x—m 1~u~— ',_

RACE AND SEX AS DETERMMANTS 0F
PERCEIVED BELIEF SIMHARJTY

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
W CLAYTON WELUAMS

1‘9 7 5

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

RACE AND SEX AS DETERMINANTS OF
PERCEIVED BELIEF SIMILARITY

presented by

DALLAS CLAYTON WILLIAMS

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D.

0—7 639

  

Major professor

degree in Mining; '

  

 

' .‘fi—fi‘ "Mu if

   
 
 
 

k "/1

7-1, 75 fl '3‘: Y, 23
LEA. AI“ 6
r1 I

“1.2.3.1 2152““: I3.
..v' ' g3
15‘.

U in'wiéblr‘y

  

    
  

:. =2”
' BINDING BY

IIDIIS & SIINS'
800K BINDERY INC.

LIBRARV BINDEHS
SPRINGPDRT. IICIIHN

 
 
      

 

 

- III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII V

3 1293 01063 5609

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

RACE AND SEX AS DETERMINANTS OF
PERCEIVED BELIEF SIMILARITY

bY

Dallas Clayton Williams

Research in the area of race and attraction has
focused primarily on whether or not whites perceived them-
selves as more similar to other whites than to blacks. The
present research extended this work via the examination of
three issues: 1) Would blacks perceive themselves as more
similar to other blacks than whites would perceive them-
selves similar to other whites? 2) Would persons of both
races make differential inferences of belief similarity as
a function of the sex of the other person as well as race?
3) Would blacks differentiate others on the basis of sex
less than would whites?

It was expected that because blacks presently are
exhibiting a strong sense of solidarity with other blacks,
they would perceive themselves as having more in common with
other blacks than whites would with other whites. The idea

1

Dallas Clayton Williams

of solidarity as a variable that affects perceived belief
similarity was generated from the premise that American
blacks appear to be more homogenous than whites in terms
of culture and history.

A 2 (Race of Subject; Black or White) by 2 (Race of
Target; Black or White) by 2 (Sex of Subject; Male or Fe-
male) by 2 (Sex of Target; Male or Female) design was used
to examine the effects of race and sex on perceived belief
similarity. The 160 SE (40 black males; 40 black females;
40 white males; 40 white females) were randomly assigned to
one of four conditions of race and sex of target person,
depending upon his (her) own race and sex. There were 10
subjects of each race and sex in each of the four condi-
tions.

The primary instrument used in this study was a
race-sex questionnaire in which subjects received minimal
background information on four hypothetical target persons.
Three of the target persons were "fillers" and remained
constant across questionnaire conditions. The one remain-
ing target person, presented to the subjects as the third
stimulus, was varied systematically in terms of race and
sex. For two of the forms this person was identified as

2

 

Dallas Clayton Williams

"Michael"; for the remainder of the target was "Barbara."
With each condition of sex, the target was identified as
either a white or a black. In every case the crucial tar-
get person was a "20—year-old" student from the subject's
"part of the country."

There were three dependent measures, all in the
format of a 9—point scale: perceived belief similarity,
areas "in commonD (how much the subject judged that he or
she had in common with the target) and estimation of poten-
tial friendship. The first of three analyses performed on
these data was correlational to examine if, as in previous
studies (e.g., Bonney, 1946; Loomis, 1946; Newcomb, 1956;
Precker, 1952; Richardson, 1940; and Winslow, 1937), there
was a direct relationship between similarity and liking,
as reflected by a very significant correlation coefficient
(5 = .78).

The two remaining analyses performed in this study
were both analyses of variance. One ANOVA examined the
perceived similarity scores, while the other explored the
effects that the independent variables had on subjects'
estimates of how much they had in common with the target
person.3 The results of both of these analyses revealed

3

Dallas Clayton Williams

the following: 1) Race of subject and target interacted
to be a determinant of perceived belief similarity for both
the perceived similarity and "in common" variables; 2)
blacks perceived themselves to be more similar to other
blacks than whites did to other whites on both dependent
variables; 3) white subjects perceived themselves to be
more similar to other blacks than whites did to other
whites on both dependent variables; 3) white subjects
perceived themselves to be somewhat less dissimilar to
blacks than blacks did to whites, a finding that was mar-
ginally supported for perceived similarity and strongly
supported for the "in common" measure; 4) §§ perceived
greater similarity to liked-sexed targets on both depen-
dent variables; and 5) the effect of sex of target was
shown to be slightly greater for whites than for blacks
with regard to perceived belief similarity but not at all
for the "in common" variable. Implications of these find-
ings, especially their generality to other subjects' popu-

lations, were discussed.

Dissertation Committee: Approved:

Dr. Lawrence A. Messé, Chairman

Dr. Eugene Jacobson Chairman
Dr. Charles Johnson

Dr. Barbara Riemer Date:

 

 

RACE AND SEX AS DETERMINANTS OF

PERCEIVED BELIEF SIMILARITY

by

Dallas Clayton Williams

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1975

To Jackie

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many peOple undoubtedly have contributed to the
present research. Although all cannot be mentioned, I
would like to personally express my sincere thanks to
those individuals who have had the greatest impact on the
successfulness of this thesis.

I would like to thank my wife Jackie for her confi-
dence and encouragement throughout the course of this the-
sis. Without her support and dedication this thesis would
have been impossible.

I wish to extend my deepest and sincere apprecia-
tion to my committee chairman, Dr. Lawrence A. Messé, not
only for his invaluable assistance throughout the planning
and execution of this study but also for his assistance in
analyzing my data.

I would also like to thank other members of my dis-
sertation committee for their helpful suggestions and worth-
while criticisms, Dr. Eugene Jacobson, Dr. Barbara Riemer,

and Dr. Charles Johnson.

iii

I am eSpecially thankful to my parents, my two sis-
ters, my mother-in-law and all of my immediate family for
their confidence and unceasing moral support over the course
of this thesis.

Finally, I would like to thank some of my colleagues
who I especially consider good people, Shelly Stokes,
Gregory "Blood" Price, James Weathers, Calvin Matthews,'
Anderson Freeman, Grover Croom, and last but not least

my office mate Hilton Thomas.

iv

LIST OF

Chapter

I.

II.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLES O O O O C O O O C O I O I O O C O O 0

INTRODUCTION 0 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0
Person Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
First Impressions . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stereotypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Concept of Autistic Hostility . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Race Differences and Interpersonal Attraction
Identifying Racial Differences. . . . . .
Race and Attraction . . . . . . . . . . .
Race Versus Belief Controversy: Overview
Statement Of PIOblem O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
Summary and Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . .

Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

METHOD 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

subjects. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .

Instrument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dependent Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

vii

10
13

16
18
21
23
23
23

25

Table of Contents (cont'd.)
Chapter

Experimental Design . . . . . . . .
Experimental Setting and Procedure.
III. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results Relevant to Hypothesis I. .
Results Relevant to Hypothesis II .
Unpredicted Findings. . . . . . . .
IV. DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unpredicted Findings. . . . . . . .
Some General Considerations . . . .
Future Research . . . . . . . . . .

conCIuSion. O O O O O O O O O O O 0

REFERENCES 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Appendix

A. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE

B. ONE FORM OF THE RACE-SEX QUESTIONNAIRE.

vi

Page
26
26
28
29
34
36
40
41
47
48
50

52

53

57

58

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Summary of ANOVA for Perceived Belief
Similarity O O O O O C O O I O O O O I O 0

Summary of ANOVA for Perceived Areas in
common 0 O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O 0

Means Relevant to Effect of Race of Subject
and Race of Target. . . . . . . . . . . .

