whites believe are more or less prevalent among African- Americans, Hispanics and Asians compared to Whites and to determine which of these attributes make up the stereotype Whites have for these groups. Whites believed that 12 attributes were characteristic of African-Americans (Table 9) and these 79 attributes loaded on 21 factors with a cumulative variance of 82% (Table 10). Of these 79 attributes only eight had factor loadings of at least .70. The attributes are as follows: athletic, fair-minded, hard-working, logical, honest, cooperative, helpful and industrious. The findings indicate that Whites believed that only 18 of the 116 attributes were more prevalent among African-Americans compared to Whites 59 Table 8. EIGENVALUES OF 116 ATTRIBUTES Attributes That African-Americans Believe Are Diagnostic of Aeiane geeee; Eigeevalue Pee of Var gee Pet 1 23.46549 26.1 26.1 2 17.77848 19.8 45.8 3 13.05612 14.5 60.3 4 7.54942 8.4 68.7 5 3.66116 4.1 72.8 6 3.22420 3.6 76.4 7 2.71576 3.0 79.4 8 2.31917 2.6 82.0 9 2.02562 2.3 84.2 10 1.80537 2.0 86.2 11 1.46603 1.6 87.9 12 1.27683 1.4 89.3 13 1.18026 1.3 90.6 14 1.10813 1.2 91.8 15 1.02146 1.1 92.9 60 and of those 18 attributes, 15 can be considered negative. Yet, 62 attributes were thought to be more prevalent among Whites than African-Americans. It appears that Whites' don’t believe that African-Americans possess as many of the same attributes as they do. That is, they apparently believe that Whites possess a much wider range of diverse attributes compared to African—Americans. Using the same formula indicated above, the following five attributes: ambitious, plans ahead, intelligent, knowledgeable and logical made up Whites’ stereotype of Hispanics. A similar pattern was found in the perception Whites have of Hispanics, in that it consisted of the attributes Whites think Hispanics go nee possess as much as Whites. That is, out of 116 different attributes, Whites believed that only ten of these attributes were characteristics found more prevalent in the Hispanic population compared to the White. And, similar to their assessment of African-Americans, six of the ten can be considered negative. The following eight attributes made up the stereotype for Asians: productive, fair-minded, self- disciplined, plans ahead, honest, hardworking, grateful and Table 9 Attributes That White Respondents Believe Are Diagnostic Of African-Americans (AAs) Believe is more prevalent s of Whites % of AAs We LeenLM _(_$_)_D 114269.). Angry 38.22 18.94 53 69 .Athletic 50.63 20.81 61 19 Criminal tendencies 28.08 18.91 41.60 Defensive 52.45 25.94 58.85 Dirty/Smelly 19.71 16.32 29.71 Ignorant 36.86 24.48 41.38 Lazy 38.78 20 80 53.45 Musical 38.78 20 80 53 45 Noisy 43.01 20.99 59.12 Physically violent 33.72 21.04 49.53 Poor 32.97 18.53 50.22 Prone to use drugs 37.24 19.70 47.47 Rebellious 38 12 19.43 52 25 Religious 54 75 24.08 59.82 Sexually perverse 31.29 21.49 35.72 Superstitious 31.92 19.33 38 68 uneducated 30.21 17.48 44.66 Unpredictable 42.96 22 86 48.92 Believe is less prevalent % of Whites \ of AA: W 1.552114 13.10 Them). Alert 56.65 19.45 52.62 Ambitious 60.12 18.98 49.49 Anxious 49.07 21 80 41.32 Assertive 56.18 17.36 48.42 Business wise 51 18 17.42 33.29 Competent 56 76 18.73 51.74 Competitive 61 34 25.10 52.67 Conscientious 45.14 18.75 34.82 Conservative 57.95 16.66 35.40 Contented 48.32 21.98 34.21 Cooperative 52.81 19.52 41.82 Dependable 55.32 17.31 44.03 Effeminate 36.98 19.31 31 05 Efficient 52.22 18.09 44.70 Emotional 56 98 21 48 51.44 Fair-minded 54.94 17.12 45.18 Fearful 47.45 24.74 41.60 Feminine 45.78 15.91 38.72 Forgetful 38.14 20.19 30.92 Friendly 59 75 18.92 49.19 Generous 47.00 19.27 37.84 Good-looking 51.08 22.19 39.02 Good-natured 54.85 20.46 49.19 Hardworking 61 80 16.47 50.25 Helpful 57.12 14.50 42.16 Honest 46.26 20.67 42 33 Imaginative 50.16 20.14 41.45 Independent 62.91 18.45 50.41 61 Table 9 (cont’d) Believe is more prevalent gmgeg gee ghee Whiees Individualistic Industrious Interesting Knowledgeable Logical Materialistic Moody Optimistic Passionate Patriotic Persevering Plans ahead Pleasure loving Polite Productive Progressive Prompt Prosperous Quiet Realistic Reserved Self-centered Self-disciplined Sly Shrewd Sophisticated Thrifty Tradition loving Trusting Understanding Well-adjusted Wise 62 % of Whites (Mega) (SD) 63 Table 10. EIGENVALUES OF 116 ATTRIBUTES Attributes That Whites Believe Are Diagnostic of Africee-Americeee geeeee Eigeevalee Pct of Var gum Pc; 1 22.67845 19.6 19.6 2 15.02935 13.0 32.5 3 5.53365 4.8 37.3 4 4.82475 4.2 41.4 5 3.95410 3.4 44.8 6 3.57623 3.1 47.9 7 3.40083 2.9 50.9 8 3.24876 2.8 53.7 9 3.13328 2.7 56.4 10 2.94858 2.5 58.9 11 2.72433 2.3 61.3 12 2.46313 2.1 63.4 13 2.37873 2.1 65.4 14 2.36160 2.0 67.5 15 2.16043 1.9 69.3 16 1.99432 1.7 71.0 17 1.93730 1.7 72.7 18 1.88062 1.6 74.3 19 1.73099 1.5 75.8 20 1.68954 1.5 77.3 21 1.59074 1.4 78.7 22 1.48671 1.3 79.9 23 1.42504 1.2 81.2 24 1.35858 1.2 82.3 25 1.29256 1.1 83.5 26 1.24060 1.1 84.5 27 1.18691 1.0 85.5 28 1.13572 1.0 86.5 64 prompt. The attributes that were considered characteristic of Hispanics and Asians and results from both principal components factor analyses can be found respectively in Tables 11, 12, 13 and 14. Insert tables 11, 12, 13 and 14 about here R l f H at es gypeehesis £1: Respondents whe heve more ppeitive pereenel coneeep with e recial group will have lese racial prejpeice toward that group then theee whe heve lese peeieive pereonal eeneect with phat greup. In terms of African-Americans’s personal contact with Whites, the hypothesis was supported. Pearson’s R revealed that for African-Americans, personal contact was significantly correlated with their prejudice for Whites. That is, the more positive the personal contact is with Whites, the more positive their feelings are towards Whites (r=.37)7. On the other hand, the hypothesis was not supported in terms of African-Americans’ personal contact with either Hispanics (;=.-18) or Asians (;= -.13). Meaning, there was not a significant correlation between 7 Significant at p < .01. Table 11 Attributes That White Respondents Believe.Are Diagnostic Of Hispanics Believe is more prevalent 4 of Whites s of Hispanics eppng Hiepepiee ghee Whitee (Meep) (eD) (Mean) (SD) Criminal tendencies 28.08 18.91 37.87 22 58 Dirty 19.71 16.32 29 .97 21 so Grateful 41 63 23.03 50.60 21 36 Lazy 33.25 16.55 37.87 19.85 Old fashioned 38.08 16.30 48 40 20.83 Poor 32.97 18.53 54 29 20.22 Religious 54 75 24.08 61 33 23.02 Superstitious 31 92 19.33 44.85 23.51 Tradition loving- 50.83 22.15 60 00 22.03 Uneducated 30.21 17.48 42 69 19.26 Believe is less prevalent % of Whites % of Hispanics gmppg Hiepepi e ehan Whipes (peep) (§D) (peep) (§D) Active 53.70 17 15 48 12 18.22 Aggressive 50.10 20.96 42 36 18.79 Alert 56.65 19.45 48.20 22.84 Ambitious 60.12 18.98 46.90 17.90 Angry 38.22 18.94 34.06 20.48 Anxious 49.07 21 80 38.63 19.06 Assertive 56 18 17.36 44 28 19.87 Athletic 50.63 20.81 36 36 18.46 Bossy 46.31 18.34 34 43 19.91 Business wise 51 18 17.42 35 33 16.25 Competent 56 76 18.73 47.95 18.26 Competitive 61 34 25.10 39.90 16.45 Conscientious 45 14 18.75 38.92 21.37 Conservative 57 95 16.66 37 64 20.88 Contented 48.32 21.98 40.80 18.19 Cooperative 52.81 19.52 45.37 21.03 Deceitful 39 72 22 85 31.35 17.95 Defensive 52.45 25.94 45.37 19.01 Democratic 55.03 20.05 49.01 21.74 Dependable 55.32 17.31 46.35 19.64 Eccentric 33.87 20.92 27 79 18.07 Effeminate 36 98 19.31 30 90 18.10 Efficient 52 22 18.09 44.70 19.67 Emotional 56.98 21 48 47.98 23.14 Family oriented 52.59 20.75 65.91 18.60 Fair minded 54.94 17.12 46.51 19.86 Fearful 47 45 24.94 39 60 20.17 Feminine 45 78 15.91 39 62 14.26 Flamboyant 41 75 21.44 34.35 19.17 Forgetful 38 14 20.19 30.71 15.91 Friendly 59.75 18.92 54.98 19.21 Helpful 57 12 14.50 46.16 20.50 Imaginative 50.16 20 .14 44.67 19 .09 Independent 62.91 18.45 44 40 18.54 Individualistic 56.82 20.83 44 14 21 32 Industrious 57.34 14.45 43 26 21 06 65 Table 11 (cont’d) Believe is less prevalent eppng Hiepeeiee ghee Whiges Intelligent Interesting Knowledgeable Logical Materialistic Meddlesome Militant Moody Passionate Patriotic Plans ahead Productive Progressive Prompt Prosperous Quiet Realistic Reliable Reserved Rigid Self-centered Self-discipline Self-pitying Sexually loose Show off Shrewd Shy Sly Sociable Sophisticated Stingy Thrifty Unpredictable Understanding Well adjusted e of Whites M). _(.__)_8D 58.09 18.88 64 22 22.94 59.69 16.85 51 29 19.60 66 66 23.78 44.69 22.39 37.03 24.70 53.63 21.96 58.41 21 24 67.54 21.37 53.21 18.89 64.24 17.27 47 92 15.22 55 52 19.15 52 77 16.13 38.83 17.09 51.71 18.50 54.62 22.82 40.75 19.69 39.37 17.86 49.50 23.62 49.92 18.01 42.41 18.81 49.36 23.82 41 36 23.98 43 33 18.34 34.35 18.30 41.21 20.24 61.70 22.34 46.28 18.79 35.24 18.99 50 43 18.59 42.96 22.86 51.06 19.25 56.00 18.98 i of Hispanics 1M). 47. 51. 50. 42. 41. 29. 31. 37. 20 26 18 19 21 17 20 (SD) .60 .41 .81 .50 .05 .27 .45 .21 .42 .26 .12 .44 .24 67 Table 12. EIGENVALUES OF 116 ATTRIBUTES Attributes That Whites Believe Are Diagnostic of Hiepenice Fector Eigenvelue Pet of Var gypegeg 1 15.90795 20.1 20.1 2 9.36962 11.9 32.0 3 4.61179 5.8 37.8 4 3.46148 4.4 42.2 5 3.25099 4.1 46.3 6 2.96536 3.8 50.1 7 2.59014 3.3 53.4 8 2.42757 3.1 56.4 9 2.30787 2.9 59.4 10 2.13666 2.7 62.1 11 2.01413 2.5 64.6 12 1.91181 2.4 67.0 13 1.74902 2.2 69.2 14 1.56452 2.0 71.2 15 1.53752 1.9 73.2 16 1.39571 1.8 74.9 17 1.29211 1.6 76.6 18 1.21415 1.5 78.1 19 1.14284 1.4 79.6 20 1.08160 1.4 80.9 21 1.04684 1.3 82.3 Table 13 .Attributes That White Respondents Believe Are Diagnostic Of Asians Believe is more prevalent % of Whites % of Asians epppg Aeiepe ghee Whites (Meep) (§D) (Meep) Alert 56.65 19.45 62.47 Ambitious 60.12 18.98 64.95 Business wise 51.18 17 42 62.50 conscientious 45.14 18.75 53.82 conservative 57.95 16.66 68.36 Cultured 45.49 20.99 55.29 Dependable 55.32 17.31 63.03 Efficient 52.22 18.09 66.95 Fair minded 54.94 17.12 60.69 Family oriented 52.59 20.75 72.04 Generous 47.00 19.27 52.10 Good natured 54.85 20.46 59.11 Grateful 41.63 23.03 55 99 Hardworking 61.80 16.47 71.29 High morals 45.42 22.73 60.91 Honest 46.26 20.67 56.98 Imaginative 50.16 20 14 52.94 Industrious 57.34 14.45 62 88 Intelligent 58.09 18.88 67.45 Logical 51.29 19.60 63.31 Maditative 30.12 17.45 48.47 Old fashioned 38.08 16.30 55.54 Optimistic 49.30 21.12 59.36 Persevering 45.74 19.14 57.66 Plans ahead 53.21 18.89 66.12 Polite 51.98 23.42 66.92 Productive 64.24 17.29 69.16 Progressive 47.92 15.22 52.46 Prompt 55.52 19.15 66.67 Prosperous 52.77 16.13 61.50 Proud 58.51 24.05 64 12 Quiet 38.83 17.09 59 25 Realistic 51.71 18.50 57.18 Reliable 54.62 22.82 70.33 Reserved 40.75 19.69 56.74 Self-disciplined 49.92 18.01 65 18 Self-sacrificing 38.55 20.01 51.21 Shy 34.35 18.30 49 86 Tradition loving 50.83 22 15 68 98 Wise 39.62 22.00 57 66 Believe is less prevalent % of Whites % of Asians i Whi s iHEQEl (SD) (Meep) Active 53.70 17.15 48.52 Aggressive 50.10 20.96 41.43 Angry 38.22 18.94 29.00 Anxious 49.07 21.80 37.72 Athletic 50.63 20.81 29.91 Bossy 46.31 18.34 35.20 68 Table 13 (cont’d) Believe is less prevalent eppng;ee1epe ghee Whiges Criminal tendencies Cruel Defensive Democratic Dependent Emotional Fearful Flamboyant Forgetful Friendly Good-looking Grouchy Helpful Ignorant Independent Individualistic Interesting Lazy Masculine Materialistic Meddlesome Moody Musical Noisy Passionate Patriotic Physically violent Pleasure loving Prone to use drugs Quarrelsome Rebellious Romantic Self-centered Self-pitying Sexually loose Sexually perverse Show off Shrewd Sly Sociable Suspicious uneducated Understanding Unpredictable % of Whites (Meep) % of Asians M). 20 34 .10 .36 26. 35. 50. 70 Table 14. EIGENVALUES OF 116 ATTRIBUTES Attributes That Whites Believe Are Diagnostic of Aeiane F or Eigeevalue ch pf Var Cum.Pct 1 20.16843 17.4 17.4 2 15.25130 13.1 30.5 3 5.98887 5.2 35.7 4 4.97088 4.3 40.0 5 4.52133 3.9 43.9 6 4.06003 3.5 47.4 7 3.91073 3.4 50.8 8 3.35947 2.9 53.6 9 3.25260 2.8 56.5 10 2.92798 2.5 59.0 11 2.74954 2.4 61.3 12 2.72678 2.4 63.7 13 2.56278 2.2 65.9 14 2.42678 2.1 68.0 15 2.16565 1.9 69.9 16 2.03215 1.8 71.6 17 1.84173 1.6 73.2 18 1.80258 1.6 74.8 19 1.74184 1.5 76.3 20 1.63449 1.4 77.7 21 1.55498 1.3 79.0 22 1.49864 1.3 80.3 23 1.43174 1.2 81.5 24 1.39942 1.2 82.7 25 1.29195 1.1 83.9 26 1.24358 1.1 84.9 27 1.17745 1.0 85.9 28 1.09190 .9 86.9 71 .African-Americans’ personal contact with Hispanics and Asians and their overall feelings for these two groups. For White respondents, personal contact with both .African-Americans (pe.42)8.and Hispanics (p=.22)9 was significantly correlated with their prejudice for them. Thus, the hypothesis was supported in terms of these two groups. However, Whites’ personal contact with Asians was not significantly correlated with their prejudice for Asians (;=.06). The hypothesis was not supported in terms of Asians. The means and standard deviations for personal contact (for both African-American and White respondents) can be found in Table 15. Hypogheeie 12 R n n wh h v e n o m re i ive medie imegee pf reeiel groepe will heve lees reciel r ' i w r th r h n th e who ar d to leee peeigive meeie imegee pf ghpee greppe. African-Americans’ exposure to Whites via mass media was not significantly correlated with their prejudice for 8 Significant at p < .000. 