Means Relevant to the Race of Subject by
Race of Target Interaction. . . . . . . .

Means Relevant to Effect of Sex of Subject
and.Sex of Target ... ... . .-. . . . . .

Means Relevant to the Effect of Sex of

Target for Black.andtWhite Subjects Paired

with LikerRaced.Target. . ... . . . . . .

Means Relevant to the Sex of Subject by Sex
of Target Interaction for Perceived
Belief Similarity . . . . . .'. . . ._. .

Means Relevant to the Race of Target by Sex

of Target Interaction for Perceived Areas
"in Common“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Page

30

31

32

33

34

36

37

38

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

There is nothing more important to us, with the
exception of ourselves, than the world of other people.
Other people easily are able to influence our joys and
satisfactions and can cause us sadness and pain. Conse-
quently, we all are interested in learning about and
knowing other people, and we all have very strong convic-
tions about how we, ourselves, come to know and to under-
stand other people.

For the psychologist the problem is one of percep-
tion, how we perceive other people and objects in our en-
vironment and form impressions of them. The processes by
which we gain knowledge about other people and objects
have proven to be a set of very complex phenomena, in part
because people often employ a variety of techniques in
forming impressions about other people. However, a large
number of studies (summarized, for example, by Tagiuri,

1969) have shown that people often use stereotypes and

make judgments on the basis of physical stimuli in forming
impressions about other people.

In this study, I explored the possibility that
people use the physical stimulus of race as a variable
for assuming degree of belief similarity. More specific-
ally, I investigated what effects presenting Black and
White §§ only with the race and sex of another person had
on assumed belief similarity.

The first section of this chapter is a general dis-
cussion of impression formation, especially the issue of
first impressions, followed by a discussion of stereotypes
and the concept of autistic hostility. The second section
deals with the literature on identity processes and racial
determinants of attraction. It is followed by a brief pre-
sentation of the controversy of race versus belief as de-
terminants of friendship. Finally, the last section pre-
Isents a statement of the problem and develops the hypothe-

ses that were examined in the research.

Person Perception

 

We perceive persons as unitary entities possessing
certain physical and personality characteristics, thoughts
and feelings. The attributes of a person vary in several
ways. Physical and personality characteristics are rela-
tively enduring properties of the person; thoughts and
feelings are more fleeting. Our ideas about other people
also vary according to whether they stem from overt, easily
observable characteristics and strong emotional states are
noticeable, intrusiVe characteristics of persons. Another's
thoughts may be expressed overtly or we may infer them.
Perhaps one of the most salient aspects of another is his
emotional expression. We typically assume that how a per-
son "looks" reflects some inner emotional or feeling state.

From this information we can readily recognize that
some traits are more important than others in forming im-
pressions about other people. A basic assumption in the
work by Asch was the presence of so-called central traits
in personality impression formation. Asch (1946) expected
that one's impression of another person would not be simply
the additive total of all the information one has about the

other person; rather, one's impression would be a dynamic

product in which some pieces of information would carry
more weight than others, and thus modify the whole picture.
Asch called such influential characteristics central
traits, and he clearly showed that the warm-cold dimension
was a central trait that markedly affected the organiza-
tion of the subject's impressions.

To summarize Asch's findings, when the adjective
cold was included in a list of stimulus words only about
10% of the subjects gave responses stating that the target
person would also be generous or humorous.. In contract,
when the adjective warm was used about 90% of the subjects
described the person as generous and over 75% described
the person as humorous. Asch considered the stimulus
traits as supporting his Gestalt viewpoint, which led him
to conclude that whether a given trait was central or per-
ipheral in its impact would depend upon its relationship

to its context (i.e., to the other stimulus traits).

First Impressions

 

To study the effects of first impressions, Luchins
(1957a, 1957b) wrote two short paragraphs chronologically

describing some of the day's activities of a boy named Jim.

In one paragraph, Jim walked to school with friends, talked
with acquaintances in stores (etc . . .). In the other
paragraph Jim's activities were just the opposite (i.e.,
walked home alone, did not talk to acquaintances, etc. . .).
More importantly, the first paragraph gave (E) the impres-
sion that Jim was an extrovert and the second paragraph (I)
gave the impression that Jim was an introverted person.
Luchins then combined the two paragraphs either in the I-E
order or in the E-I order. In either case the two para-
graphs formed a connected chronological narrative; however,
they presented conflicting information about Jim. After
reading the two paragraphs, subjects were then asked to
rate Jim on a personality trait check list. Luchins
reasoned that if the information initially given was most
important in determining personality impressions, then the
E-I order should produce impressions more like the (E)
paragraph alone; and the I-E order should produce impres-
sions more like those of the (I) paragraph alone. These
results, according to Luchins, would provide support for
the existence of a primacy effect. However, the existence
of a recency effect would be supported if the second para-
graph was found to be more dominant. The results of sev-

eral experiments, however, were consistent in showing a

large primacy effect. In short, Luchins' results and those
of later research, suggest that first impressions are very

important in determining our reactions to other peOple.

Stereotypes

 

The concept stereotype has received much attention
over the past years, and there are almost unlimited types
and definitions of this construct. However, stereotype
most often has referred to a set of characteristics which
we assume fit a certain category of people or groups. In
a classic study, Katz and Braley (1933) showed that a
group of Princeton students had a clear consensus on which
traits characterize various national groups.

Stereotypes and implicit personality theories--
inferring complex patterns of personality characteristics
from a relatively small number of cues--are inevitable
consequences of our needs as perceivers to make sense of
the world. We are concerned about stereotypes because
they imply so much about other people, and because fre-
quently they imply negative and wrong attributes. Not all
stereotypes are negative however. To say that the English

are intelligent, Italians artistic, college students

q '

(L

F1

(‘3

hard-working could hardly be classified as negative attri-
butes. Given the capacity of most peOple to process infor-
mation, stereotypes seem inevitable, although no one would
defend them as totally good. Thus, they should be recog-
nized simply for what they are: overgeneralizations.

These overgeneralizations are often a result of our ten-
dency to impose stability on our world and the behaviors

of others.

Concept of Autistic Hostility‘_

The concept of autistic hostility was first de-
veloped by Newcomb (1947). Newcomb asserted that an ini-
tial state of hostility protects itself from change by
reducing the communication of information capable of
changing it. A study by Thibaut & Cowles (1952) showed
that initially hostile subjects were less communicative
to a standard stimulus person than initially friendly
persons. In short, this concept points up the fact that
any failure to communicate adquately and fully in the ini-
tial stage of any relationship-will affect the representa-
tiveness of the sample of potential outcomes in the rela-

tionship.

Summary

The literature I have reviewed thus far has been
concerned with person perception and the mechanisms we use
in forming impressions of others. One point this litera-
ture attempted to make was that people use multiple vari-
ables or mechanisms in forming impressions of others;
people form impressions from physical as well as emotional
stimuli. In addition, I noted how stereotypes, by defini-
tion, influence our impression of other people, and the
importance of communicating adequately our openness in
the initial stage of any relationship.

The section which follows begins with a slightly
different perspective, focusing more on interpersonal
attraction and how we use race as a method of typifying

other people.

Race Differences and
Interpersonal Attraction

 

 

Identifying Racial Differences

 

The perception of people's physical characteristics

is an area that has been studied relatively little in social

psychology. This neglect is particularly surprising in
view of the great use made of physical appearance in de-
termining degrees of interpersonal attractiveness (e.g.,
Berscheid & Walster, 1969).

An area that has been studied considerably, mainly
because of psychologists' interest in prejudice, is the
use of ethnic stereotypes in identifying or classifying
other people. One of the most interesting aspects of this
area has been the question of whether prejudiced people
differ from nonprejudiced people in the ability to identify
a particular "disliked" group. The data indicate that
prejudiced individuals exaggerate the differences between
their own group and the outgroup and underestimate indi-
vidual differences within the Outgroup (Secord, Bevan &
Katz, 1956; Seeleman, 1940).

The evidence on this point is inconclusive but
there are several critical and relevant findings. First,
prejudiced subjects think they are quite good at identify-
ing members of a disliked group (Lindzey & Rogolsky, 1950;
Cooper, 1958). Secondly, prejudiced subjects are more
likely than other subjects to label a higher percentage
of individuals as outgroup members (Siegel, 1954; Sciodel

& Austrin, 1957). However, prejudiced persons are probably

10

no different from nonprejudiced persons in their overall

accuracy in identifying the background of other ethnic

groups.

Race and Attraction

 

In a number of studies, friendship choices and
attraction rating have been found to be influenced by race
(Berkum and Meeland, 1958; Koch, 1946; Mann, 1958). Mann
(1958) conducted a study designed to determine the influ-
ence of prejudices on (1) the reactions that members of
interracial groups had on each other (sociometric choices),
and (2) the perceptions that individuals in such groups
have of the thoughts and feelings of other group members
(sociometric perceptions).

Mann used 78 students enrolled in a graduate course
as subjects in his study. Only Black and White Christians
were used, and each subject was randomly assigned to a
six-man group. The subjects met in leaderless group dis-
cussions four times a week over a three-week period. Dur-
ing the second week a Sociometric Perception Questionnaire
was administered to each subject. In order to fill out

the questionnaire each subject had to indicate his own

ll

sociometric friendship choices among the group members and
to predict the friendship choices of each other group mem-
ber (indicating in this manner the nature of his socio-
metric perception).

Mann (1958) found: 1) that subjects preferred mem-
bers of their own race as friends; 2) that older white sub-
jects preferred other whites as friends more than older
blacks preferred other blacks; 3) that social preferences
of persons who lived in the North showed greater similarity
to members of their own race than social preferences of
persons who lived in the South; 4) that white subjects
were more aware of the social preferences of members of
their own race than they were of blacks; and 5) that older
black subjects were more aware of the social preferences
of whites than older whites were of the social preferences
of older blacks.

Another study (Byrne & Wong, 1961) also demonstrated
the importance of the interaction between race and racial
prejudice. Byrne and Wong gave 73 white subjects a ques-
tionnaire with minimal background information about a black
or white stranger and asked them to make judgments about
him. Attraction was measured by two scales of the Inter-

personal Judgment Scale developed by Byrne (1961). On

12

these instruments subjects (a) indicated their personal
feelings of liking or disliking the stranger and (b)
rated his desirability as a future work partner.

As hypothesized, highly prejudiced subjects re-
sponded more negatively to a black stranger than one iden-
tified as white. The prediction that subjects low on
prejudice would not respond differentially on the basis
of race was not really supported with respect to personal
feelings, although they were somewhat less negative to the
black target person than were the more prejudiced whites.
However, on the work partner variable they did respond
more positively to a black stranger than to a white
stranger. I interpret this finding to suggest that in
general most whites prefer to be friends with a black
person up to a certain point (e.g., as a "buddy" on the
job) and beyond that point friendship ceases. This issue
is somewhat of a digression however, since locating that
point for most whites is not a concern of the present
study.

What is a concern, though, is the additional find-
ing of Byrne and Wong (1961) that their white subjects
perceived their own beliefs to be more similar to the

white target than to the black. As noted below, this

13

result served as the starting point for the present re-
search, which basically was a modification and extension

of Byrne and Wong's work.

Race Versus Belief
Controversy: Overview

 

 

Which is more important, a person's beliefs or a
person's race? Rokeach (1960) proposes a Belief Congru-
ence Theory whereas Triandis's (1961) proposes a Race
Congruence Theory. Rokeach argued that white racial
attitudes are based more on an assumed dissimilarity of
beliefs rather than the objective racial characteristics
of blacks. Rokeach, Smith & Evans (1960) stated that
"insofar as psychological processes are involved, beliefs
is more important than ethnic or racial membership as a
determinant of social discrimination." They argued that
true racial discrimination implies that the outgroup is
discriminated against, but that at the same time, the
ingroup is favored, and they provided evidence support-
ing their argument.

They asked subjects to respond on a nine-point
scale indicating how likely they were to become friendly

with each of the target persons. The target persons

14

varied on race (black or white) and on beliefs (eight in
all, four general ones, and four relevant ones). They
found that subjects preferred to discriminate more on the
basis of belief and less on the basis of racial or ethnic
group when they were given the opportunity to react to
social stimuli differing simultaneously on both charac-
teristics. This relationship held regardless of the re-
gion of the country in which subjects were raised.

Countless other investigations have found similar
supporting results (e.g., Byrne, Nelson & Reeves, 1966;
Byrne & Wong, 1962; Stein, Hardyck & Smith, 1965; and
most recently Williams, 1974).

Triandis (1961) noted that belief-congruence in-
terpretation of prejudice was perhaps correct for the
attitudinal relation "friendship," but seems less applic-
able to behaviors sampled over a wide range of social
distances, the point that I was making above with regard
to the attraction results of Byrne and Wong's (1961)
study. Triandis felt that if one considers a wider range
of social distances which more accurately reflects the
areas in which prejudice operates in the real world, race

would be a more important determinant than belief.

15

Triandis argued that prejudice involved more than non-
acceptance as a friend, but it involved negative behavior
as well.

To test this hypothesis, he administered a social
distance questionnaire consisting of a 100-point scale
from willingness to marry a person (O-social distance)
to willingness to lynch a person (97-socia1 distance).
Triandis used in his study Morris "l3-ways to live" as
a measure for the belief congruence principle. He told
his subjects some unspecified belief of the target person
was similar to or different from their own.(eeg-. same or
different religion, occupation, or philosophy). Triandis's
results showed that race accounted for about four times as
much of the variance in social distance judgments as did
belief congruence, although both main effects were highly
significant.

Rokeach (1961) responded to Triandis' critique by
pointing out the noncomparability of the treatment of be-
liefs in the two approaches. Rokeach argued that the dif-
ference between "name" and "different philOSOphy" is a
difference which psychologically and sociologically makes

little difference.

16

In summary, it would appear that both positions
are correct to some extent, and both authors present con-
vincing support for their argument. However, it appeared
from reading the literature that most researchers are in
agreement more with Rokeach's belief congruence position;
stated another way, most literature in this area provides
more support for Rokeach's position than for Triandis'

race congruence position.

 

Statement of Problem

Upon reviewing both Rokeach's and Triandis' find-
ings, I came to feel that perhaps too much attention has
been focused on trying to "prove" which of the two authors
positions better accounts for discriminatory behaviors
instead of trying to show when one might be more important
than the other.