9 Significant at n < .01. 72 Table 15. Meees for Personal Contact Mean Std Dev. African Americans Whites 5 33 1.03 Hispanics 4 67 1.14 Asians 4 55 1.19 Whites African-Americans 5.25 1.05 Hispanics 4.36 .89 Asians 4 35 80 73 them (;=.12). On the other hand, their exposure to both Hispanics (r=-.26)10 and Asians (;=-.23)“ was negatively correlated with their prejudice for them. In terms of African-Americans’ media exposure to Whites, the hypothesis was not supported. However, the opposite of what was predicted was found in terms of African-Americans’ media exposure and racial prejudice with Hispanics and Asians. More specifically, the more positive media exposure to Hispanics and Asians, the more prejudice African-Americans had for these two groups. Whites’ exposure to African-Americans (;=-.12) and Hispanics (;=-.10) via mass media was not correlated with their prejudice for them. However, there was a negative correlation between Whites’ exposure to Asians (_r_=-.24)l2 and their prejudice for them. Therefore, the hypothesis was not supported in terms of Whites’ prejudice for African- Americans and Hispanics and their media exposure to these groups. However, the more exposure to positive media images of Asians, the mepe prejudice Whites had for them. The means and standard deviations for media exposure (for African-American and White respondents) can be found in Table 16. w Significant at p < .01. n Significant at p < .05. n Significant at p < .006. Eyppgheeie *3 R on nts who h v mor ositive racial ethnic self- eegeem will have mere racial prejudice for different racial r h n h wh h v le itiv ra i l thni self- esteemi For African-Americans, racial/ethnic self-esteem was not significantly correlated with their racial prejudice for either Whites (;=-.05), Hispanics (;=.08) or Asians (;=.12). Thus, for African-Americans, hypothesis three was not supported. Likewise, Whites’ racial/ethnic self-esteem was not significantly correlated with their racial prejudice for African-Americans (;=-.11) or Hispanics (;=-.09). However, Whites’ racial/ethnic self-esteem was negatively correlated with their racial prejudice for Asians (;=-.18)”. Meaning, the hypothesis was supported in terms of Whites and Asians in that the more positive racial/ethnic self-esteem Whites had, the more prejudice they had for Asians. The means and standard deviations for racial/ethnic self-esteem and racial prejudice (for African-American and White respondents) can be found in Table 17. ” Significant at p < .03. 75 Table 16. Meane fer Meeia Egpeeere Mean Std Dev. .African Americans Whites 5 47 99 Hispanics 4 76 1.21 Asians 4 50 1.03 Whites African-Americans 6. . Hispanics 5.48 .57 Asians 5 ition 1 Anal Dif r in Ra i 1 Pre ic For African-American respondents, t-tests revealed a significant gender difference in racial prejudice for Hispanics and Asians. African-American females were much less prejudice towards Hispanics (M=63.47) than their male counterparts (M=50.74), g(99)=-3.09, p < .003. As well as, African-American females were far less prejudice towards Asians (M=62.60) than African-American males (M=47.96), g(99)=-3.75, p < .000. There was no significant gender difference between African-American males’ (M=52.59) and females’ (M=50.65) prejudice towards Whites. And, there were no significant gender differences between White males’ and females’ prejudice for African-Americans, Hispanics or Asians. Perepnal gpngecg e Meeie gepeeere African-Americans reported having significantly more positive personal contact with Hispanics (M=4.67) than Whites did (M=4.36), t(229)=6.00, p < .000. And, African- Americans had significantly more positive personal contact with Asians (M=4.55) than Whites did (M=4.35), t(229)=6.77, 77 Table 17. Mean Std Dev. African Americans Racial Self—Esteem 5 58 63 Whites Racial Self-Esteem 4 95 67 Meeee fer Racial Prejudiee Mean Std Dev. African Americans Racial Prejudice for: Whites 51.70 22.06 Hispanics 56.60 21.51 Asians 54.70 20.76 Whites Racial Prejudice for: African-Americans 59.85 21.35 Hispanics 62.69 16.83 Asians 65.53 18.67 78 p < .000. On the other hand, Whites reported having more positive media exposure to Hispanics (M=5.48) than African- Americans did (M=4.76), t(229)=11.53, p < .000 and had more positive media exposure to Asians (M=5.07) than African- Americans did (M=4.50), t(229)=8.24, p < .000. Racialzethnic self-esteem African-Americans had significantly higher racial/ethnic self-esteem (M=5.58) than Whites (M=4.95), t(229)=5.64, p .000. i -E nomi tatu a cial Pre udi The majority of African-American respondents (79%) felt that their racial group was of a lower socio-economic status compared to Whites. The correlation however between perception of comparative socio-economic status with Whites was not significantly correlated with African-Americans’ racial prejudice for Whites when we would have expected this to be true. 69% of these same respondents felt that they were of an equal socio-economic status with Hispanics and 76% felt they were of an equal socio-economic status with Asians. Consequently, there was no significant correlation between African-American’s perception of comparative socio- economic status with Hispanics and Asians and their prejudice for them. On the other hand, 84% of White respondents felt that Whites were of a higher socio-economic status compared to African-Americans and Hispanics while 58% felt that Whites 79 were of a higher status than Asians. Whites’ perception of status difference between Whites and African-Americans was negatively correlated with their racial prejudice for African-Americans (;=-.20)“. Meaning, the higher Whites perceive their socio-economic status compared to African- Americans, the less racial prejudice they felt for them. There was no significant correlation between Whites' perception of socio-economic status difference between Hispanics and Asians and their racial prejudice for them. M Significant at p < .01. Chapter 5 The Disepssien We now know what attributes African-Americans believe are characteristic of Whites, Hispanics and Asians. We also know their racial prejudice for these groups. The data in this study both supports and contradicts earlier findings by Guichard and Connolly (1977) in that the African-Americans in their study and the African—Americans in this study both believed that Whites are industrious and cruel. However, unlike the Guichard and Connolly findings, African-Americans in this study did not believe that intelligent, artistic, lazy, shrewd and superstitious were characteristics of Whites. Given the difference in era, the Guichard and Connolly study was conducted in the late seventies whereas this study was conducted in early 1992, the differences in perception of attributes should not be surprising. Prior to this investigation, there were no studies in the literature on the attributes that made up the stereotype that African-Americans had for Hispanics and Asians. Therefore, this study contributes to stereotype research by documenting these attributes. In addition, the racial prejudice that African-Americans feel for Hispanics and Asians is documented for the first time in this study. It appears that African-Americans feel the most favorable towards Hispanics, followed by Asians and then Whites. 80 81 The majority of the attributes that whites identified as being characteristic of African-Americans are identical to the attributes found in earlier studies (see Katz and Braly, 1933; Richards, 1950; Dovidio and Gaertner, 1986 and Stangor et al., 1991) and thus the findings in this study regarding Whites’ stereotype of African-Americans replicates past research. Like the attributes found in previous research, most attributes that Whites use to describe African-Americans are overwhelming negative in nature. And, Whites racial prejudice towards African-Americans appears to remain constant at an average of 60 on a prejudice measure both in earlier studies (Converse et al., 1980) and in this present study. The data from this study suggest that African-Americans are more racially prejudice towards Whites than Whites are towards African-Americans. Generally, the attributes identified in this study are similar to those identified in earlier studies in regards to Whites’ stereotype of Hispanics and Asians (see Richards, 1950; Martinez, 1969; Kaplan and Goldman, 1973; Marin, 1983; and Stangor et al., 1991). In terms of Whites’ racial prejudice for Hispanics and Asians, earlier research determined that Whites felt most favorable toward Asians, than Hispanics, than African-Americans. The data in this study reflect the same pattern. That is, Whites reported having the least amount of racial prejudice for Asians, then Hispanics and the most racial prejudice for African- 82 Americans. As Hacker (1992) suggests, African-Americans and Whites simply don’t have positive feelings for one another. In summation, African-Americans felt that Whites were more ambitious, business-wise, competent, imaginative, industrious and sophisticated than African-Americans. In addition, they also felt that Whites were more apt to have criminal tendencies, be cruel, be dirty, ignorant, meddlesome and prone to use drugs compared to African- Americans. In fact, African-Americans in this study believed that twenty-eight "good" and sixteen "bad" attributes were characteristic of Whites. Thus, it seems that African-Americans have a varied impression of Whites and don’t view them as overwhelmingly "good" or "bad". On the other hand, Whites felt that African-Americans were more angry, apt to have criminal tendencies, dirty, physically violent, and sexually perverse. Furthermore, Whites believed African-Americans were athletic, musical, religious and unpredictable. In fact, out of the eighteen characteristics Whites felt "described" African-Americans, fifteen were "bad" attributes. Thus, it seems that compared to African-Americans, Whites have a less varied impression of African-Americans than African-Americans have of them. This "lopsided" mixture of "good" and "bad" characteristics used to describe each other (i.e, African- Americans & Whites) shouldn’t be surprising if we keep in 83 mind that African-Americans in the United States of America have much more personal contact with Whites than Whites have with African-Americans. Thus, African-Americans have more experience with Whites and these experiences have obviously helped to contribute to the diverse impression African- Americans have of Whites. In fact, the other results of this study support this hypothesis. In that African- Americans indicated their average amount of personal contact with Whites as being much higher that the reported personal contact Whites say they have with African-Americans. Given the inequitable impressions African-Americans and Whites have of each other based of the unequal amounts of personal contact they have with each other, do African- Americans and Whites share similar impressions of Hispanics and Asians? According to the data in this study, African- Americans have much more personal contact with Hispanics than Whites have with Hispanics. Thus we would expect African-Americans to have a more varied and diverse impression of Hispanics than Whites do. In fact, African- Americans described Hispanics with twenty-two "good" and 9 "bad" characteristics. Whereas Whites described Hispanics with 6 "good" and 4 "bad" characteristics. Again, it seems to bear that as a result of their higher level of personal contact with Hispanics, African-Americans have a more diverse impression of them compared to Whites. Likewise, African-Americans in this study indicated a 84 higher level of personal contact with Asians compared to Whites’ personal contact with Asians. And, African- Americans described Asians with twenty-seven "good" and 8 "bad" characteristics. On the other hand, Whites described Asians with thirty-four "good" and zero "bad" characteristics. Again, African-Americans have a mixture of good and bad characteristics when they describe Asians while Whites have an overwhelmingly good impression of Asians. It could be that if Whites had more personal contact with Asians and gained more experience with them, their impressions of them would become more reflective of reality, that is, believing Asians as having both good and bad traits. The relationship between the stereotypes and racial prejudice is less clear. It is apparent that the African- Americans in this study felt far less positive for Hispanics and Asians than Whites felt for them and African-Americans felt far less positive for Whites than Whites felt for African-Americans. It would be easy to think that the more varied one’s stereotype is of another group, the more diffused their feelings would be towards that group. For example, given that Whites described Asians with all good attributes, one would expect their prejudice for Asians to be low. In fact, in this study this is exactly what happened. Whites’ prejudice for Asians is the leweeg compared with their prejudice for