I contend that both variables are important, but
at two different stages in the deve10pment of a relation-
ship. I believe that race is a much more important var-
iable than belief in the initial or primary stage of a

relationship. It is at this level of interaction that

17

the beliefs of another person are probably not known to
an individual, and this lack of knowledge makes salient
stereotypes and other mechanisms that use physical char-
acteristics to make inferences about another person's
beliefs. It is in those few "real-life" instances when
a person's beliefs are known at this primary stage, that
there should be a strong belief effect in friendship
formation.

I further believe (and the literature review sup-
ports this argument) that because peOple will make infer-
ences on the basis of so little information (e.g., the
"cue" of race) that when confronted with a person who
"looks different," they will tend to assume belief dis-
similarity, and hence, choose not to get to know the
other person's real beliefs. Thus, this argument supports
the premise that race is a more important variable at the
initial stage of the relationship than are beliefs.

This, then, brings us to the problem on which this
research focused. I believe, as‘a major supposition, that
Rokeach was able to generate support for his position be-
cause he presented his subjects with both stimuli (e.g.,
race and belief) simultaneously, and in doing so he forced

them to use information that most people in the real world

18

do not have so readily. Most people in the real world
are only given one stimulus at a time, and the stimulus
they are more often introduced to first is race, not be-
liefs. This suggests, then, that typically when a person
gets to know another person a serial effect tends to
occur, meaning that we have to decide from the race of
the other person first whether or not we wish to enter
into even a casual relationship with him or her, which
then will enable us to uncover his or her beliefs. I
believe that most cross-racial interactions reflect this

kind of pattern.

Summary and Hypotheses

To summarize, research in the area of race and
attraction up to this point has focused primarily on
whether or not whites perceive themselves as more similar
to other whites than they do to blacks, and what the con-
sequences of this perception are. It seems reasonable
now to go beyond this rather narrow focus and to expand
the research in this area by (a) examining the impact of
other physical cues, such as sex, on perceived similarity,

and (b) examining the relationship between physical cues

19

and perceived belief similarity in nonwhite population.
In view of this, the present research explored three
issues: 1) if blacks will perceive themselves as more
similar to other blacks than whites will perceive them-
selves similar to other whites; 2) if persons of both
races will make differential inferences of belief similar-
ity as a function of the sex of the other person as well
as race; 3) if blacks will differentiate others on the
basis of sex less than will whites.

It is expected that because blacks presently
are exhibiting a strong sense of solidarity with other
blacks, they will perceive themselves as having more in
common with other blacks than whites will with other
whites. The idea of solidarity as a variable that affects
perceived belief similarity was generated from the premise
that American blacks appear to be more homogeneous than
whites in terms of culture and history. If this premise
is true, then blacks are not expected to utilize sex as a
variable affecting perceived belief similarity of a liked-
raced target as much as whites. Further, this perception
of solidarity is interpreted to suggest that blacks agree
that the problems of black people are common to all blacks,

not as individuals, nor as male or female, but as a race.

20

Danzig (1964) speaking to this point concluded:
What is now perceived as the 'revolt of the

Negro' amounts to this: the solidarity of
the Negro seeking admission into the white

world through usual achievement has been

replaced by the organized Negro insisting

upon a legitimate share of his group of the

goods of American society (p. 43).
To amplify this point, the perception of the problems of
Afro-Americans are "group" problems and the rights and
privileges of all blacks, therefore, depend upon the
status of the "group" to which they belong and not neces-
sarily the sex or other characteristics of individual mem-
bers of that "group." Finally, this form of homogeneity
and black ideology has made blacks more race conscious
and less sex conscious with regard to other blacks.

However, this general position should not be in-

terpreted to suggest that blacks are becoming anti-white,
but to suggest instead that they are becoming more pro-
black. Interpreted in this context being pro-black means
that blacks recognize a need to shoW“COmmona1ity within
themselves because America has failed to develOp a social

system consistent with her democratic ideals of equality

and brotherhood for all its citizens.

Hypotheses

 

21

This research was designed to examine the extent

to which pe0p1e use race and sex as variables for assuming

belief similarity.

lows:

Hypothesis I:

The specific hypotheses are as fol-

Based upon the works of Byrne and Wong
(1961), it was predicted that race of
EB and target would interact to deter-
mine perceived belief similarity (i.e.,
§§ would perceive the beliefs of the
same-raced target person as more simi-
lar to themselves than different-raced
targets.

Moreover, given the premise that blacks perceive them-

selves to be more homogeneous in their culture and be-

liefs than whites,

generated.

Ia)

Ib)

Hypothesis II:

two corollary hypotheses also were

That blacks would see themselves as
more similar to other blacks than
whites would to other whites.

That whites would see themselves less
dissimilar to blacks than blacks
would to whites.

From the perspective that persons use
other visual external cues in addition
to race to predict the internal states
of others, I hypothesized that people
would also make belief similarity
judgments on the basis of same or dif-
ferent sex (i.e., liked—sex target

22

persons would be seen as more similar
than opposite-sex target persons).

Moreover, given the assumption of greater perceived homo-

geneity of beliefs in blacks, the following corollary

hypothesis also was generated.

IIa)

That sex of target would be more of a
determinant of perceived similarity
for whites than for blacks (i.e.,
within like-raced targets, whites
would see themselves as less similar
to someone of the opposite sex than
would blacks.

Chapter II

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were 160 (40 black males; 40 black fe-
males; 40 white males; 40 white females) students re-
cruited from Lansing Community College who received money
for participating in the reSearch. All §§ were recruited
by chance by two female (one black, one white) recruiters.
The specific recruitment procedure that was used is pre-

sented below in the section on experimental setting and

procedure.

Instruments

Two questionnaires were constructed to test the
hypotheses. The first questionnaire was a background in-
formation questionnaire. Aside from its main purpose of

getting demographic information, this questionnaire also

23

24

was designed to appear to focus on finding out how much
international traveling of any kind these subjects had
done. However, this part of the questionnaire was not of
any major importance but served only to aid in disguising
the true purpose of this study. This questionnaire is
presented in Appendix A.

The second, and most relevant, questionnaire was
designed to test the hypotheses. This was a race-sex
questionnaire (one form of which is presented in Appendix
B) by which subjects received minimal background informa-
tion on four hypothetical target persons. Three of the
target persons were "fillers" and remained constant across
questionnaire conditions. The one remaining target person,
presented to the subjects as the third stimulus, was varied
systematically in terms of race and sex. For two of the
forms, this person was identified as "Michael"; for the
remainder the target was "Barbara." Within each condition
of sex, the target was identified as either a white or a
black. In every case the crucial target person was a "20
year-old" student from the subject's "part of the coun-
try." Ten subjects of each race and sex were randomly

assigned to the conditions of race and sex of the target.

25

Dependent Measures

 

As indicated in Appendix B, subjects were asked to
rate each target person on six, nine-point scales. Of in-
terest--the other scales and target people being "fillers"
--were subjects' responses to the scales measuring (1)
perceived belief similarity, (2) potential liking, and
(3) perceived commonality (Questions 1, 3, and 6, respec-
tively) for the third target person. The major dependent
measure was the subjects' response to the perceived belief
similarity scale. However, two other variables also seemed
relevant. First, the measure of potential liking was rele-
vant because I thought that it was important to demonstrate
that, as in past studies, the §§ in this research saw a re-
lationship between perceived belief similarity and the po-
tential for friendship. Second, I thought that it would
be useful to examine a variable--how much the §§ estimated
they had in common with the target--that had acme component
in common with perceived belief similarity but also was

more general in its focus.

26
Experimental Design

This study employed an experimental design whose
dimensions were 2 (Race of S3; Black or White) by 2 (Race
of Target; same as or different from S) by 2 (Sex of gs;
Male or Female) by 2 (Sex of Target; same as or different

from g).

Experimental Setting and Procedure

 

As noted above, all potential participants were
approached by one of two female recruiters. The only re-
striction placed upon the recruiters, in terms of whom
they approached, was that they were told not to solicit
the participation of persons who appeared to be foreign.
Subsequent analysis of relevant items on the demographic
information questionnaire indicated that, in fact, only
Americans participated. Of course, the recruiters were
unaware of the condition to which a given subject would
be assigned. After they introduced themselves to a po-
tential subject the recruiters asked if he or she would
like to earn one dollar for participating in a behavioral-

motivational study, which the recruiters explained would

27

take about 15 minutes to complete. If the person agreed
to participate then he or she was directed by the re-
cruiter to the testing area. The testing area was a
regular classroom, located a short distance beneath the
school cafeteria.

After each participant had reached the testing
site, he or she was given at random one of the four pos-
sible forms of the questionnaire discussed above. The
participant was reminded to read carefully all instruc-
tions located at the tOp of the page before answering any
questions. In addition, the subject was told that the
second questionnaire contained several statements con-
cerning four peOple, and that he or she was to make judg-
ments about each individual as seriously and as quickly
as possible, since the researchers were interested in
first impressions. The subject was told further that if
any part of the instructions or task was not clear, the
participant could raise his (her) hand and one of the

experimenters would come and answer any question.

Chapter III

RESULTS

Before proceeding with any discussion of the re-
sults found in this study, it is useful to restate the
design that was employed; it was a 2 (race of SE: black
or white) by 2 (sex of §§‘ male or female) by 2 (race of
Ts: same as or from different subject) by 2 (sex of Ts:
same or different), with 10 subjects per cell.

The first of three analyses performed in this
study was correlational to examine if, as in previous
studies (i.e., Bonney, 1946; Loomis, 1946; Newcomb, 1956;
Precker, 1952; Richardson, 1940; and Winslow, 1937),
there was a direct relationship between perceived similar-
ity and potential liking.’ As expected, the results did
support past research since there was a direct relation-
ship between similarity and liking as reflected by a very
significant correlation coefficient (£}= .78).

The second and third analyses performed in this

study were both analyses of variance. The first ANOVA,

28

29

performed on the perceived similarity scores (Item 1 on
the questionnaire), however, was the most crucial analysis
in terms of examining the major hypotheses. The second
ANOVA was a supplementary analysis performed on the per—
ceived "in common" scores (Item 6 on the questionnaire)

as a result of having found statistically supportive re-
sults for perceived similarity. Both analyses which are
summarized in Tables 1 and 2, respectively, are explored
in greater detail below, mainly in terms of the hypothe-

ses.

Results Relevant to
Hypothesis I

 

 

Hypothesis I predicted that race of the subjects
and the target would interact to be a determinant of per-
ceived belief similarity. As Tables 1 and 2 show this
effect, the race of target (same as or different from the
subject) main effect, was highly significant for both de-
pendent variables. The means relevant to these two effects
are presented in Table 3. They indicate that subjects per-
ceived themselves both to be more similar in beliefs and

to have more in common with like-raced others.

30

TABLE 1

Summary of ANOVA for Perceived
Belief Similarity

 

 

 

<23. his 1?.

Race of Subject (A) 1 2.50 1.70
Sex of Subject (B) 1 0.40 < 1
Race of Target (C) 1 490.00 334.10***
Sex of Target (D) l 14.00 9.55**
A x B 1 0.40 < 1
A x C l 14.40 9.82**
A x D l 0.40 < 1
B x C 1 2.50 1.70
B x D 1 8.10 5.52*
C x D 1 0.90 < 1
A x B x C 1 4.90 3.34
A x B x D l 0.10 < l
A x C x D l 0.90 < 1
B x C x D 1 0.00 --
A x B x C x D 1 0.00 --
Error ' 144 1.47

*P <.05

**p <.01

***p <.001

31

TABLE .1

Summary of ANOVA for Perceived

 

Areas in Common

 

 

 

 

<21: 114.5. a
Race of Subject (A) l 0.10 < 1
Sex of Subject (B) l 2.30 1.24
Race of Target (C) 1 406.40 218.90**
Sex of Target (D) 1 .18.90 10.18*
A x B 1 2.20 1.18
A x C l 18.90 10.18*
A x D l 1.00 < 1
B x C 1 3.90 2.10
B x D l 0.00
C x D l 33.30 17.94*
A x B x 1 3.30 1.78
A x B x 1 1.10 < 1
A x C x 1 2.80 1.51
B x C x 1 0.30 < 1
A x B x D 1 1.10 < 1
Error 144 1.86

*p <.01

**p <.001

32

TABLE 3

Means Relevant to Effect of Race
of Subject and Race of Target

Race of Target

 

Dependent Measure
Same as g Different from S

 

Perceived Similarity 7.58 4.08

Perceived Areas "In Common" 7.56 4.38

 

 

 

Note.--Scores potentially could range from 1 to 9.

Hypothesis Ia predicted that white subjects would
perceive themselves to be less dissimilar to blacks than
blacks would to whites. Hypothesis Ib predicted that
blacks would perceive themselves to be more similar to
other blacks than whites would to other whites. Thus, I
expected a significant race of subject (black or white)
by race of target (same or different) interaction. Tables
1 and 2 indicate that this was the case for both dependent
measures. The relevant means presented in Table 4 and
appropriate individual comparisons indicated that both
corollary hypotheses were supported. The race of target
effect was stronger for black subjects (2 = 15.13, 12.72

for belief similarity and "in compon.' respectively) than

33

TABLE 4

Means Relevant to the Race of Subject
by Race of Target Interaction

 

 

Race of Target

 

Dependent Measure
Same as S Different from S

 

Perceived Similarity
Black Subjects 8.00 3.90

White Subjects 7.15 4.25

Perceived Areas "in Common"
Black Subjects 7.92 4.05

White Subjects 7.20 4.70

 

 

 

Note.--Scores potentially could range from 1 to 9.

it was for whites (t = 10.72, 8.20, for belief similarity
and "in common" respectively). Moreover, whites saw them-
selves as less similar in their beliefs and having less in
common with white targets than did blacks with black tar-
gets (3 = 3.13, 2.37, for belief similarity and "in com-
mon," respectively), and whites saw themselves as less
dissimilar to blacks than blacks did to whites (t’= 1.29,

2.13, respectively).

34

Results Relevant to
Hypothesis II

 

 

Hypothesis II predicted that subjects would per-
ceive greater similarity with like-sexed targets. This '
hypothesis, as Tables 1 and 2 indicate, was supported
since the main effect of sex of target (same or different)
was significant for both dependent measures. Moreover,
the relevant means, presented in Table 5, were in the

predicted direction.

TABLE 5

Means Relevant to Effect of Sex
of Subject and Sex of Target

—_ _ m
—

Sex of Target

 

Dependent Measure
Same as g Different from g

 

Perceived Similarity 6.12 5.52

Perceived Areas "in Common" 6.31 5.62

 

 

 

Note.--Scores potentially could range from 1 to 9.