either Hispanics or 85 African-Americans. And, although African-Americans had a mixture of good and bad descriptions of Asians, their prejudice for them was also the lowesg compared to their prejudice for Hispanics and Whites. The explanation for this relationship appears less clear. However, it is the opinion of this author that the high racial prejudice between African-Americans and Whites should not be surprising, nor should it be solely thought of as a function of personal contact. Given the complexity of the relationship between African-Americans and Whites since they first came in contact with each other, the clear reasons for stereotypes and prejudice may never be identified by empirical investigations. Indeed, strip away all cognition and there a lot of bad feelings between African-Americans and Whites that have existed for many generations and have far outlasted any cognition as to why the feelings exist. The theoretical basis for supposing that positive personal contact with a racial group will lead to a decrease in racial prejudice was based on the previous work of Pettigrew (1981), Stephan and Stephan (1985), Nichols and McAndrew (1990) and others. These researchers suggested that positive personal contact between groups can decrease any negative feelings between members of these groups. However, the data in this study present mixed conclusions. For African-Americans, positive personal contact with 86 Whites was indeed a catalyst for more favorable feelings towards Whites. Yet, positive personal contact with Hispanics and Asians made no difference in African- Americans’ feelings for them. It may be that since African- Americans in this study had significantly less personal contact with either Hispanics or Asians compared to Whites, the effect of this contact on their feelings for them was not large enough to create a relationship between contact and prejudice. An alternative explanation may be that the size of the population of this study was too small to identify any relationships between personal contact and racial prejudice that may have existed. Thus, the data here suggest a relationship between positive personal contact and racial prejudice exists, depending upon which racial group is evaluation whom. Social learning theory as proposed by Fazio and Zanna, 1981; Weigel, et al., 1980; and Greenberg, 1986 suggests that being exposed to negative media images of a racial group can help to perpetuate negative feelings towards that group. The data in this study suggest some very interesting findings. In fact, in some instances the opposite of what was predicted was found to be true. For example, for African-Americans, the more exposure to positive media images of Hispanics and Asians, the more racial prejudice they felt for these two groups. This may be a reflection of downward social comparison. In that if African-Americans 87 view positive images of Hispanics and Asians via mass media, while concurrently viewing negative images of other African- Americans, feelings of resentment and dis-enfranchisement can develop. On the other hand, exposure to positive media images of Whites had no bearing on African-Americans’ feelings for Whites. The same contradictory pattern was found for Whites’ exposure to positive media images of Asians. Meaning, the more Whites are exposed to positive media images of Asians, the more prejudiced they have towards them. This unexpected finding could be explained by a possible feeling among Whites that Asians, as a group, are exceeding Whites in terms of academic ability, developing advanced technologies and entrepreneurial success. Thus, any positive portrayal of Asians via mass media can serve to facilitate this negative feeling. On the other hand, Whites’ exposure to African-Americans and Hispanics had no influence on Whites feelings towards them. The idea that individuals who have positive racial/ethnic self-esteem, that is, those who feel good about being a member of their particular racial group, will have more racial prejudice for different racial groups in based on Tajfel and Turner’s (1986) social identity theory. They argue that people are motivated to maintain a positive self-esteem which includes the self-esteem as a whole, and self-esteem specifics, like racial/ethnic self-esteem. 88 According to Tajfel and Turner and Meindel and Lerner (1985), if a person perceives another group as a threat (e.g., perceiving another group is of a higher socio- economic status than one’s own), then that person will be motivated to protect his or her group self-esteem (or, in this case racial/ethnic self-esteem) by having negative feelings and thoughts about that group. Having these negative feelings and thoughts creates favorable comparisons between one’s own group and the threatening group in an attempt to protect one’s group self-esteem. For African-Americans, the data in this study do not bear out this supposition at all. On the contrary, racial/ethnic self-esteem was not correlated with their prejudice for either Whites, Hispanics or Asians. Even when there was a control for socio-economic status, the same pattern of results materialized. For example, the majority of African-Americans felt they were of a lower socio- economic status compared to Whites. Thus, one would expect African-Americans to view Whites as a threat using Tajfel and Turner’s definition of threat. Therefore, one would expect the relationship between racial/ethnic self-esteem and comparative socio-economic status with Whites to be significant. Likewise, since the African-Americans in this study perceive themselves to be of an equal socio-economic status with Hispanics and Asians, these groups are also not perceived as a threat and thus the relationship between 89 racial/ethnic self-esteem and socio-economic status would not be significant. In fact, the data in this study support this view. Similar findings were also identified in terms of Whites’ racial/ethnic self—esteem and their prejudice for African-Americans and Hispanics. That is, there was no relationship between their racial/ethnic self-esteem and their feelings for these two groups. This is not surprising for an overwhelming majority of the Whites in this study believed they were of a higher socio-economic status than both African-Americans and Hispanics. Thus, a threat did not exist. However, even though over half of the Whites believed they were of a higher socio-economic status than Asians, the relationship between Whites racial/ethnic self- esteem and racial prejudice for Asians was significant. Not only was it significant, an inverse relationship was found. That is, it appears that Whites feel negative towards Asians even though there is no perception of threat, given that Whites believe Asians are of a lower socio-economic status than Whites. This unexpected relationship could be explained by the same reasons given for why Whites are more prejudice towards Asians the more they are exposed to positive media images of Asians. The disconnect between socio-economic status and prejudice could be reflected in the possible idea that Whites may believe that although they happen to have an 90 upper hand in terms of socio-economic status, Asians are gaining a very fast and strong foothold in this same status category. Limigegipne pf Reseerch There were a few limitations to this study that need to be acknowledged. First, the respondents should not be considered representative samples of the African-American and White populations. Second, the population size of this study (100 African-Americans and 130 Whites) was small enough to inhibit the discovery of possible correlations between the variables under study. And third, it is possible that some of the attributes identified by the social groups questionnaire may be more reflective of respondents’ desire to quickly complete the questionnaire without careful consideration of each attribute given that it took respondents over one hour to complete all questions. Thus, the task of rating 116 attributes for five racial groups was quite an arduous task for the respondents. This task presents a limitation in the research because the percentage (%) estimate method is a very time consuming task and places and very heavy burden on the respondent. Another method, such as having respondents self-generate stereotype lists could be employed in future research. Future research should concentrate on using non- traditional respondents such as Hispanics and Asians in order to identify the stereotypes and racial prejudice they 91 have for one another, Whites and African-Americans. If this is done, stereotype researchers can begin to paint a holistic picture of the stereotyping and racial prejudice phenomena that includes all racial groups instead of continually making an assumption (as implicit as it may be) that African-Americans and Whites are the only racial groups that matter. Coneleeipns Stereotype and racial prejudice research is now more inclusive with the findings of this study. There exists now indexes of attributes that African-Americans consider characteristic of Whites, Hispanics and Asians. In addition, a barometer of feelings that African-Americans have towards these groups has also been documented. The data in this study also demonstrated that the relationships between personal contact, media exposure, racial/ethnic self-esteem and racial prejudice do exist, yet they exist depending upon which racial group is doing the evaluating and which racial group is being evaluated. Thus, the issue of racial stereotypes and prejudice and the factors that influence them is very complex and deserves further study with larger, more diverse populations. References Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley. Amir, Y. (1976). The role of intergroup contact in change of prejudice and ethnic relations. In P. Katz (Ed.), Toweree ghe eliminegien pf reeiemn New York: Pergammon Press. Anderson, N.H., & Barrios, A.A. (1961). Primacy effects in impression formations gournel of Pereenaligy end Soeial Peyehplogy, 9, 272-279. Anderson, N.H., & Huber, S. (1963). Effects of concomitant verbal recall on order effects in personality impression formation. Qoernel of Verbel Leerning ene 'Verpal Behevior, 2, 379-391. Anderson, N.H., & Jacobson, A. (1965). Effects of stimulus inconsistency and discounting instructions in personality impression formation. 1 P r n li nd 1 2eyerLpgy, 2, 531-539. Apostle, R.A., Glock, C.Y., Piazza, T. & Suelzle, M. (1983). The Anegpmy pf Reeiel Aggigudee. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, LTD. Aronson, E., Bridgeman, D.L., Geffner, R. (1978). Interdependent interactions and prosocial behavior. Qpprnal pf Reeeerch.ene Develppmeng in.Eepeegien, 12, 16- 27. 92 93 Bernat, G., & Balch, P. (1979). The Chicano racial attitude measure (CRAM): Results of an initial investigation. Amezigen Qpprnel of Community Peyehology, 7, 137-146. Bodenhausen, G.V. (1988). Stereotypic biases in social decision making and memory: Testing process models ofstereotype use. Spurnal of Personality ene Secial Psychology. 55. 726-737. Brigham, J.C. (1971). Ethnic stereotypes. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 15-38. Brink, W. & Harris, L. (1964). The Negre gevolpgion in America. New York: Simon and Schuster. Brink, W. & Harris, L. (1967). Blaek ene White; A eteey pf U. r ial t i s o a . New York: Simon and Schuster. Brown, V., & Geis, F.L. (1984). 'I‘urning lead into gold: evaluations of men and women leaders and the alchemy of social consensus. goprnel of Personality and Social Peyeholegy, 46, 978-989. Bunzel, J.H. (1986) . Affirmative re-actions. Beelig Qpinion, 9, 45-49. Campbell, A., & Schuman, H. (1968). Racial attitudes in fifteen American cities. In Supplemengel Sgeeiee fer ghe Negipnel Aevieepy Qemmieeipn en givil Dieereere. washington, D.C. Campbell, A. (1971). White attitudes toward Black people. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research. 94 Carmines, E.G. & Zeller, R.A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Quantitetive Applieetions in the Seeial Sciencee. J.L. Sullivan (Ed.) Sage publications: Beverly Hills, CA. Carmines, E.G. & Champagne, R.A. (1990) . The changing content of American racial attitudes: A fifty year portrait, Reeeereh in Migrppeligiee, 3, 187-208. Casas, J.M., Ponterotto, J.G., & Sweeney, M. (1987). Stereotyping the stereotyper: A Mexican-American perspective. Jeernel pf Qrese-Qplturel Peyehelegy, 18 , 1, 45-57. Case, C.E., & Greeley, A.M., (1990) . Attitudes toward racial equality, Hempeleg Spprnel of Sogiel Reletiene, 16, 1, 67-94. Clark, M. (1959) . Heelgh in ghe Mexicen-Amerieen eplgere; A ni tud . Berkeley: University of California Press. Condran, J.G. (1979). Changes in white attitudes towards Blacks: 1963-1977. Pgmlie Qpieien Qpepgerly, (Winter) , 43, 463-476. Converse, P.E., Dotson, J.D., Hoag, W.L. &McGee, W.H. (1980) . rin ilAti D Srbk147-17. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cook, S.W. (1984). Cooperative interaction in multiethnic contexts. In N. Miller & M. Brewer (Eds.), r in c :Th hl f r in 1-1 95 New York: Academic Press. Cook, S.W. (1985). Experimenting on social issues: The case of school desegregation. Amerieen Peyehelegieg, 40, 452- 460. Crocker, J., & Luhtanen, R. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. goernel pf Personaligy and Social Peyehelogy, 58, 1, 60-67. Cross, W.C., & Maldonado, B. (1971). The counselor, the Mexican-American, and the stereotype. Elemenge;y;Seheol i n an oun lin , 6, 1, 27-31. Darley, J.M., & Gross, P.H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labelling effects. Joernal of Personality and Seeiel Peychology, 44, 20-33. Dovidio, J.F., & Gaertner, S.L. (1986). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism; Historical trends and contemporary approaches . In J . F . Dovidio and S . L . Gaertner (Eds.), Prejpdice, Diecriminetion end Raeism. Academic Press. Duncan, S.L. (1976). Differential social perception and attribution of intergroup violence: Testing the lower limits of stereotyping blacks. Seprnel pf Personeligy ene Speial Peyghelogy, 34, 590-598. Ervin, K.S. & Jackson, L.A. (1990). Personal and racial self- esteem.of.African-Americans: Facets of social identity. Unpublished manuscript. Evuleocha, S.U., & Ugbah, S.D. (1989). Stereotypes, counter- 96 stereotypes, and Black television images in the 1990s. Weegern Seprnel of Bleek Stpdiee, Winter, 13(4), 197-205. Fairchild, H.H., & Cozens, J.A, (1981). Chicano, Hispanic, or Mexican-Americans: What’s in a name? Hispanic Journal pf Sehevierel Seieneee, 3, 191-198. Farley, R., Hatchett, S., & Schuman, H. (1979). A note on changes in.Black.racial attitudes in.Detroit: 1968-1976. Segiel Ineieagore Reeeareh, 6, 439-443. Fazio, R.H., & Zanna, M.P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), A v n in im.n l i l hol Vol 14 . 1 1- 2 . New York: Academic Press. Firebaugh, G., & Davis, K.E. (1988). Trends in anti-black prejudice, 1972-1984: Region and cohort effects. Spurnel pf Soeielpgy, 94, 2, Sept., 251-272. Fiske, S.T. (1987). In nt nd c t o -b res on s. Unpublished manuscript. Fiske, S.T. (1981). Social cognition and affect. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Qognitipn, Social Behevior, and the Environmeng. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Fiske, S.T. (1982) . Schema-triggered affect: Applications to social perception. In M.S. Clark & S.T. Fiske (Eds.), Aff n ni i n- Th 17th Ann 1 rn i en Segnigien. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Fiske, S.T. & Neuberg, S.L. (1990). A continuum model of impression formation, from category-based to 97 individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), v n in rim n l ' l cholo , 23. New York: Academic. Fiske, S.T., & Pavelchak, M.A. (1986) . Category based versus piece-meal based affective responses: Developments in schema-triggered affect. In R.M. Sorrentino & E.T. Higgins (Eds.), Hanflook pf Mogivegien ene gognigien; F n ion of Social Beh vior. New York: Guildford Press. Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1984). Social Cognitipn. New York: Random House . Fitzpatrick, J.P. (1971) . Puerto Rican Americans (the meaning of migration to the mainland). - In M.M. Gordon (Ed.), E hn' Gr in Am ri Lif ri . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Gaertner, S.L., & Dovidio, J.F. (1986) . The aversive form of racism. In S.L. Gaertner & J.F. Dovidio (Eds.) , Pr ' i Di rimin i n an R i m. Orlando: Academic. Gaertner, S.L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J.F. (1989) . Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journel of Pereonaligy ene Social Peygholpgy, 57, 239-249. Gilbert, G.M. (1951). Stereotypes persistence and change among college students. Spurnel pf Abnemal ane Social 98 Peyehology, 46, 245-254. Greeley, A.M., & Sheatsley, P.B. (1971). Attitudes toward racial integration. Seiepgifie Ameriean, 225, 13-19. Green, B.F., Jr. (1950). A.note on the calculation.of weights fortmaximumibattery reliability. Psyckometrika, 15, 57- 61. Greenberg, B. (1986). Minorities and the mass media. In J. Bryant and D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perepectives en Media Effegge. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Guichard, C.P., & Connolly; MKA, (1977). Ethnic group stereotypes: A new look at an old problems The Journal pf Negrp Eeucation, 46, 344-357. Hacker, A. (Ed.) (1983). gs: A stegisgicel pergreit of the Amerieen people. New York: Penguin Books. Hacker, A. (1992). Twp Negione; Bleck end White, Seperege, Heetile, Uneqpel. New York: Ballantine Books. Hamilton, D.L. (1981). Cognitive proceeeee in sgereogyping ene i gergreup behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hamilton, D.L. (1981c). Illusory correlation as a basis for stereotyping. In D.L. Hamilton (Ed.), Segnigive preceseee in etereotyping and intergroep behavior, pp. 115-144. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Hamilton, D.L., & Gifford, R.K. (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotyping judgments, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 322-4Q7, 99 Hamilton, D.L., & Rose, T.L. (1980). Illusory correlation and the maintenance of stereotypic beliefs. Seurnal of Pereeneligy end Social Psyehelegy, 39, 832-845. Hamilton, D.L., Dugan, P.M., & Trolier, T.K. (1985). The formation of stereotypic beliefs: further evidence for distinctiveness-based illusory correlations. {Leprnel of Pereeneligy ene Sociel Peyehelpgy, 48, 5-17. Hamilton, D.L., & Trolier, T.K. (1986). Stereotypes and stereotyping: .An overview of the cognitive approach, In J.F. Dovidio & S.L. Gaertner (Eds.), Pr ' i Qieepiminegiep, ene Reeiem; Theepy ene Eeeeereh. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Harding, J., Proshansky, H., Kutner, B., & Chein, I. (1969). Prejudice and ethnic relations. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson, (Eds.) , Hanfleok of Soeial Peyeholpgy, (Vol 5.), 2nd Ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hepworth, J.T., & West, S.G. (1988). Lynchings and the economy: A time-series reanalysis of Hovland and Sears (1940). Seernel pf Pereenaligy ene Speiel Peyehelegy, 55, 239-247. Hewstone, Mg, & Jaspers, J.MgF. (1982). Social dimensions of attribution. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The Spciel Dimeneipn; Sprppeen Develpmnge in Seeiel Peyehelggx. PP. 379-404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hewstone, Mg, & Jaspers, J.MKF. (1982). Intergroup relations and attribution processes, In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Seeial 100 Leengigy ene intergreep relatiens. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Higgins, E.T., & Bargh, J.A. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 369- 425. Hogg, M.A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Soeiel identifieetion: A eocial peycholegy of intergroup relations and group pppeeeeee. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Hovland, C.I., 8: Sears, R.R. (1940). Minor studies in aggression: ‘VI. Correlation of lynchings with economic indices. Jeernel pf Soeial Ieepee, 33, 190-221. Hyman, H.H. (1954). Interviewing in. Seeiel Reeeereh. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hyman, ILJLW & Sheatsley, P.B. (1956). .Attitudes towards desegregation. Scientifie Ameriean, 195, 35-39. Hyman, ILJLW. & Sheatsley, P.B. (1964). .Attitudes towards desegregation. Scientifie American, 211, 16-23. Jackson, L.A., Bodenhausen, G.V., Hodge, C., Ervin, K. & Sheppard, L. (1991). Social Groups Perception Survey. Unpublished. Johnson, G.B. (1950). The origin and development of the Spanish attitude toward the Anglo and the Anglo attitude toward the Spanish. Seprnel pf Eepcegionel Peychelpgy, 41, 428-439. Johnson, P.A., Burgess, D.L., Berman, P.A., Porter, G.J. & Frazier, A. (1983). Aeien ane Paeific Islander 101 Popplegien py Sgege; ISSQ. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census: washington, D.C.. Jhally, S., & Lewis, J. (1992). Unpublished manuscript. University of Massachusetts. Jones, E.E., Wood, G.C., S: Quattrone, G.A. (1981b) . Perceived variability of personal characteristics in-groups and out-groups: The role of knowledge and evaluation. Pereenelity ene Seeiel Peyehelogy Bellegin, 7, 523—528. Jones, E.E., Farina, A., Hastork, A.H., Markus, H., Miller, D.T., & Scott, R.A. (1984). Soeiel sgigma: The h l f rke r 1 ion hi . New York: W. H. Freeman. Jones, E.E., & Goethals, G.R. (1987). Order effects in impression formation: Attribution context and the nature of the entity. In E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. Kelley, R.E. Hisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.) , Aggribegien; Pereeiving the cepeee pf behevior (pp. 27-46). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kaplan, R.M., & Goldman, R.D. (1973). Interracial perception among Black, White and Mexican-American high school students, Journal pf Pereonelity ane Seeial Peycholpgy, 28, 383-389. Karlins, M., Coffman, T.L., & Walters, G. (1969). On the fading of social stereotypes: Studies of three generations of college students. Seernal pf Personelity ene Seeiel Peyehelegy, 13, 1-16. 102 Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. .Jo rnal f n l n o ial Eeyepplpgy, 28, 280-290. Katz, 1., & Glass, D.C. (1979). An ambivalence-amplification theory of behavior toward the stigmatized. In W. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Seeial Peyehology of Ingergrepp gelations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Kinder, D.R., 8: Rhodeback, L.A. (1982). "Continuities in support for racial equality, 1972-1976". Public Qpinien Qpeygeyly, 46, 195-215. Kinder; D.R., & Sanders, LgM. (1987). Pluralistic foundations of American opinion on race. Prepared for the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, September. Lalonde, R.N., & Gardner, R.C. (1989). An intergroup perspective on stereotype organization and processing. Epigien Seprnel pf Speiel Peyehplegy, 28, 289-303. Lam, F.K.S. (1986). Suburban residential segregation of Chinese and Japanese Americans 1960, 1970, and 1980. Segiplpgy ene Seeiel Reeeereh, 70, 4, July, 263-265. Lambert, W.H., & Taylor, D.M. (1988). Assimilation vs. multiculturalism: The views of urban Americans, Seeiplpgieel_£p;em, 3,1, Winter, 72-88. Landy, D. (1959). Trepieel Shilepppe; Qelgerel Tranemission ene Learning in a Rprel Puerto Ricen Village. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press. 103 Leong, F.T.L., & Hayes, T.J. (1990). Occupational stereotyping of Asian Americans. The Sareer Development Quarterly. 39. 143-155. Linville, P.W., Salovey, P., & Fischer, G.W. (1986). Stereotyping and perceived distributions of social characteristics: An application to in-group outgroup perception. In J.F. Dovidio & S.L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejpdice, Diecrimination, end Raeism. pp. 165-208. New York: Academic Press. Linville, P.W., Fischer, G.W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics on in- group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journel of Perepneligy ene Soeial Peyghology, 57, 165- 188 . Lipset, S.M., & Schneider, W. (1978). The Bakke case: How would it be decided at the Bar of Public Opinion? Peelic Qpinion, 1, 38-44. Loftus, G.R., & Loftus, E.F. (1976). Hereen Memepy; The Pr in of Informa ion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erblaum Associates . Lord, F.M., 8: Novick, M.R. (1968). Sgegiegical Theoriee of Mengel Teeg Sceree. (pages 123-124). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). Ascollective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of ones’s social identity. Pereepeligy ene Seeiel Eeyehplpgy Bellegin, 18, 302-318. 104 Marin, G. (1982). The effects of labels on anglos’ perceptions of Chicanos. Paper presented at the Second Symposium on Chicano Psychology, Riverside, California, March. Marin, G. (1984). Stereotyping Hispanics: The differential effect of research method , label, and degree of contact. Ingernegional Seprnel of Intereeltural Reletions, 8, 17- 27. Martinez, T.M. (1969). Advertising and racism: The case of the Mexican-American. El Grige, 2, 3-13. Marx, G.T. (1967). Proteet ane Prejpeiee. New York: Harper and Row. McCauley, C., 8: Stitt, C.L. (1978). An individual and quantitative measure of stereotypes. Journal of Pereppeligy ene Seeial Peychplpgy, 38, 689-703. McConahay, J.B. , Hardee, B.B. , & Batts, V. (1981) . "Has racism declined in America? It depends on who is asking and what is asked." Journal of Conflict Reeolution, 25, 563-579. McKelvie, S.J. (1990). The Asch primacy effect: Robust but not infallible. Journel of Soeiel Behevior end Pereeneligy, 5(4), 135-150. Meindl, J.R., & Lerner, M.J. (1985). Exacerbation of extreme responses to an outgroup. goernal of Pereonaligy and Seeiel Peyehelpgy, 47, 71-84. Mosier, C.I. (1943). On the reliability of weighted 105 composites. Peyekemegrike, 8, 161-168. Mydral, G. (1944). An Ameriean eilempe: The Negre Problem M. rn D m a . 2 Vols., New York: Random House. Nichols, K., 8: McAndrew, E.T. (1990). Stereotyping and autostereotyping in Spanish, Malaysian, and American college students. Joernel pf Spcial Peychplpgy, 124(2), 179-189. Ogletree, E.J., & Ujlaki, V.E. (1985). American Hispanics in a pluralistic society, Migregipn Today, 13, 3, 31-34. Peel, E.A. (1948). Prediction of a complex criterion and battery reliability. British Sournal pf Psyehology, 1, 84-94. Pettigrew, T.F. (1981). Extending the stereotype concept. In D.L. Hamilton (Ed.), gognitive progesses in etereotyping ene ingergreep pehevier (pp, 303-331). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pinkey, A. (1963). Prejudice toward Mexican and Negro Americans: A comparison. Phylen, 24, 353-359. Portes, A., Parker, R.N., & Corbas, J.As (1980). .Assimilation or consciousness: Perceptions of U.S. society among recent Latin American immigrants to the U.S. Social Epggee, 59, 200-224. Purdy, D.As & Edmonds, M;M. (1988). Minority stereotyping by college freshmen. Student Affairs Office, Bowling Green State University, Ohio, 43403. Paper presented at the 1988 annual meeting of the North Central Sociological 106 Association. April 14-17, Pittsburgh, PA. Quattrone, G.A. (1986). On the perception of a groups’ 'variability; In S. ‘WOrchel & ‘W.G. .Austin (Eds.), Eeyghplpgy pf Ingergrppp Reletione (2nd ed.). Chicago, Ill: Nelson Hall. Rajecki, D.J. (1989). Aggitudee (2nd ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Richards, E.S. (1950). Attitudes of college students in the Southwest toward ethnic groups in the United States. Speiplegy ene Seeiel Reeeereh, 35, 22-30. Riordan, C.A. (1978). Equal-status interracial contact: A review and revision of a concept. legeppegeppe;_geeppe; pf Ingerceltprel Relegipne, 2, 161-185. Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (Eds.) (1978). gpgpigipp_eeee ate riz ion. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Rothbart,.M., Dawes, R., a Park, B. (1984). Stereotyping and sampling biases in intergroup perception. In R. Eiser (Ed.), Aggigeeinal Seegmeng. New York: Springer-Verlag. Rothbart, M., & John, O.P. (1985). Social categorization and behavioral episodes: A cognitive analysis of the effects of intergroup contacts Jeurnel of Seeial Ieeuee, 41, 81- 104. Rovner, R., & Sedlacek, W;E. (1974). The study of a simplified version of the situational attitude scale (SAS). Qplggrel Sgpdy genger Repert, 7-14. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. 107 Sager, H.A,, & Schofield, J.W. (1980). Racial and behavioral cues in black and white children's perceptions of ambiguously aggressive acts. gournal of Personality and Seeiel Peyghelegy, 39, 590-598. Schaller, M., & Maas, A. (1989). Illusory correlation and social categorization: Toward an integration of motivational and cognitive factors in stereotyping formation. Journal of Pereoneligy ene Seeiel Peyehplegy, 56, 709-721. Schuman, H., & Converse, J.M. (1971). The effects of Black and. White interviewers on. Black responses in 1968. Replig Qpinipn Quergerly, 35, 46-68. Schuman, H., & Hatchett, S. (1974). Blegk Reeiel Agtiteeee: Trende ene Qemplexigiee. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Schuman, H., Steeh, C., & Bobo, L. (1988). Racial Atgitedee in Ameriee: Trende ane Ingeppregatione. In J.A. Davis & J. Modell (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Seggar, J.F., Hafen, J., & Hannonen-Gladden, H. (1981). Television’s portrayals of minorities and.women in drama and comedy drama, 1971-1980. Jeernel pf Breaecaeting, 25(3), 277-288. Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., While, B.J., Hood, W.E., & Sherif, C.W; (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The 108 Robbers cave experiment. Norman, OK: Institute of Group Relations. Simmons, O.G. (1961). The mutual images and expectations of Anglo-Americans and Mexican-Americans, Deadalpe, 90, 2, 286-299. Slusher, M;P., &' Anderson, C.An (1987). When reality monitoring fails: The role of imagination in stereotyping maintenance. Spprnel of Perepnaligy and Soeiel Peyeholegy, 52, 653-662. Smith, T.W., & Sheatsley, P.B. (1984). American attitudes toward race relations. Ppplic Qpinion Querterly, 44, 171-175. Snidereman, P.M., & Hagen, M. (1985). Reee end inegeelity. New York: Chatham House. Stangor, C., Sullivan, L.A., & Ford, T.E. (1991). Affective and cognitive determinants of prejudice. Seeial gpgnigipn. In press. Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Duan, C., Glas, B. (1992). Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. rn l f P r ' 'al peggegeggy, Vol. 62(2), Feb, 207-218. Staples, R. (1987). Black make genocide: .A final solution to the race problem in America, The Bleek Scheler, 18, 3, May-June, 2-11. Stephan, W.G. (1985). Intergroup relations. In G. Lindzey & E..Aronson (Eds.), Heneppok.ef Secial Peycholegyg‘Vol. 3. 109 pp, 529-SSS. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Stephan, W.G., & Stephan, G.W. (1985). Intergroup Anxiety. Qeernel of Seeiel Ieeuee, 41, 157-175. Stevenson, H.W., Chen, C., & Uttal, D.H. (1990). Beliefs and achievement: A study of Black, White, and Hispanic children. Chile Develepmeng, 61, 508-523. Tajfel, H. (1981). Hymn Srpepe ene Seeie Qegegoriee; Sgpeiee in Soeial Peychelegy Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annpel Review pf Peyehelogy, 33, 1-39. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. (Eds-)1 Worchel & W.G. Austin Peychology of Ingergrppp Relations. 2nd Ed. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Tajfel, H., & 'Wilkes, .A.L. (1963). Classification. and quantitative judgment. Brigieh Jeurnel pf Peyehelegy, 54, 101-114. Taylor, S.E. (1981). .A categorization approach to stereotyping, In D. Hamilton (Ed.), cognitive Precesees 1n Sgereogyping ene Ingergreup Behevier. N.J.: Erlbaum. Hillsdale, Taylor, S.E. & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E.T. Higgins, C.P. Herman, & M.P. Zanna WW 1.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 110 Taylor, D.G., Sheatsley, P.B., & Greeley, A. (1978). .Attitudes toward integrations Scientific American, 238, 42-49. Taylor, S.E., & Falcone, H. (1982). Cognitive basis for stereotyping: The relationship between categorization and prejudice. Pereenality ene Seciel Peyehelogy Bulletin, 8, 426-432. Thomson, G.H. (1940). Weighting for battery reliability and prediction. British.Joernal pf Peychelegy, 30, 357-366. Totti, X.F. (1987). The making of a Latino ethnic identity, Dieeeng, 34, 4, Fall, 537-542. Trandis, H.C., Lisansky, J., Setiadi, B., Marin, G., & Betancourt, H. (1982). Stereotyping among Hispanics and Anglos: The uniformity, intensity, direction, and quality of auto- and heterostereotypes. Joprnal of greee-gplteral Peyehelogy, 13(4), 409-426. Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., Wetherell, M.S. (1987). Rediscovering the eocial group; A eelf-eetegerizatipn gheog. Oxford, England: Blackwell. White, R.K. (1977). Misperception in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Journal of Social Iesues, 33, 190-221. Wilder, D.A. (1981). Perceiving persons as a group: Categorization and intergroup relations. In D.L. Hamilton (Ed.), Segnitive Proeeeees in Stereegyping ane ngergrepp Behevipr, pp. 213-257 . Hillsdale, N.J. : 111 Erlbaum. Wilder, D.A. (1984). Intergroup contact: The typical member and the exception to the rule. Journal of Experimental Speiel Peycholegy, 20, 177-194. Wilder, D.A. (1986). Social categorization: Implications for creation and reduction of intergroup bias. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advaneee in experimental secial peyehplpgy (pp. 221-355). Orlando, FL: .Academic Press. ‘Wilder, D.An (1987b). Perceiving persons as a.group: IEffects on attributions of causality and beliefs. Seeial geyepplpgy, 1, 13-23. Williams, J.A. (1964). Interviewer-respondent interaction: A study of bias in the information interview. Speiometgy, Vol. 27, 338-352. ‘Wong, M.G. (1990). The education of White, Chinese, Filipino, and.Japanese students: .A.look.at high school and.beyond, Speie egicel Perepectives, 33, 3, Fall, 355-374. wyer, R.S., Jr. (1988). Social memory and social judgment. In P.R. Solomon, G.R. Goethals, C.M. Kelley, & B.R. Stephens (Eds.), Perspectivee en memopy reseerch. New York: Springer-Verlag. Zanna, MgP., Haddock, G., & Esses, V.N. (1990). The nature of prejudice. Paper presented at the Nags Head conference on "Stereotypes and Intergroup Relations", Nags Head Conference:Center, Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina, June 25-30, 1990. APPENDIX A SOCIAL GROUP CHARACTERISTICS QUESTIONNAIRE (SECTION 1) Lpegpeegieee: We are interested in the characteristics that people associate with members of various groups in the United States. In particular, we are interested in the pepeepgege of group members that you believe have the characteristics listed on the following pages. Your task is to indicate the percentage of Hiepanice. Asians. BleeklAfrieee-Americane, and Whigee that you think have these characteristics. For example, take the characteristic "overweight". If you think that about 25% of all Black/African-Americans are overweight, you would write a 25% next to this characteristic. If you think that only 10% of members of this group are overweight, you would write 10% next to this characteristic. There are no right or wrong answers. We are interested only in your beliefs about the percentage of Hispanics, Asians, Black/African-Americans, and Whites that have these characteristics. There is a separate questionnaire for each group. Your honest opinion is most appreciate. 112 113 Indicate the percentage (%) of geepeeeee that you think have the following characteristics: Characteristic 131 geeracteriegic lazy _____ religious superstitious _____ materialistic productive _____ ignorant conservative _____ competitive musical _____ passionate strong family high moral commitment _____ character poor _____ unpredictable proud _____ meddlesome aggressive ‘_____ contented anxious _____ imaginative good-natured _____ uneducated pleasure loving _____ effeminate militant _____ rigid/inflexible optimistic _____ feminine tradition-loving business-wise reliable _____ quarrelsome sexually loose _____ assertive sociable _____ dependable defensive _____ fair-minded ambitious _____ flamboyant polite/ well-mannered eccentric fearful athletic old-fashioned rebellious Ill lllllllllllllll lllllE independent physically violent interesting artistic active/energetic sly/cunning self-centered criminal tendencies understanding self-disciplined plans ahead sexually perverse dirty/smelly show-off wise reserved irresponsible conscientious progressive efficient individualistic deceitful/devious shy noisy/loud realistic 114 quiet intelligent sophisticated persevering honest/trustworthy prone to use drugs good-looking mercenary/grasping forgetful masculine competent emotional suspicious friendly well-adjusted dependent moody shrewd grouchy romantic thrifty cooperative imaginative cruel stingy helpful self-sacrificing bossy/demanding patriotic friendly industrious prosperous democratic knowledgeable hardworking alert devout 115 grateful prompt generous trusting self-pitying mediative isolated/lonely angry progressive cultured happy-go-lucky logical 116 Indicate the percentage (%) of eeiane that you the following characteristics: Characteristic lazy superstitious productive conservative musical strong family commitment poor proud aggressive anxious good-natured pleasure loving militant optimistic tradition-loving reliable sexually loose sociable defensive ambitious polite/ well-mannered fearful athletic 126.). Wrist-.14 religious materialistic ignorant competitive passionate high moral character unpredictable meddlesome contented imaginative uneducated effeminate rigid/inflexible feminine business-wise quarrelsome assertive dependable fair-minded flamboyant eccentric old-fashioned rebellious think have .13). independent physically violent interesting artistic active/energetic sly/cunning self-centered criminal tendencies understanding self-disciplined plans ahead sexually perverse dirty/smelly show-off wise reserved irresponsible conscientious progressive efficient individualistic deceitful/devious shy noisy/loud realistic 117 quiet intelligent sophisticated persevering honest/trustworthy prone to use drugs good-looking mercenary/grasping forgetful masculine competent emotional suspicious friendly well-adjusted dependent moody shrewd grouchy romantic thrifty cooperative imaginative cruel stingy helpful self-sacrificing bossy/demanding patriotic friendly industrious prosperous democratic knowledgeable hardworking alert devout 118 grateful prompt generous trusting self-pitying mediative isolated/lonely angry progressive cultured happy-go-lucky logical Indicate the percentage (%) of BleeklAfrican-Americane that 119 you think have the following characteristics: geereegerietic lazy superstitious productive conservative musical strong family commitment poor proud aggressive anxious good-natured pleasure loving militant optimistic tradition-loving reliable sexually loose sociable defensive ambitious polite/ well-mannered fearful athletic 131 Char eri i religious materialistic ignorant competitive passionate high moral character unpredictable meddlesome contented imaginative uneducated effeminate rigid/inflexible feminine business-wise quarrelsome assertive dependable fair-minded flamboyant eccentric old-fashioned rebellious 1&1 independent physically