35

Hypothesis IIa predicted that the effect of sex of
target (same or different) would be greater when a white
subject was paired with a white target than when a black
subject was paired with a black target. A conservative
test of this hypothesis requires a significant race of
subject by race of target (same or different) by sex of
target (same or different) interaction for support--since,
with liked raced targets, white subjects were expected to
generate a stronger sex of target effect than were black
subjects--but as Tables 1 and 2 indicate, this was not the
case for either dependent variable. Winer (1971, p. 384),
however, suggests that individual comparisons should be
performed, no matter the significance of the overall
effect, when specific hypotheses are being tested. Thus
individual comparisons were performed on the relevant
means, which are presented in Table 6.

The test performed on the perceived similarity
scores supported“the hypothesis since same-sexed targets
were seen as significantly more similar in white subject-
target pairs (3 = 1.82, p < .05) but not in black subject-
target pairs (E = .52). However, the tests performed on

the secondary variable of perceived areas "in common" did

36

TABLE 6

Means Relevant to the Effect of Sex of Target for Black
and White Subjects Paired with Like-Raced Targets

 

 

Sex of Target

 

Race of Subject-Target Pair
Same as §_ Different from g

 

Perceived Similarity

 

 

Black Subjects and Targets 8.10. 7.90

White Subjects and Targets 7.50' 6.80

Perceived Areas "in Common"

 

Black Subjects and Targets 7.60 8.25
White Subjects and Targets 7.30 7.10
L

 

 

Note:--Scores potentially could range from 1 to 9.

not support hypothesis IIa. Thus, while somewhat suppor-

tive, findings relevant to this prediction were not strong.

Unpredicted Findings

 

Table 1 indicates that the sex of subject by sex
of target interaction for perceived similarity, although

not predicted, was significant. Table 7, which presents

37

TABLE 7

'Means Relevant to the Sex of Subject by Sex of Target
Interaction for Perceived Belief-Similarity

 

Sex of Target

 

Sex of Subject
Same as.§7‘.Different from g

 

Male , '5.83 5.70

Female 6.40 5.35

 

 

 

Note.--Scores potentially could range from 1 to 9.

the relevant cell means, indicates that the sex of target
effect was stronger for female subjects than it was for
males.

Tests of simple effects confirmed this inference:
the sex of target Simple main effect for males did not
approach significance (E = .31), but it was significant
for females (F = 15.00, p < .01); likewise, females saw
themselves as more similar to female targets than males
did to male targets (F = 4.12, p < .05). Thus, it appears
that sex was a more salient variable for females than it
was for males, especially with regard to this variable's

effect on perceived similarity.

38

Table 2 indicates that, although not specifically
predicted, the race of target (same or different) by sex
of target (same or different) interaction was significant
for perceived areas "in common" (but not for perceived
similarity). Table 8 presents the means relevant to this

effect.

TABLE 8

Means Relevant to the Race of Target by Sex of Target
Interaction for Perceived Areas "in Common"

 

 

Sex of Target

 

Race of Target
Same as S Different from S

 

Same as S 7.45 7.68

Different from S_ 5.17 3.58

 

 

 

Note.--Scores potentially could range from 1 to 9.

Table 8 indicates, and tests of simple effects
confirmed, that this interaction was due primarily to the
result that there was a”sex of target effect only when
subject and target were of different races (F = 27.60;

p < .001). Thus, for same—raced pairs, subjects perceived

that they had at least as much in common with a target of

39

the opposite sex as they had with a target of the same sex.
When the target was of a different race, however, subjects
perceived that they had more in common with targets of the

same sex .

Chapter IV

DISCUSSION

In summary, the results of this study revealed the
following: 1) that race of the subject and target inter-
acted to be a determinant of perceived belief similarity;
2) that blacks perceived themselves to be more similar to
other blacks than whites did to other whites; 3) white
subjects perceived themselves to be somewhat less dissimi-
lar to blacks than blacks did to whites; 4) that §§ did
perceive greater similarity to a liked-sexed target; and
5) that the effects of sex of target was shown to be some-
what greater for whites than for blacks, especially with
regard to perceived belief similarity.

In addition to these findings, a correlational
analysis revealed, as earlier studies have shown (Bonney,
1946; Loomis, 1946; Newcomb, Precker, 1952; Richardson,
1940; and Wislow, 1937), that there is a direct relation-

ship between perceived similarity and liking.

4O

41

Hypotheses

 

The first hypothesis predicted that race of §§
would interact to determine perceived belief similarity,
i.e., SS would perceive the beliefs of the same race tar-
get person to be more similar to themselves than differ-
ent race targets. This hypothesis was supported for both
the perceived similarity and "in common" variables. These
findings are consistent with other studies which have
shown that peOple do use systematically the race of the
target when assessing perceived similarity (e.g., Byrne &
Wong, 1961; Mann, 1958). The present research extended
the findings of these studies, however, because it demon-
strated that this effect operates--in fact, it operates
even more strongly--for black persons as well as for
whites.

More importantly, this study helps to place in
perspective the findings of Rokeach (1961) that beliefs
are more important than race under those conditions in
which beliefs are known. I reasoned that this difference
is largely due to Rokeach providing his subjects with in?
formation about both the belief and the race of the tar-

get simultaneously, a set of circumstances that probably

42

does not occur in the real world very often. Thus, the
present findings support indirectly the premise that race
is a primary variable in the sequential sense, since
people appear to make inferences about other people's
beliefs based solely on this information. Interpreted

in this fashion, there is further support for the premise
that in order for most cross-racial relationships to de-
velop, a serial effect has to occur, i.e., that people
first have to be Open-minded and receptive in the initial
stage of the relationship in order to get to know the
other's beliefs. Otherwise, the relationship will termin-
ate at this initial stage, since peOple will tend to
assume dissimilarity of beliefs across races. I further
reasoned that it is important to communicate beliefs
clearly in the initial stage of a potential relationship
because when people are physically different from oneself,
as in the case of cross-racial encounters, the relevance
of others' social standards tend to be ambiguous. Thus,
one is likely to be afraid that his or her behavior will
be unacceptable, thereby making him or herself uneasy,
anxious and defensive, because he or she does not know

what is expected or how to behave.

43

Hypothesis (Ia, which had not been investigated
previously, predicted that blacks would see themselves as
more similar to other blacks than whites would to other
whites. This prediction also was strongly supported for
both dependent variables. The results of this research,
thus, support the generalization that blacks are perceived
to be somewhat more homogeneous in their beliefs and cul-
ture than are whites.

More importantly, the author attributes the find-
ings that support Hypothesis Ia to a greater level of
black awareness on the part of blacks about themselves
and what it means to be black. One must recognize that
black people in this society are in the midst of an iden-
tity crisis, the origin of which lies in a reaction against
a set of historical roots, that is, a number of dehumaniz-
ing social forces such as "plantation culture," "slave
society," and "racial etiquette." Having been involuntar-
ily brought from Africa and placed within the ethos of
these social forces it took until today for Afro-Americans
to feel free enough to search for their true cultural
identity, where they came from, and who they were.

Thus, today's blacks have begun to accept them-

selves and their people, in part through a newfound

II

44

self-acceptance and assertiveness that are so clearly mani-
fested in the ideas they are beginning to have about them-
selves, both as individuals and as a race. Thus, blacks
see themselves as more of 3 people than do whites, who
appear to feel less of a need to explore and understand
the degree of similarity in their own cultural roots.

Hypothesis Ib, which predicted that white subjects
would report themselves to be less dissimilar to blacks
than blacks would to whites, was marginally supported for
perceived similarity and strongly supported for perceived
areas "in common."

Given the somewhat tenuous support for this pre-
diction, it could be that these results are largely due
to a race difference in concerns with the social desirable
or permissible response to the stimulus questions. Whites
might have felt more constrained and therefore, less
"free" to express their felt dissimilarity to blacks than
did blacks toward white targets. On the other hand, it
could be that these findings reflect a "real" difference
in such perceptions; i.e., blacks, because of the recent
rise in feelings of awareness and solidarity towards
other blacks, might be more influenced by the dissimilar

race of the white target than whites are by the race of

45

the black target. Thus, today the issue of race might be
more salient for blacks than for whites, especially within
the college student population.

Hypothesis II predicted that people also would
make belief similarity judgments on the basis of same or
different sex; i.e., like-sexed target persons would be
seen as more similar than Oppositeésex target persons.
This prediction was supported for both dependent variables.
These findings, which essentially replicate and extend the
results that supported the first hypothesis, demonstrate
that people will use a number of external physical charac-
teristics to help them make generalizations about others.
These characteristics probably are those that are related
to ascribed status in our society.

Hypothesis IIa predicted that the sex of the tar-
get would be more of a determinant of perceived similar-
ity for whites than for blacks, i.e., within like-raced
targets, whites would see themselves as less similar to
someone of the opposite sex. This hypothesis received
only marginal support; for perceived similarity, individ-
ual comparisons--but not the test of the overall interac-

tion--revealed a significant sex difference for white

subject-target pairs that was absent for black

46

subject-target pairs that was absent for black subject-
target pairs. This effect did not occur at all for the
"in common" dependent variable.

It could be that white subjects perceived less
difference across sex as a function of perceived areas
“in common," possibly because common areas might suggest
compatibility and white males perceived themselves
equally as compatible to white females as black males
did to black females, irrespective of differences in
perceived belief similarity.

The support that was found for Hypothesis IIa
probably reflects the same issue that was discussed in
connection with the findings that were relevant to Hy-
pothesis Ia, namely the salience of a common cultural
and racial identity that appears to be present in blacks,
at least those in the college population. This salience,
which is absent in whites, would serve to moderate any
effects of sex differences on perceived similarity in
blacks, i.e., as stated blacks, view the problem of black
people as problems common to all blacks, irrespective of

SEX.

47

Unpredicted Findings

 

One unpredicted finding revealed that the effect
of the sex of target on perceived areas "in common" was
only present when subject and target were of a different
race. This finding suggests again that subjects perceived
areas "in common" as reflecting compatibility within like-
raced pairs; however, for cross-raced pairs subjects per-
ceived that they had more in common with the same sexed
target. Thus, it appears that when issues such as sexu-
ality and courtship in general are constrained by current
social conventions--that is, under cross-race pairings--
areas "in common" seems to be subject to the same sex
effects as was perceived belief similarity. It is only
when issues of courtship, etc. . . ., appear more accept-
able that such sex differences attenuate for perceived
areas “in common."

A second unpredicted finding revealed that the
sex of subject by sex of target interaction was signifi-
cant for the perceived similarity variable (but not for
the perceived “in common“ variable). The effects of
belief similarity on sex of target was found to be

stronger for female subjects than it was for males.

48

This finding is consistent with the findings that
are relevant to hypothesis Ia and the idea, expressed
earlier, of an increase in consciousness based on common
oppression leading EOTHH increased perception of belief
similarity. In this case, there might be a greater iden-
tification and awareness of common predicament based on

a reaction by women to their disadvantaged sex role.

Some General Considerations

 

Although both main effects for race of target and
sex of target were found to be significant for both de-
pendent variables, it is interesting to note that on.both
dependent variables, the race of target main effect was
much stronger than the main effect for sex of target.

This difference probably reflects a difference in the
salience of the two physical cues, i.e., members of our
society appear to be much more influenced by race than
they are by the sex when making judgments about similarity
of beliefs between themselves and others. This finding is
reasonable within the perspective that the oppression of

women as a status has for the most part been more subtle,

49

whereas Oppression of blacks has been more extreme and
overt. Thus, it would seem reasonable to find greater
salience of racial rather than sexual cues, given the

greater strength of past reactions to race.

A plausible explanation for why Hypothesis IIa
was only marginally supported concerns the order of pre-
sentation of the stimuli, which can be seen in Appendix
B. I reasoned that because the critical stimulus person
(Barbara or Michael) was presented third, preceded by two
stimulus persons of different nationalities than their
own, that this order made subjects more conscious of the
commonality between themselves and the critical target,
who also was an American--a fellow student from their
part of the country. Thus, this order appears to have
generated a conservative test of the hypotheses and it
seems to have affected the sensitive, more complicated
interactions involved in hypothesis Ib and 11a. What was
marginally supported might have been even stronger had
not the critical stimulus followed the two foreign stimu-
lus targets. This suggests that perhaps placing a "filler"
American stimulus person before the dependent measure

might possibly produce the expected outcome more strongly

50

for these variables than did the instrument used in the

present study.

Future Research

A major criticism of the experimental approach
leveled by those both within and outside psychology con-
cerns the artificiality or reactivity of the typical re-
search laboratory and the impossibility of determining
the adequacy of the generalizations based upon results of
experimental social psychological research. Many critics
of social psychological experimentation have argued that
the individual typically used in psychological research,
the college sophomore, is perhaps the poorest choice
possible from the vieWpoint of generalization of findings.
In fact, it has been stated in the past that there is
nothing more dissimilar to the "man in the street" than
the college sophomore.

Barclay et a1. (1971) have presented a detailed
account of the stresses and strains seemingly inherent in
university life, and it would be surprising if those ex-

posed to these forces were not quite different from those

51

who were not, e.g., the average college sophomore is more
intelligent than the typical man on the street; he is
usually more healthy, he is more concerned with the social
forces operating on his physical and social environment;
he is more sensitive to the various communication media
surrounding him and is thus better informed about the fac-
tors of importance to his life, and plays a greater and
more active role in exerting influence upon these factors.

Finally, another concern of many critics of exper-
imentation is not simply that a sample from an unusual
population is typically employed in experimental social
research, but rather that the responses of any individual
conscious of the fact that he is under observation is ex-
pected to respond differently than someone not possessing
that information.

In summary, it appears that the criticsm raised
concerning experimental social research validity can only
be answered by further research. In view of criticism I
suggest that future research in this area be oriented
toward expanding in the three following general areas:

1) that a non-student population be used to determine if
there are any significant differences due to age and edu-

cational level; 2) construct a more elaborate design to

52

include some form of unobtrusive testing; and 3) examine
if there are any comparative differences due to geograph-

ical location (e.g., North versus South).

Conclusion

 

Obviously, for any empirical question, there is
never an end to additional research that could be done.
This point, however, should not overshadow the strong,
perhaps important findings that were generated in this
study: That American college students are race conscious,
blacks more than whites; American college students are
sex conscious, females more than males. Since the aware-
ness of such physical cues has implications for friend-
ship formation, these findings lead to the conclusion
that, as noted above, participants in first encounters,
especially those that involve cross-race or cross-sex
pairing, must make a concerted effort both to communiCate
clearly their own beliefs and to reserve judgment about
the other person's beliefs. Without this effort, people
will not judge others as individuals and therefore many

potential rewarding friendships will never occur.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Asch, S. E. Forming impressions of personality. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1946, ii, 258-

290.