violent interesting artistic active/energetic sly/cunning self-centered criminal tendencies understanding self-disciplined plans ahead sexually perverse dirty/smelly show-off wise reserved irresponsible conscientious progressive efficient individualistic deceitful/devious shy noisy/loud realistic 120 quiet intelligent sophisticated persevering honest/trustworthy prone to use drugs good-looking mercenary/grasping forgetful masculine competent emotional suspicious friendly well-adjusted dependent moody shrewd grouchy romantic thrifty cooperative imaginative cruel stingy helpful self-sacrificing bossy/demanding patriotic friendly industrious prosperous democratic knowledgeable hardworking alert devout 121 grateful prompt generous trusting self-pitying mediative isolated/lonely angry progressive cultured happy-go-lucky logical 122 Indicate the percentage (%) of Whiges that you the following characteristics: Engage-Liam lazy superstitious productive conservative musical strong family commitment poor proud aggressive anxious good-natured pleasure loving militant optimistic tradition-loving reliable sexually loose sociable defensive ambitious polite/ well-mannered fearful athletic 131 Maria religious materialistic ignorant competitive passionate high moral character unpredictable meddlesome contented imaginative uneducated effeminate rigid/inflexible feminine business-wise quarrelsome assertive dependable fair-minded flamboyant eccentric old-fashioned rebellious think have 131 independent physically violent interesting artistic active/energetic sly/cunning self-centered criminal tendencies understanding self-disciplined plans ahead sexually perverse dirty/smelly show-off wise reserved irresponsible conscientious progressive efficient individualistic deceitful/devious shy noisy/loud realistic 123 quiet intelligent sophisticated persevering honest/trustworthy prone to use drugs good-looking mercenary/grasping forgetful masculine competent emotional suspicious friendly well-adjusted dependent moody shrewd grouchy romantic thrifty cooperative imaginative cruel stingy helpful self-sacrificing bossy/demanding patriotic friendly industrious prosperous democratic knowledgeable hardworking alert devout 124 grateful prompt generous trusting self-pitying mediative isolated/lonely angry progressive cultured happy-go-lucky logical APPENDIX B PERSONAL CONTACT QUESTIONNAIRE Instructiens: We are interested in your relationships with people from different racial groups (these relationships include both work and social relations). There are no right or wrong answers to these questions. We are interested in only in your honest thoughts about your relationships with others from different racial groups. Please indicate your answers to the following questions: 1. Indicate the amount of contact you have with Afrieep—Amerigps: 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I Very Low Medium High 2. Indicate the amount of contact you have with Hm: 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Very Low Medium High 3. Indicate the amount of contact you have with m: 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Very Low Medium High 125 126 4. Think about your prior interactions with Afrieee-Amerims and answer the following question: "My prior interactions with African-Americans have been ...... " 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Conflict Free Neutral High Conflict 5 . Think about your prior interactions with Hispemcs and answer the following question: "My prior interactions with Hispanics have been ...... " 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Conflict Free Neutral High Conflict 6. Think about your prior interactions with Asians and answer the following question: ”In general, my prior interactions with Asians have been ...... " 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Conflict Free Neutral High Conflict 127 7. Think about the ’rules’ for behavior that your racial group has for interacting with people from different racial groups. Please indicate whether or not your racial group has formal/ structured rules for interacting with African-Americans. l 5 9 I I I I I I I I I No Formal/ Structured Rules Formal/ Structured Rules 8. Think about the ’rules’ for behavior that your racial group has for interacting with people from different racial groups. Please indicate whether or not your racial group has formal/ structured rules for interacting with Hispeeics. 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I No Formal/ Structured Rules Formal/ Structured Rules 9. Think about the ’rules’ for behavior that your racial group has for interacting with people from different racial groups. Please indicate whether or not your racial group has formal/ structured rules for interacting with Asims. l 5 9 I I I I H H H H I-t No Formal/Structured Rules Formal/ Structured Rules 128 10. Think about the physical contact you have had with Afrifl-Amerieee persons. Overall, how would you rate this contact? 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Negative Neutral Positive 11. Think about the physical contact you have had with m persons. Has this contact been more negative? more positive? 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Negative Neutral Positive 12. Think about the physical contact you have had with Asiae persons. Has this contact been more negative? more positive? 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Negative Neutral Positive 13. Think about those people in your own racial group who are significantly important to you (e.g. , your parents, brothers, sisters, teachers, etc.). In general, what do you believe their attitudes are towards interacting with Afrieae-Americans? 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Negative Neutral Positive 129 14. Think about those people in your own racial group that are significantly important to you (e. g., your parents, brothers, sisters, teachers, etc.). In general, what do you believe their attitudes are towards interacting with Hispanics? 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Negative Neutral Positive 15. Think about those people in your own racial group that are significantly important to you (e.g., your parents, brothers, sisters, teachers, etc.). In general, what do you believe their attitudes are towards interacting with Asians? 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Negative Neutral Positive 16. Think about the status (e.g., social, economical, political) your racial group has in the United States. Compared to Afrieg-Americans, indicate your racial group’s status difference. 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Of lower Status Of Equal Status Of Higher Status 130 17. Think about the status (e.g., social, economical, political) your racial group has in the United States. Compared to EMS, indicate yeur racial group’s status difference. l 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Of Lower Status Of Equal Status Of Higher Status 18. Think about the status (e. g., social, economical, political) your racial group has in the United States. Compared to Asians, indicate your racial group’s status difference. 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Of Lower Status Of Equal Status Of Higher Status APPENDIX C MEDIA CONTACT QUESTIONNAIRE Instryctiens; We are interested in your exposure to different racial/ ethnic groups in the mass media. Mass media include television, films, newspapers and magazines. There are no right or wrong answers to these questions. We are interested only in your honest thoughts about the media’ s presentation of different racial groups. Please indicate your answers to the following questions: 1. Indicate the amount of exposure you have to Afriesp-Amerieses in the mass media. 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Very Low Medium High 2. Indicate the amount of exposure you have to Hispanics in the mass media. 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Very Low Medium High 3. Indicate the amount of exposure you have to A_s_ier_1s in the mass media. 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Very Low Medium High 131 132 4. Think about the interactions you’ve seen in the media between African-Americans and your own racial group. In your opinion, are these interactions typically ...... " 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Conflict Free Neutral High Conflict 5. Think about the interactions you’ve seen in the media between Him and your own racial group. In your opinion, are these interactions typically ...... " 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Conflict Free Neutral High Conflict 6. Think about the interactions you’ve seen in the media between Asians and your own racial group. In your opinion, are these interactions typically ...... " l 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Conflict Free Neutral High Conflict 7. Think about your own personal opinions of how Afg'm-Amerims are as a group. In your opinion, are media images of African-Americans in agreement or in disagreement with your personal opinions of this group? 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Disagreement 133 8. Think about your own personal opinions of how HM are as a group. In your opinion, are media images of Hispanics in agreement or in disagreement with your personal opinions of this group? 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Disagreement Agreement 9. Think about your own personal opinions of how 5% are as a group. In your opinion, are media images of Asians in agreement or in disagreement with your personal opinions of this group? 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Disagreement Agreement 10. Think about the way the media depicts physical contact between African-Americans and your racial group. In your opinion, is the contact usually depicted in the media as ..... ? 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I No Conflict Some Conflict Conflict 134 11. Think about the way the media depicts physical contact between Hispamcs and your racial group. In your opinion, is the contact unusually depicted in the media as ......... ? 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I No Conflict Some Conflict Conflict 12. Think about the way the media depicts physical contact between Asians and your racial group. In your opinion, is the contact usually depicted in the media as ......... ? 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I No Conflict Some Conflict Conflict 13. Think about those people in your own racial group who are significantly important to you (e. g. , your parents, brothers, sisters, teachers, etc.). In general, what do you believe their attitudes are towards the media’s presentations of African-Americans? 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Negative Neutral Positive 14. Think about those people in your own racial group who are significantly important to you (e.g. , your parents, brothers, sisters, teachers, etc.). In general, what do you believe their attitudes are towards the media’s presentations of H_ispam‘c_s? 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Negative Neutral Positive 135 15. Think about those people in your own racial group who are significantly important to you (e. g. , your parents, brothers, sisters, teachers, etc.). In general, what do you believe their attitudes are towards the media’s presentations of Asians? 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Negative Neutral Positive 16. Think about the status (e. g., social, economical, political) your racial group has in the United States. Compared to the way Afrigg-Amerigns are presented in the media, indicate m racial group’s status. 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Of Lower Status Of Equal Status Of Higher Status 17. Think about the status (e. g., social, economical, political) your racial group has in the United States. Compared to the way Hispanics are presented in the media, indicate you racial group’s status. 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Of Lower Status Of Equal Status Of Higher Status 18. Think about the status (e. g., social, economical, political) your racial group has in the United States. Compared to the way As'gns are presented in the media, indicate your racial group’s status. 1 5 9 I I I I I I I I I Of Lower Status Of Equal Status Of Higher Status APPENDIX D EVALUATION THERMOMETER SCALE Wm: We are interested in people’ s overall evaluations of various groups in the United States. Below you will see something that looks like a thermometer. You will use this thermometer to indicate your overall evaluation of various racial groups (including your own racial group). Here’s how it works. If you have a favorable evaluation of a group you would give the group a score somewhere between 50° and 100° depending on how favorable your evaluation is (higher numbers indicate greater favorability). If your overall evaluation of a group is unfavorable, you would give the group a score somewhere between 0° and 50°, depending on how unfavorable you feel about the' group (lower numbers indicate greater unfavorability). Feel free to use any number between 0° and 100° to indicate the degree of favorability or unfavorability of your evaluations of different racial groups (Including your own racial group). Please be honest. Remember that your responses are anonymous and confidential. Using the thermometer below, circle the number between 0 and 100 to indicate your overall evaluation of: Whites as a group. POSITIVE 100° Extremely Favorable 90° Very Favorable 80° Quite Favorable 70° Fairly Favorable 60° Slightly Favorable 50° Neither Favorable nor Unfavorable 40° Slightly Unfavorable 30° Fairly Favorable 20° Quite Unfavorable 10° Very Unfavorable NEGATIVE 0° Extremely Unfavorable 136 137 Evaluation Thermometer Page Two Using the thermometer below, circle the number between 0 and 100 to indicate your overall evaluation of: Afrign-Americans as a group. POSITIVE 100° Extremely Favorable 90° Very Favorable 80° Quite Favorable 70° Fairly Favorable 60° Slightly Favorable 50° Neither Favorable nor Unfavorable 40° Slightly Unfavorable 30° Fairly Favorable 20° Quite Unfavorable 10° Very Unfavorable NEGATIVE 0° Extremely Unfavorable 138 Evaluation Thermometer Page Three Using the thermometer below, circle the number between 0 and 100 to indicate your overall evaluation of: Hispanig as a group. POSITIVE 100° Extremely Favorable 90° Very Favorable 80° Quite Favorable 70° Fairly Favorable 60° Slightly Favorable 50° Neither Favorable nor Unfavorable 40° Slightly Unfavorable 30° Fairly Favorable 20° Quite Unfavorable 10° Very Unfavorable NEGATIVE 0° Extremely Unfavorable 139 Evaluation Thermometer Page Four Using the thermometer below, circle the number between 0 and 100 to indicate your overall evaluation of: Asians as a group. POSITIVE 100° Extremely Favorable 90° Very Favorable 80° Quite Favorable 70° Fairly Favorable 60° Slightly Favorable 5 0° Neither Favorable nor Unfavorable 40° Slightly Unfavorable 30° Fairly Favorable 20° Quite Unfavorable 10° Very Unfavorable NEGATIVE 0° Extremely Unfavorable APPENDIX E COLLECTIVE SELF-ESTER! SCALE INSTRUCTIONS: We are all members of different social groups or social categories. Some of such social groups or categories pertain to gender, rggg, rgligign, nggigngligy, gghnigity, and sggigecgngic glass. We would like you to consider your membership in your racial group only and respond to the following statements on the basis of how you feel about this group and your membership in it. There are no right or wrong answers to any of these statements; we are interested.in your honest reactions and.opinions. Please read each statement carefully, and respond by using the following scale: 1 ------------- 2 ---------- 3 ----------- 4 --------- 5 -------- 6 ----------- 7---- Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Somewhat Somewhat Agree 1. I am a worthy member of the racial group I belong to. 2. I often regret that I belong to the racial group that I do. 3. Overall, my racial group is considered good by others. 4. Overall, my racial group has very little to do with how I feel about myself. 5. I feel I don't have much to offer to the racial group I belong to. 6. In general, I’m glad to be a member of the racial group I belong to. 7. MOst people consider my racial group on the average, to be more ineffective than other racial groups. 8. The racial group I belong to is an important reflection of who I am. 9. I am a cooperative participant in the racial group I belong to. 10. Overall, I often feel that the racial group of which I am a member is not worthwhile. 11. In general, others respect the racial group that I am a member of. 12. The racial group I belong to is unimportant to my sense of what kind of person I am. 13. I often feel I'm.a useless member of the racial group I belong to. 14. I feel good about the racial group I belong to. 15. In general, others think that the racial group I belong to is unworthy. 16. In general, belonging to my racial group is an important part of my self-image. 140 APPENDIX F DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION What racial group do you belong to? White [ ] Black/African-American [ ] Hispanic [ ] Subgroup (e. g., Mexican, Puerto Rican, etc.): Asian [ ] Subgroup (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, etc.): Bi—Racial [ ] (Please indicate the mixture) What is your sex? Male Female What is your age? What socioeconomic class to you belong to? Lower Middle Class [ ], Middle Class [ ], Upper Middle Class [ ], Wealthy [ ] When you were answering questions about Hispanics, were you thinking of Hispanics mm, or were you thinking of a particular subgroup of Hispanics? [ ] As one group. [ ] A subgroup. Please write in the subgroup you were thinking of: (For example, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, etc.) When you were answering the questions about Asians, were you thinking of Asians w, or were you thinking of a particular subgroup of Asians? [ ] As one group. [ ] A subgroup. Please write in the subgroup you were thinking of: (For example, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc.) 141 APPENDIX G FACTOR MATRIX AFRICAN-AHERICANS'S PERCEPTION OP WHITES' CHARACTERISTICS PAQTQR 1 PA R 2 FAQTQR 3 PAQTQR 4 Lazy .48190 .5981? -.19346 .45570 Superstitious .03188 .36395 -.62250 .55988 Productive .13412 .28732 .42385 .58349 Conservative .42568 .1779? .00311 .71488 Musical .54044 .27622 .67724 .04718 Strong family commitment .45693 .02436 .80256 .08986 Poor .73949 .28412 .13564 .33001 Proud .67069 .26702 .21172 .28985 Aggressive .16761 .70050 .10786 .26321 Anxious .16450 .29175 -.44958 .70538 Good-natured .31845 .48388 .46832 .34863 Pleasure loving .20450 .31682 .75834 .0898? Militant .30663 .43411 -.44916 .3875? Optimistic .78358 .08710 -.1332? .49815 Tradition loving .17433 .48531 .2775? .32526 Reliable .1463? .29143 .4173? .50850 Sexually loose .7935? .22490 -.12499 .22951 Sociable .37448 .44548 .56905 .11891 Defensive .31383 .56323 -.10163 .36229 Ambitious .00228 .57335 .42953 .02349 Polite .24880 .77900 .12208 .26331 Fearful .75573 .25978 .38599 .08368 Athletic .10104 .74608 .16843 .28771 Religious .47683 .17859 .44191 .32778 Materialistic .25879 .08028 -.72159 .46611 Ignorant .45428 .35351 -.27558 .23892 Competitive .63693 .06608 .26235 .34833 Passionate .39972 .61921 .26548 .3110? Of high moral character .51028 .48593 .34084 .19958 unpredictable .30856 .0587? .34963 .36732 Maddlesome .54162 .56161 .38096 .06876 Contended .56231 .26288 .56914 .18722 Imaginative .63150 .08019 .40849 .46752 uneducated .69018 .51816 .26674 .15630 Effeminate .61412 .25324 .27363 .23086 Rigid/ Inflexible .13239 .51202 .4364? .24995 Feminine .05378 .61164 .48473 .14799 Business-wise .36131 .16301 .37224 .6617? Quarrelsome .5191? .15110 .72468 .0567? Assertive .16878 .11414 .18071 .60472 Dependable .07089 .70646 .04109 .45051 Fair-minded .56216 .63553 .03589 .36146 Flamboyant .25339 .57095 .18749 .45868 Eccentric .43953 .19596 .07026 .66955 Old-fashioned .70468 .5126? .21621 .04379 Rebellious .52696 .16443 .48235 .52964 Independent .1250? .33183 .76882 .21048 Physically violent .44041 .73240 .16784 .17511 142 Factor Matrix (cont'd) Interesting -.66999 Artistic -.69570 Active .23876 Sly .03351 Self-Centered .2218? Have criminal tendencies .69282 Understanding .13938 Self- disciplined -.23367 Plans ahead -.52457 Sexually perverse .48873 Dirty/smelly .81461 Show-off .54450 Wise .76735 Reserved .74229 Conscientious .70712 Progressive .18524 Efficient .35481 Individualistic-.27193 Deceitful -.08410 Shy -.O7951 Noisy .19758 Realistic -.12300 Quiet .?62?5 Intelligent .00564 Sophisticated .53031 Persevering .33248 Honest .77704 Uses Drugs .78274 Good-looking .12835 mercenary .08503 Forgetful .44786 Masculine -.61555 Competent .17888 Emotional .5312? Suspicious .55991 Friendly .46791 Well-adjusted -.06348 Dependent —.O6326 Moody .38570 Shrewd .03502 Grouchy .00648 Romantic .14243 Thrifty -.57499 Cooperative -.55866 Cruel .51632 Stingy .17001 Helpful -.45152 Self- sacrificing .1709? Bossy -.43523 Patriotic -.46972 Industrious .17767 Prosperous -.68097 Democratic -.13413 Knowledgeable -.02605 Hardworking .13303 Alert -.79957 143 .34303 .06374 .42365 .13508 .55658 .55584 .63491 .77463 .41213 .67490 .12668 .05016 .16195 .20992 .4485? .23824 .00231 .63450 .67716 .59854 .13440 .09336 .17606 .12240 .22300 .22431 .06611 .24882 .37219 .08024 .60464 .08831 .30814 .17753 .29392 .37065 .62614 .32711 .13975 .49965 .52509 .2380? .15352 .17572 .05821 .63076 .48109 .56855 .67721 .55890 .42924 .30664 .39901 .30640 .44792 .30136 .38765 .02164 .36095 .64614 .28468 .10609 .52606 .3969? .02979 .0784? .12259 .20368 .31358 .05018 .38225 .16664 .02002 .3864? .5334? .32132 .71395 .32505 .03766 .46555 .59126 .44802 .43368 .08824 .60283 .61165 .02221 .1051? .35098 .00980 .43731 .69528 .5540? .80280 .5204? .19903 .30222 .85618 .45911 .06942 .47973 .00342 .63538 .69990 .27471 .10945 .38440 .09874 .12368 .52541 .67243 .22601 .15092 .4286? .38880 .42035 .41040 .18405 .14252 .20485 .53143 .18260 .39214 .66045 .11699 .0835? .05102 .75225 .59190 .00264 .33583 .11099 .40439 .29819 .2441? .51202 .18836 .40269 .09206 .24463 .09645 .17715 .06549 .45116 .55565 .64595 .39255 .05069 .29468 .19502 .38604 .52860 .53044 .04450 .20382 .51813 .09961 .25616 .08402 .03259 .29790 .00455 .43923 .09874 .29249 .35782 .21025 .02801 Devout Grateful Prompt Generous Trusting Self-pitying Mediative Isolated/ lonely Angry Cultured HapPY‘QO' lucky Logical .39999 .53028 .59832 .23470 .42832 .0410? .15084 .26895 .22345 .38406 .46433 .77666 144 .63209 .65286 .37024 .74849 .47953 .70020 .80824 .43758 .1426? .43122 .42093 -.05000 .38723 .15234 .0590? .1475? .55486 .21698 .15693 .51158 .08656 .21658 .19013 .02498 .04912 .19389 .31728 .33422 .21692 .10901 .31985 .22843 .56200 .25446 .28060 .41002 Lazy Superstitious Productive Conservative Musical Strong family commitment Poor Proud Aggressive Anxious Good-natured Pleasure loving Militant Optimistic Tradition loving Reliable Sexually loose Sociable Defensive Ambitious Polite Fearful .Athletic Religious Materialistic Ignorant Competitive Passionate Of high moral character Unpredictable Meddlesome Contended Imaginative Uneducated Effeminate Rigid/Inflexible Feminine Business-wise Quarrelsome .Assertive Dependable Fair-minded Flamboyant Eccentric Old-fashioned Rebellious Independent Physically violent Interesting Artistic Active Sly HISPANICS' §A§223_1 FACTOR,MATRIX AFRICAN-AMERICANS'S PERCEPTION .55995 .75453 .69724 .73272 .02825 .25775 .75608 .03802 .72313 .42103 .27034 .40739 .49050 .55442 .05624 .36569 .32703 .4415? .54592 .77838 .43581 .74211 .81081 .29176 .05362 .6313? .10128 .40329 .09413 .3079? .67045 .81324 .19140 .42119 .40042 .55123 .12119 .05652 .0448? .80490 .19059 .15105 .55531 .15029 .38883 .75126 .2834? .52414 .14368 .15324 .59274 .22433 OP CHARACTERISTICS FACTQR 2 .59036 .06279 .44669 .45252 .69370 .13925 .3603? .05902 .17576 .36604 .44725 .1826? .06523 .12953 .02664 .44368 .52545 .05515 .22084 .10811 .10279 .28690 .07375 .52568 .6746? .06566 .34568 .56862 .09793 .00878 .03044 .20085 .64008 .73153 .41679 .25676 .59383 .49260 .00045 .12434 .80744 .72502 .04072 .19273 .67964 .39951 .1354? .00776 .1781? .58201 .10549 145 .42644 PAQTQR 3 .24989 .07945 .14502 .16946 .59005 .66506 .22831 .43341 .14121 .27968 .00483 .66823 .63080 .51509 .65525 .21009 .46708 .28535 .25093 .07904 .5944? .31093 .29614 .5578? .50498 .02043 .39809 .42446 .75559 .78984 .28716 .25892 .42429 .12921 .30084 .50711 .30496 .20500 .18024 .28228 .12505 .16356 .4359? .6887? .31553 .2272? .18438 .25666 .35126 .41121 .55421 .51478 Factor Matrix (cont'd) Self-Centered Have criminal tendencies Understanding Self-disciplined Plans ahead Sexually perverse Dirty/smelly Show—off Wise Reserved Conscientious Progressive Efficient Individualistic Deceitful Shy Noisy Realistic Quiet Intelligent Sophisticated Persevering Honest Uses Drugs Good-looking Mercenary Forgetful Masculine Competent Emotional Suspicious Friendly Well-adjusted Dependent Mbody Shrewd Grouchy Romantic Thrifty Cooperative Cruel Stingy Helpful Self-sacrificing Bossy Patriotic Industrious Prosperous Democratic Knowledgeable Hardworking Alert Devout Grateful Prompt Generous Trusting Self-pitying Mediative .07218 .71535 .37508 .59184 .30734 .42405 .36129 .08890 .92854 .74912 .37102 .62089 .5107? .87225 .90182 .65549 .2133? .45441 .25809 .42910 .19774 .64632 .42612 .68264 .17305 .19685 .58579 .15222 .27052 .1332? .75456 .41568 .68851 .72142 .39764 .63101 .39178 .60670 .3806? .69721 .27223 .05691 .79816 .73712 .31975 .33279 .43246 .32475 .03541 .75913 .94333 .87489 .43346 .27481 .01359 .09349 .4097? .69166 .3935? 146 .21871 .09364 .77958 .56653 .20572 .19060 .60101 .39702 .00669 .30946 .65300 .15954 .45291 .02690 .02572 .34246 .42345 .50185 .68979 .27710 .52949 .46280 .59331 .01714 .5601? .5655? .41921 .25244 .45594 .25632 .04786 .01379 .37638 .0665? .70174 .18171 .32013 .58775 .42298 .42532 .30754 .24266 .38083 .39250 .20143 .47393 .56585 .89035 .60510 .1521? .05648 .08311 .19960 .03744 .49105 .72876 .63038 .02721 .75650 .26902 .11416 .15114 .23790 .41358 .54444 .21739 .64701 .18222 .10848 .06705 .29460 .10063 .25333 .06512 .1924? .52719 .1472? .12424 .56323 .24035 .17542 .09565 .29639 .59444 .34608 .0993? .41002 .53710 .66276 .30802 .76756 .12700 .37365 .05181 .52676 .53676 .70518 .33190 .34100 .28696 .14689 .23392 .02535 .27600 .22389 .41121 .17868 .51533 .52989 .00481 .29694 .65699 .64595 .35074 .24102 .08430 .21588 .08292 Isolated/lonely Angry Cultured Happy-go-lucky Logical .76478 .60956 .35100 .30094 .34488 147 .27732 .3560? .51572 .48033 .44781 -.15536 .31900 .16689 .03700 .48762 Lazy Superstitious Productive Conservative Musical Strong family commitment Poor Proud Aggressive Anxious Good-natured Pleasure loving Militant Optimistic Tradition loving Reliable Sexually loose Sociable Defensive Ambitious Polite Fearful .Athletic Religious Materialistic Ignorant Competitive Passionate Of high moral character unpredictable Meddlesome Contended Imaginative Uneducated Effeminate Rigid/ Inflexible Feminine Business-wise Quarrelsome Assertive Dependable Fair-minded Flamboyant Eccentric Old-fashioned Rebellious Independent Physically violent Interesting AFRICAN-AMERICANS'S PERCEPTION PAQTQR 1 .18086 .36685 .62466 .45702 .43519 .84356 .63985 .41744 .51094 .48383 .72478 .57371 -.24809 .09239 .78230 .65978 .37212 .1411? .20769 .49726 .83519 .77650 .37861 .73561 .70470 .4299? .04838 .32315 .23311 .26358 .33281 .64330 .81589 .46080 .72154 .44101 .31360 .51045 .36064 .37712 .58092 .79909 .65689 .8639? .66728 .58336 .37024 .67238 .49726 PACTOR.NATRIX OF ASIANS' CHARACTERISTICS FA R 2 ZAQIQB_1 -.78237 .32574 .7557? .23170 .21191 .14110 .42583 .31634 .69502 .41951 .18363 -.06524 -.27787 .29514 .19842 -.49458 -.46220 .35609 -.26840 .30110 -.24207 .10161 .37611 -.2791? .44070 .76505 .90701 -.05458 .10255 .15679 .30602 -.20701 .27894 .22418 .27443 -.?0722 .48446 .30386 .6770? -.43012 .21675 -.06565 -.41572 .26212 -.39800 .59669 .22386 .3462? -.14201 .51908 -.14928 .18785 .84743 -.18349 .76258 .05156 .33090 -.10974 .09079 .76739 -.80901 .26999 -.05599 .50563 .00754 .41039 -.43282 -.34633 .08932 .10296 .35466 -.62176 .60415 -.50281 .71865 -.32427 -.07523 -.41923 .79501 -.33781 .68745 -.27379 -.31119 .04010 -.36165 -.41982 .11879 .30984 .54431 -.07161 .47369 -.29231 .04783 -.03544 -.03451 -.53055 .71348 .12023 148 FACTOR 4 .41511 .21669 .47576 .36680 .19235 .13254 .09695 .2307? .3894? .46473 .29242 .37762 .13256 .28184 .06639 .3409? .34778 .11888 .54805 .00561 .11641 .13559 .05864 .14591 .03786 .36190 .0164? .04223 .6964? .04238 .02261 .14440 .18285 .24028 .24716 .01496 .03686 .01114 .30692 .03086 .0370? .27468 .17693 .15009 .1210? .06486 .33326 .02956 .31214 Factor Matrix (cont'd) Artistic .24969 Active .74776 Sly .3809? Self-Centered .67450 Have criminal tendencies .44189 understanding .43969 Self- disciplined .69683 Plans ahead .67889 Sexually perverse .79884 Dirty/smelly .58529 Show-off .83745 Wise .88798 Reserved .84670 Conscientious .62295 Progressive -.22783 Efficient -.28048 Individualistic .25076 Deceitful -.49242 Shy -.23297 Noisy .53006 Realistic .57499 Quiet .52432 Intelligent .29798 Sophisticated .62671 Persevering .6310? Honest .24812 Uses Drugs .30729 Good-looking -.44168 Mercenary .18162 Forgetful .08306 Masculine .63616 Competent .55888 Emotional -.1?714 Suspicious .28483 Friendly .75309 Well-adjusted .58345 Dependent -.2?347 Moody -.33381 Shrewd .27231 Grouchy .1127? Romantic .5636? Thrifty .43385 Cooperative .01275 Cruel .62446 Stingy .39012 Helpful .32019 Self-sacrificing.05253 Bossy .37551 Patriotic .03344 Industrious .12813 Prosperous .46875 Democratic .56681 Knowledgeable .04529 Hardworking .71366 Alert .80482 Devout .67765 Grateful -.13436 149 .41248 .27355 .55189 .23001 .37838 .03645 .39335 .35710 .05682 .61018 .08161 .03265 .00906 .65602 .88643 .8110? .2678? .16739 .45682 .36202 .0676? .72678 .05452 .08884 .25959 .75775 .22912 .17164 .58175 .13720 .41784 .52735 .5768? .58155 .31138 .28944 .28759 .00378 .44044 .83930 .15985 .52631 .21094 .29088 .07805 .13034 .36909 .36615 .2646? .58673 .61944 .33034 .55301 .37802 .09985 .3169? .85499 .65310 .29650 .39385 .43999 -.41371 -.66515 -.12703 -.38656 .42018 -.16098 .16453 -.05965 -.11?78 -.30919 .07333 .24542 .75399 .04889 -.36587 .10191 .2017? -.03994 .04881 .40629 .55688 -.30994 -.02150 .65628 -.05700 -.27233 -.10791 -.31911 -.11925 .63648 -.12733 -.36183 -.53019 .20756 .17891 -.02705 -.16087 -.30?13 -.56517 .38706 -.49428 -.83912 .78446 .7197? -.00480 .37724 .07394 -.28781 .06561 -.43443 -.31785 .14809 .17823 .00350 .25300 .3960? .31100 .12420 .16844 .26486 .02958 .26179 .15061 .00538 .11546 .14002 .03838 .25988 .19133 .42305 .33022 .21848 .3973? .37314 .18755 .73103 .38136 .14024 .10475 .31121 .26291 .14688 .26108 .39268 .45392 .60845 .1137? .09339 .2748? .52379 .26449 .07922 .15883 .05950 .40262 .51822 .27966 .49428 .07468 .08028 .15109 .7163? .37150 .20042 .13546 .41215 .09835 .1634? .2871? .14870 Prompt .08140 Generous .4897? Trusting .48830 Self-pitying .36492 Mediative .1928? Isolated/lonely-.15748 Angry .25863 Cultured .07016 Happy-go-lucky .45084 Logical .19902 150 .44995 .60379 .60541 .60325 .54104 .13251 .56392 .46631 .45930 .49490 .44432 .2874? .50321 .48822 .24646 .47294 .60276 .6331? .3810? .72092 .6537? .41862 .20194 .13432 .16412 .4268? .0555? .10541 .01616 .12108 FACTOR MATRIX WHITES' PEREPTION OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS' CHARACTERISTICS FA R 1 FAQTQR 2 Lazy -.62962 .36639 Superstitious -.22702 .48475 Musical -.19118 .58853 Poor .14292 .41604 Defensive -.19118 .58853 Athletic -.04994 .71051 Religious .14292 .41604 Competitive .06716 .62462 unpredictable -.33330 .45546 uneducated —.36145 .5039? Rebellious -.42536 .53550 Physically violent -.3819? .60755 Have criminal tendencies -.54486 .42914 Sexually perverse -.39352 .51186 Dirty/smelly -.33170 .46785 Noisy -.34?05 .4761? Uses Drugs - .28255 .53293 Angry -.38553 .50785 Ignorant -.46019 .29193 Productive .65486 .17703 Conservative .11451 .42450 Anxious -.10871 .56076 Good-natured .63754 .09054 Pleasure loving .28264 .35298 Optimistic .28264 .35298 Tradition loving .54146 .16828 Ambitious .36683 .24756 Polite .58539 .08320 Fearful .64022 .15565 Materialistic .11946 .4399? Passionate -.15581 .46500 Contended .47670 .42975 Imaginative .43020 .3659? Effeminate .32854 .27305 Feminine -.14982 .23661 Business-wise .16796 .22778 Assertive .39452 .34409 Dependable .64865 .01844 Fair-minded .71520 .01354 Interesting .3726? .24766 Self-Centered -.42611 .55943 Understanding .59871 .10411 Self-disciplined .52143 .23701 Plans ahead .48960 .1861? Wise .35029 .47041 Reserved .08850 .46474 Conscientious .4463? .24475 Progressive .4623? .28529 Efficient .6509? .0603? Individualistic .25534 .03549 Sly -.36017 .56826 Realistic .54414 .15255 Quiet .4105? .26765 Intelligent .61722 .20839 151 Factor Matrix (cont’d) Sophisticated Persevering Honest Good—looking Forgetful Competent Emotional Friendly Well-adjusted Moody Shrewd Thrifty Cooperative Helpful Patriotic Industrious Prosperous Knowledgeable Hardworking Alert Generous Trusting Logical Independent Rigid/Inflexible Quarrelsome Flamboyant Eccentric Old-fashioned Artistic Active Show-off Deceitful Shy Mercenary Masculine Suspicious Dependent Grouchy Romantic Cruel Stingy Self-sacrificing Bossy Democratic Devout Grateful Prompt Self-pitying Mediative Isolated/lonely Cultured Happy-go-lucky 152 .53168 .66991 .76574 .60278 .08435 .60231 .13968 .69192 .62223 .05674 .12196 .34535 .72862 .75564 .47969 .78303 .35582 .67358 .75815 .52002 .56668 .58756 .63402 .35262 .64865 .12510 .042625 .30232 .1026? .24571 .19786 .11626 .34251 .13368 .05385 .16228 .75309 .23880 .11663 .23006 .10435 .05035 .24894 .15185 .02592 .62962 .42536 .75261 .65486 -.46019 38197 34705 46019 .20149 .11431 .02296 .10770 .45420 .01979 .14763 .00569 .0373? .43241 .48198 .15992 .01929 .07844 .31999 .12844 .43056 .0427? .01124 .14673 .10109 .16321 .07054 .12491 .01844 .11051 .09718 .02463 .18726 .0004? .18591 .16341 .11934 .03496 .0436? .05400 .22915 .17465 .05504 .05533 .00256 .20069 .08238 .10049 .05043 .36639 .60175 .56120 .17703 .29193 .60755 .47614 .70895 FACTOR MATRIX WHITE'S PERCEPTION OF HISPANICS' CHARACTERISTICS FAQTQR 1 Lazy .7799? Superstitious .77473 Productive .69724 Conservative .73272 Musical -.02827 Strong family commitment .7283? Poor .77608 Proud -.03802 Aggressive -.72313 Anxious -.42103 Good natured .27034 Pleasure loving .40739 Militant -.490?0 Optimistic .77442 Tradition loving -.78624 Reliable .36769 Sexually loose .32703 Sociable .4417? Defensive .74792 Ambitious .77838 Polite .43781 Fearful .74211 Athletic .81081 Religious .79176 Materialistic -.0?362 Ignorant -.63137 Competitive .10128 Passionate .40329 Of high moral character .09413 Unpredictable —.30797 Meddlesome -.67047 Contended .81324 Imaginative .19140 Uneducated .42119 Effeminate -.40042 Rigid/Inflexible .77123 Feminine .12119 Business wise .07672 Quarrelsome .0448? .Assertive -.80490 Dependable -.190?9 Fair minded -.1710? Flamboyant .77731 Eccentric .17029 Old fashioned .38883 Rebellious .77126 Independent -.28347 Physically violent -.72414 Interesting -.14368 Artistic -.1?324 .Active -.79274 Sly .22433 Self Centered .07218 153 Factor Matrix (cont'd) Have criminal tendencies understanding Self disciplined Plans ahead Sexually perverse Dirty/smelly Show off Wise Reserved Conscientious Progressive Efficient Individualistic Deceitful Shy Noisy Realistic Quiet Intelligent Sophisticated Persevering Honest Uses Drugs Good looking Mercenary Forgetful Masculine Competent Emotional Suspicious Friendly Well adjusted Dependent Moody Shrewd Grouchy Romantic Thrifty Cooperative Cruel Stingy Helpful Self sacrificing Bossy Patriotic Industrious Prosperous Democratic Knowledgeable Hardworking Alert Devout Grateful Prompt Generous Trusting Self pitying Mediative Isolated/lonely Angry 154 .7173? .37708 .79184 .30734 .4240? .36129 .08890 .92874 .74912 .37102 .62089 .7107? .8722? .90182 .67749 .2133? .47441 .27809 .42910 .19774 .64632 .42612 .68264 .1730? .1968? .78779 .17222 .27072 .1332? .77476 .41768 .68871 .72142 .39764 .63101 .39178 .60670 .3806? .69721 .27223 .07691 .79816 .73712 .3197? .33279 .43246 .32477 .03741 .77913 .94333 .87489 .43346 .27481 .01379 .09349 .4097? .69166 .3937? .76478 .60976 155 Cultured .37100 Happy go lucky .30094 Logical - .34488 FACTOR MATRIX WHITES' PERCEPTIONS OF ASIANS CHARACTERISTICS FAQTQR 1 FAQTQR 2 Lazy .28090 .59803 Superstitious -.05088 .56595 Productive -.05?02 .28755 Conservative .72568 .0779? Musical -.57077 .27623 Strong family commitment -.75695 .02756 Poor .75979 .28702 Proud -.67069 .26702 Aggressive .06760 .70050 Anxious -.06750 .29075 Good-natured -.50875 .78588 Pleasure loving .20750 .50682 Militant -.50665 .75700 Optimistic -.78558 .08700 Tradition loving -.07755 .78550 Reliable .0765? .29075 Sexually loose .7955? .22790 Sociable .57778 .77578 Defensive -.50585 .56525 Ambitious .00228 .57555 Polite .27880 .77900 Fearful .75575 .25978 Athletic .0000? .77608 Religious -.77685 .07859 Materialistic -.258?9 .08028 Ignorant .75728 .55550 Competitive -.65695 .06608 Passionate -.59972 .60920 Of high moral character -.50028 .78595 Unpredictable .50856 .0587? Meddlesome .57062 .56060 Contended .56250 .26288 Imaginative -.65050 .03009 Uneducated .69008 .50806 Effeminate .60702 .2552? Rigid/Inflexible .05259 .50202 Feminine .05578 .6006? Business-wise .56050 .06500 Quarrelsome .5090? .05000 Assertive .06878 .0070? Dependable .07089 .70676 Fair-minded -.56206 .65555 Flamboyant -.25559 57095 Eccentric .75955 .09596 Old-fashioned .70768 .5026? Rebellious -.52696 .06775 Independent -.02507 .55085 Physically violent .77070 .75270 Interesting -.66999 .57505 Artistic -.69570 .0657? Active .25876 .72565 Sly .05550 .05508 Self-Centered .2208? .55658 Have criminal tendencies .69282 .5558? 156 Factor Matrix (cont’d) understanding Self-disciplined Plans ahead Sexually perverse Dirty/smelly Show-off Wise Reserved Conscientious Progressive Efficient Individualistic Deceitful Shy Noisy Realistic Quiet Intelligent Sophisticated Persevering Honest Uses Drugs Good-looking mercenary Forgetful Masculine Competent Emotional Suspicious Friendly Well-adjusted Dependent Moody Shrewd Grouchy Romantic Thrifty Cooperative Cruel Stingy Helpful Self-sacrificing Bossy Patriotic Industrious Prosperous Democratic Knowledgeable Hardworking .Alert Devout Grateful prompt Generous Trusting Self-pitying Mediative Isolated/lonely Angry Cultured 157 .05958 .2556? .5275? .78875 .80760 .57750 .76755 .77229 .70702 .0852? .55780 .27095 .08700 .07950 .09758 .02500 .76275 .0056? .55050 .55278 .7770? .7827? .02855 .08505 .77786 .60555 .07888 .5502? .55990 .76790 .06578 .06526 .58570 .05502 .00678 .07275 .57799 .55866 .50652 .07000 .75052 .0709? .75525 .76972 .0776? .6809? .05705 .02605 .05505 .7995? .59999 .55028 .59852 .25770 .72852 .0700? .0508? .26895 .22575 .58706 .65790 .77765 .70205 .67790 .02668 .05006 .06095 .20992 .7785? .2582? .00250 .65750 .67706 .5985? .05770 .09556 .07606 .02270 .22500 .22750 .06600 .27882 .57209 .0802? .6076? .08850 .5080? .07755 .29592 .57065 .6260? .52700 .05975 .79965 .52509 .2580? .05552 .07572 .05820 0 65076 .78009 .56855 .67720 .55890 .7292? .5066? .59900 .50670 .77792 .50056 .65209 .65286 .5702? .77879 .77955 .70020 .8082? .75758 .0726? .75022 158 Happy-go-lucky .76755 .72095 Logical -.77666 -.05000 "Illlllllllllllll‘5