Barclay, A. M., Crano, W. D., Thornton, C., & Werner, A.
How to do a university. New York: Wiley, 1971.

 

Berkum, M. & Mecland, T. Sociometric effects of race and
combat performance. Sociometry, 1958, SS, 145-
149.

 

Berscheid, E. and Walster, E. Interpersonal Attraction.
Reading, Massachusetts; Addisoanesley Publishing
Co., 1969.

Byrne, D. Interpersonal attraction and attitude similar-
ity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
1961, SS, 713-715.

 

Byrne, D. & Nelson, D. Attraction as a linear function of
proportion of positive reinforcements. ’Journal'of

 

Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, l, 659-
663.

Byrne, D. & Wong, T. Racial prejudice, interpersonal
attraction, and assumed dissimilarity of attitude.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962,
SS, 246-253.

Cooper, J. B. Prejudicial attitudes and the identifica-

tion of their stimulus objects: A phenomenolog-
ical approach. Journal of Social ngchology,

1958, 1S, 15—23.

 

Danzig, D. The meaning of the Negro strategy, Commentapy,
February, 1964.

 

53

54

Insko, C. & Robinson, J. Belief similarity versus race as
determinants of reactions to Negroes by southern
white adolescents: A further test of Rokeach's
theory. Journal of Personality and Social ngchol-
ggy, 1967, 1, 216-221.

Katz, D. & Braley, K. Racial stereotypes of one-hundred
college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology: 1933, SS, 280-290.

 

Koch, H. The social distance between certain racial
nationality and skin-pigmentation groups in se-
lected populations of American school children.
Journal of Genetic Psycholgy, 1946, SS, 63-95.

Lindzey, G. & Rogolsky, S. Prejudice and identification
of minority group membership. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 1950, SS, 37-53.
Luchins, A. S. Primacy-recency in impression formation.
In C. I. Hovland (Ed.) The order ofppresentation
"min.persuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1957, 33-61.

 

Mann, J. The influence of racial prejudice on socio-
metric choices and perceptions. Sociometry,
1958, 3;, 150-158.

McGrew, J. The cognitive consistency of left and right
authoritarians: A test of Rokeach's "Belief Con-
gruency" Hypothesis. Journal of Social Psycholoqy,
1969, ZS, 227-234.

Newcomb, T. M. Austistics hostility and social reality.
Human Relations, 1947, Vol. 1, 69—86.

 

Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic
Books, Inc., 1960.

Rokeach, M. Belief versus race as determinants of social
distance: Comment on Triandis' paper. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1961, SS,
187-188.

55

Rokeach, M., Smith, P., & Evans, R. Two kinds of preju-
dice or one? In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The Open and
Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1960.

 

 

Sciodel, A., & Austrin, H. The perceptions of Jewish
" photographs by non-Jews and Jews. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, SS, 278-
280.

 

 

Secord, P. F., Bevan, W., & Katz, B. The Negro stereo-
‘ type and perceptual accentuations Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology,.l956, SS, 78-83.

 

 

Seeleman, V. The influence of attitude upon the remember-
ing of pictorial material. Archives of Psychol-
ogy, 1940, 258.

 

Smith, C., Williams, L., & Willis, R. Race, sex, and be-
lief as determinants of friendship acceptance.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1967, S, 127-137.

Stein, D., Hardyck, J., & Smith, M. Race and belief:
An open and shut case. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1965, S, 281-289.

 

Tagiuri, R. Person perception. In Lindzey, G., & Aron-
son, E. (Eds.) The handbook of social psychology
(2nd Ed.) Vol. 3. Reading, Mass.: Addison-
Wesley, 1969.

Thibaut, J. & Coules. The role of communication in the
reduction of interpersonal hostility. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 11,
770-777.

 

Triandis, H. C. A note on Rokeach's theory of prejudice.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961,
SS, 184-186.

 

Triandis, H. C., & Davis, E. E. Race and belief as de-
terminants of behavioral intentions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 1965, S, 715-
725.

 

 

56

Williams, D. C. Race versus belief revisited: A bi-
racial examination. Unpublished master's thesis,
Michigan State University, 1974.

APPENDIX A

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Background Information

 

 

 

 

Part I
Please fill out the following information.

Initial: Date:
Last First Middle

Age: Sex: Race:

City & State of Birth: Country Major

 

Year in School:

 

Section 2. Please fill out the following information as accurate as

U1 w M I-'
0

you can and please be as specific as possible with your
answers. There are no right or wrong answers to these
questions, however, all questions must be completely
answered.

What is your father's occupation?

 

What is your mother's occupation?

 

In what state of the U.S. were you raised?

 

Have you ever done any traveling within the U.S.? If so, where
(specify)

 

How many children are in your family?

1. only child 3. three

 

2. two 4. four or more

 

Have you ever done any international traveling?
If so, where (specify)

 

If you could do some traveling, where would you go?

 

 

When you have finished all questions, please look to the front of the
room and wait for further instructions.

57

.NHENHD(B

ONE FORM OF THE RACE-SEX QUESTIONNAIRE

'Please read all statements carefully and make your appropriate
judgment on the scales below each question.

Gretchen a thirty-eight year old sales woman from Hamburg, Germany.

How similar do you feel Gretchen's beliefs are to yours?

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very similar

How successful do you think Gretchen is?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very successful

If you met Gretchen in real life how likely do you think that you
would become friends?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very likely

How outgoing do you think Gretchen is?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very outgoing

How intelligent do you think Gretchen is?

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very intelligent

58

59

How much in common do you think you have with Gretchen?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
nothing at all great deal in common

 

Please read all statements carefully and make your apprOpriate
judgment on the scales below each question.

Jose, a thirteen-year-old student from Mexico City.

How similar do you feel Jose's beliefs are to yours?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very similar

How successful do you think Jose is?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very successful

If you met Jose in real life how likely is it, do you think, that you
would become friends?

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very likely

How out-going do you think Jose is?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very out-going

How intelligent do you think Jose is?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very intelligent

60

61

How much in common do you think you have with Jose?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
nothing at all great deal in common

 

Please read all statements carefully and make your appropriate
judgment on the scales below each question.

Barbara, a twenty-year-old black college student from
your area of the country.

How similar do you feel Barbara's beliefs are to yours?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very similar

How successful do you think Barbara is?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very successful

If you met Barbara in real life, how likely is it, do you think, that
you would become friends?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very likely

How out-going do you think Barbara is?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very out-going

How intelligent do you think Barbara is?

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very intelligent

62

63

How much in common do you think you have with Barbara?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
nothing at all great deal in common

Please read all statements carefully and make your apprOpriate
judgment on the scales below each"que3tion.

Alan, a fifty-year-old motion picture director
living in Southern Califbrnia.

How similar do you feel Alan's beliefs are to yours?

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very similar

How successful do you think Alan is?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very successful

If you met Alan in real life how likely is it, do you think, that you
would become friends?

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very likely

How out-going do you think Alan is?

 

l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
not at all very out-going

How intelligent do you think Alan is?

 

l 2 3 4 5 A 6 7 8 9
not at all very intelligent

64

65

How much in common do you think you have with Alan?

 

1 2 3 4‘5'6 7 8 9
nothing at all in common great deal in common

 

"IIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIII