 

a 123.. s

:
.
I.

 

.1.

o

.3.

.5},
. z
1:. a

.2. . n .
i : a um“...

{i

tum;

‘ v1.3}:

504. :! trot-II
7 I bf};

. .t . ,

.

H
.rrv ‘II
I .11 :11

(an?!
hat? Huh .

 

THEsIs

Milli“: ill]liltilllillllﬂll

3 1293 01417 2104

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Jealousy and Narcissism as Predictors
of Prejudice

presented by

Shasha Camaj

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Psychology

{L m

Major professor

Norman Abeles, Ph.D.

degree in

 

 

3/"9/9?

 

MSU is an Afﬂrmatiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

 

LIBRARY
Michigan ﬁtate
4 University

 

 

 

PLACE N RETURN BOX to roman this Moat from your record.
TO AVOID FINES Mum on or More data duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE :

W. 2”.

 

l
l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Afﬁrmative ActioNEqnl Oppommlty IMRWOH
mm.

 

JEALOUSY AND NARCISSISM AS
PREDICTORS OF PREJUDICE
by

Shasha Camaj

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1995

ABSTRACT
JEALOUSY AND NARCISSISM AS
PREDICTORS OF PREJUDICE
By
Shasha Camaj
Psychodynamic interpretations of prejudice emphasize their irrational
quality and implicate unconsciously motivated forces. Two general theoretical
hypotheses were tested. First, displaced jealousy derived from early sibling rivalry
has been proposed as a motivator of prejudice towards outgroups. Mixed results
were obtained for this theory. A story completion task was used in a between-
groups design to test this hypothesis among 345 undergraduate subjects. In
addition, self-report data inquiring about perceived sibling rivah'y and parental
aﬁ‘ection were gathered. These tests failed to support the hypothesis. However,
the number of times an individual was displaced by the birth of srhlings did directly
affect racism scores, with eldest born having higher racism scores. This was
supported in a regression analysis using 109 Caucasian subjects who were
administered the Modern Racism Scale (MRS).
The second general hypothesis examined was that a positive relationship
exists between narcissistic personality features in a non-clinical sample and racism

This hypothesis was supported in a correlational analysis amongst 538 subjects

using the MRS and the O’Brien Multiphasic Narcissism Inventory.

Implications pertaining to displaced feelings of jealousy from
childhood onto outgroups is discussed as well as the theoretical link and

implications of narcissistic personality features of prejudiced individuals.

Per babén rim
F aleminers per rmmdimin, dashurina, dhe devocionin

qé ke ba per mua
per me mi plotsue déshirat e mija.

To my mother and father, whose “blood, sweat, and tears”
have made so rmrch possible for me.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Elaine
Donelson, Albert Rabin, Bertram Karon, and my chair, Norman Abeles, for
their support in my work I am deeply grateful to Dr. Abeles who has,
throughout my graduate training, been an excellent model and teacher of
resourcefulness, initiative, diplomacy, and objective thinking.

Dr. Donelson and Dr. Rabin played an important role as committee
members in that they provided helpful feedback and sensitive, constructive
criticism. I especially appreciate the quality Dr. Rabin has of being both an
excellent communicator and obviously delighting in sharing ideas. I was
inspired from the beginning by Dr. Karen’s love for psychoanalytic theory
and remembered from day one his kind-hearted advice that graduate
students ought to “research what interests you!” Rick DeShon deserves a
special thank you for his reliable and concise instruction of statistics.

I also want to extend a warm thank you to all of my hard-working
research assistants, with whom it was a pleasure working.

Other people who have been enormously helpful in my training
include Michael Teixiera, Joseph Reyher, Stuart Doneson, and especially

Anne Bogat for their generous support and guidance. Each of their rich,

insightful personalities made being a student of psychology a fascinating
and fulﬁlling erqrerience.

I also want to thank my dear ﬁiends Grace Gibson, Paul Luikart,
Charlotte Miller, Laura Baker, and family for their support and
understanding over the years. I am also especially grateﬁrl to Kurt David
Kleinsorge for his love and patience which helped to see me through the
completion of this project, this program, and inspired hope about my
future.

Finally, I want to extend my appreciation to Edward Grbeau for his
remarkable creativity and wisdom Thank you for teaching me that, above
all, understanding others always begins with knong ourselves and can be

gleaned by combining love with intelligence.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
Understanding the causes of prejudice ................................................ 4
Psychodynamic interpretations of prejudice: A review ......................... 8

Projection ..................................................................................... 8
Scapegoating .............................................................................. l 1
Displacement .............................................................................. 12
Narcissism and Prejudice ............................................................ 17
Conclusions ...................................................................................... 26
Study Rationale ................................................................................ 28
Hypotheses of Present Investigation ................................................. 28
Section I: Jealousy and Prejudice ................................................ 28
Section II: Narcissism and Prejudice ........................................... 30

METHOD .............................................................................................. 3 1
Subjects ............................................................................................ 32
Materials .......................................................................................... 33

Personal Questionnaire ............................................................... 33
Measure of Narcissism ................................................................ 35
Measure of Prejudice: The Modern Racism Scale ........................ 36
Measure of Jealousy: Story Stems ................................................ 38

vii

Pilot Study of Jealousy Story Stems ........................................ 39

RESULTS ............................................................................................... 41
Descriptive Statistics .......................................................................... 41
Hypotheses Tests ............................................................................... 45

Exploratory Analyses ........................................................................ 49

DISCUSSION ......................................................................................... 5 1
Sibling Rank as a Predictor of Racism ................................................ 52
Methodological Problems in the Jealousy Story Stems ........................ 53
The Dichotomy Between Conscious and Unconscious Data ................ 54
What Can be Said About Narcissism and Racism ............................... 56

Conchrsions ......................................................................................... 59
Other Limitations ................................................................................ 61
Directions for Future Research ........................................................... 62

APPENDICES
A: Consent Form. .............................................................................. 65
B: Personal Questionnaire .................................................................. 66
C: Story Stems .................................................................................... 67

Control Version ......................................................................... 67
Minority Version ........................................................................ 71
D: OMNT ........................................................................................... 75
E: Social Attitude Survey ................................................................... 77

viii

F: Family Statistics .............................................................................. 80

G: Ratings of Parents .......................................................................... 82
H: Statistics for Jealousy Scale: Rank-Ordered Precentages ................ 83
LIST OF REFERENCES .......................................................................... 84

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table l: Racial Breakdown .............................................................. 32

Table 2: Test-retest Correlation Coeﬂicients for Mother Items ......... 34

Table 3: Test-retest Correlation Coeﬂicients for Father Items ........... 34
Table 4: OMNI Means and Standard Deviations ............................... 42
Table 5: Statistics for Modern Racism Scale ..................................... 44
Table 6: T-Test for Control and Experimental Groups’

Scores on Jealousy Scale ................................................... 45
Table 7: Regression Analysis for Racism With Number of

Times Displaced and Srbship Size ...................................... 46
Table 8: Pearson Correlations for Racism and Ratings of

Parents Affection and Favoring Siblings ............................. 47
Table 9: Pearson Correlations for OMNI and Racism ....................... 48

Table 10: T-‘fests Comparing Sex Diﬂ‘erences Amonst Dependent
Measures ........................................................................ 49

Table 11: Correlation Matrix for Age and Dependent Measures ........ 50

INTRODUCTION

The history of mankind is replete with periods of intense brutality
toward and/or subjugation of one group against another. It appears that, at
times, prejudice and the need to oppress, dominate, exploit, segregate, and
exterminate others based on differences in race, religion, or ethnicity seems
almost insatiable. These activities are as commonplace as the emotional
sources of hatred, greed, and envy from which they stem. While the word
prejudice can, of course, mean simply a "pro-judging" or bias, the deﬁnition
intended here is one that commonly connotes a hostility toward a group or
member of a group. To be more precise, Allport's (1954) deﬁnition of
prejudice will serve as the model

Ethnic prejudice is an antipathy based upon a faulty and
inﬂexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed It

may be directed toward a group as a whole, or toward an
individual because he [or she] is a member of that group

(p. 9).

Currently, we are witnesses to some of the worst forms of
prejudice. In Europe and Africa there has been a resurgence of ﬁercely
prejudiced factions who sadly remind many of the horrors of Nazism. In
the United States, racism and the resulting discrimination has produced
much social and political upheaval. The negative psychological effects of
racism and discrimination have bear empirically documented (Fanon, 1967;
Kardiner & Ovesey, 1951; Karon, 1975; McDonald, 1970). Karen's

(197 5) study of anti-black discrimination, as was deﬁned by the American
caste system, demonstrates that its effects are harmﬁrl to both black and
white members of society. Fortunately, there has been a considerable
decline in the expression of outright rejection and discrimination of
minority groups since the civil rights movement in the United States.
However, some authors (e. g. Gaertner and Dovidio, 1986; McConahay,
1986) cogently assert that there is a more insidious form of racism present
in today's culture. They propose that prejudice continues to exist but in
more subtle, less detectable forms. This form of racism, termed "aversive
racism" by Gaertner and Dovidio, is the product of a compromise between
the strong, socially appropriate egalitarian values of most white Americans
negative feelings about blacks. They assert that most white Americans do
not feel all good or all bad about blacks, but that they are always
"ambivalent" in their views.

The ambivalence described by Gaertner and Dovidio becomes
evident only when subjects are studied both inside and outside the pressure
of social norms. That is, when social norms and expectations are clear and
there is an opportunity for negative self or other evaluation, overt bias is
unlikely to occur. However, when norms are unclear or expectations are
mixed, prejudiced behavior is more often displayed In other words, what
these authors are suggesting is that the aversive racist is racist only when
nobody is looking or when the discrimination can be rationalized to oneself

Dovidio and Gaertner (1991) and McConahay (1986) review
several studies which seem to support their assumptions. For example, it
one study subjects showed much less evidence of personal concern, as
measured by both physiological response and helping behavior, for black
victims than for white victims (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). This was true

when the subjects were in the presence of other bystanders (and their

responsibility became more diﬁirse), but not true when they were the only

witnesses to the distress of the victim In a study examining the potential

factors of resistance to aﬁirmative action, Dovidio and Gaertner (1986)

found that, regardless of subjects' degree of prejudice, whites exhibit a

relatively negative response to a black W as compared to a black
Mate, despite actual qualiﬁcations of each.

McConahay (1986) delineates the tenets of this modern form of

racism as follows:

1.

2.

discrimination is a thing of the past

(because) blacks now have the freedom to compete in the marketplace
and to enjoy those things they can afford

blacks are pushing too hard, too fast and into places where they are not
wanted

these tactics and demands are unfair

therefore, recent gains are undeserved and the prestige granting
institutions of society are giving blacks more attention and the
concomitant status than they deserve

racism is bad and the other [above] beliefs do not constitute racism
because these beliefs are empirical facts

racism, as deﬁned by modern racists, is consistent only with the tenets
and practices of old-fashioned racism“ beliefs about black intelligence,
ambition, honesty, and other stereotyped characteristics, as well as
support for segregation and support for acts of open discrimination (pp.
92-93 ).

While the foregoing discussion focuses on White racism, the point

is that any form of prejudice can be more or less hidden from view, but

nevertheless harmful

Ill 1.] [.1.

In general, what are the reasons motivating antipathy toward any
minority groups? Most investigators of prejudice would agree that its
dynamics involve complex and multi-determined features (e. g. Ashmore &
Del Boca, 1981). These features of prejudice inchrde both cognitive and
emotional components on an individual level, in addition to socio-cultural,
economic, and political elements. This investigation will focus on the
psychological motivations of prejudice viewing prejudice is a dynamic
rooted in an individual's personality.

Some consider stereotypic thinking to be the cause of prejudicial
feelings and beliefs. This is one point of view, possibly best describing only
one form of prejudice. Stereotypic thinking, since it is objectively
measurable, seems to be the simplest means of assessing prejudice.
Representing this form of investigation are the cognitive researchers of
stereotypic thinking (e. g. Hamilton & Trolier, 1986). They argue that
stereotypic thinking is a natural consequence of the way in which human
beings manage an overwhelming amount of stirmrli using a limited amormt
of conscious "workspace." They say that shortcut cognitive solutions,
including stereotypic thinking, are the result of coping with the very
complex stimuli of everyday life (or what William James referred to as this
"blooming and buzzing confusion"). One could certainly see the
evolutionary beneﬁt of reducing the complexity of cognitive process, such
as making generalintions from very little information.

However, since it seems often to be the case that stereotypic
thinking can stubbornly persist in deﬁance of evidence or experience
(Allport, 1954), these purely cognitive models fail to consider the
motivational or affective components to stereotyping. Recognizing this,

Taylor (1981) states that the ﬁrture of the most complex research in
stereotyping should move toward "ehrcidating the nature of the cognitive-
motivation interface" (p. 112). Similarly, Frosh (1989) states that “much of
the active research into prejudice by psychologists has failed to deal with
the intensity of the racist imagination: that the aﬁ‘ective dimension is
omitted in favor of accormts of the irrational structure of prejudiced
cognitions” (p. 217).

Insofar as stereotypic thinking is the cause of prejudice, it seems a
worthwhile avenue of study. However, it would be false to assume that
this is always the case, though it may be important in some forms of
prejudice. Very recent studies by Esses et al (1993) and Jackson et al.
(1993) suggest that, in general, stereotypic thinking is not a good predictor
of prejudice. In short, aﬁ’ect plays a more primary role in the prediction of
group prejudice (Stangor et al, 1991; Jackson, 1993). More oﬁen,
stereotypic thinking can be construed as a way of defending one's irrational
feelings associated with prejudice (Allport, 1954; Bettelheirn & Janowitz,
1964; Reiser, 1961). Allport (1954) asserts that the stereotype "acts both
as a justiﬁcatory devise for categorical acceptance or rejection of a group,
and as a screening or selective device to maintain simplicity in perception
and in thinldng" (p. 192). He adds that few people are aware of the real
reasons for their hatred of minority groups and that the reasons they invent
are ”merely rationalizations." Levin and Levin (1982) describe instances in
which prejudices develop as a way to justify actual discriminatory behavior
already in operation. A recent study by Stangor et a1. (1991) formd that
affective reactions to national, ethnic, and religious groups were better
predictors of prejudice than were cognitions.

The above is consistent with the psychodynamic view of prejudice:
that prejudice is motivated, by largely unconscious reasons, to serve an
individual's psychic needs. In other words, people do not hate minorities
because their stereotypic views dictate such feelings or attitudes; instead,
they hold stereotypic views because they hate minority groups. Zajonc'
(1980, 1984) mdy of the relationship between feelings and cognitions is
germane to this discussion. He concludes that feelings are primary and that
cognitions follow. This insight becomes apparent upon consideration of
the many ways in which people selectively attend to those perceptions that
conform to their beliefs and ignore those that do not. In Bettelheim and
Janowitz' (1964) study of war veterans, they provide an example of the
ﬂexibility of how stereotypes are used in the service of rationalizing
hostility toward Jews.

Conﬁ'onted with the fact that in his own experience Jews
behaved like other soldiers-namely that some tried to avoid the
danger of combat, while others were courageous, another strongly
biased man was still able to protect his stereotype from being
denied. The average Jewish soldier, be implied, was incompetent,
and the others, bloodthirsty (p. 139).

Another example of the irrationality commonly associated with prejudice,

Bettelheim and Janowitz (1964) present a statement by Lueger, a Viennese
lord mayor and leader of the ﬁrst modern party based primarily on political
anti-Semitism When he was questioned about his private and professional
afﬁliations with certain Jews, he stated, "I decide who is a Jew and who is

not.”

To ﬁrrther reﬁrte the view that stereotypes lead to prejudice, Allport
(1954) noted that prejudicial feelings and beliefs can certainly exist without

any stereotypic beliefs. Several researchers have proposed that cognition
and aﬁ‘ect are independent aspects of group perception (Bodenhausen,
1993; Esses et al., 1993; Stangor et al, 1991).

Allport (1954) records several responses of studarts writing essays
on "My Experience with, and Attitudes toward, Minority Groups in
America." Allport comments that the following statements, demonstrating
repulsive feelings without any distinct reasons, are typical among the 100

essays.

Every rational voice within me says the Negro is as good, as
decent, sincere, and manly as the white, but I cannot help noticing a split
between my reason and prejudice.

Although prejudice is unethical, I know I shall always have
prejudices. I believe in goodwill toward the Negro, but I shall never invite
him to my house for dinner. Yes, I know I'm a hypocrite.

Intellectually, I am ﬁrmly convinced that this prejudice
against Italians is rmjustiﬁed. And in my present behavior to Italian ﬁiends I
try to lean over backwards to counteract the attitude. But it is remarkable
how strong a hold it has on me.

These prejudices make me feel narrow-minded and
intolerant and therefore I try to be as pleasant as possrble. I get so angry
with myself for having such feelings, but somehow I do not seem to be able
to quench them

The more I try to treat Jews as individuals, the more
conscious I seem to become of them as a group. My compulsive prejudice
is putting up a ﬁght against its own elimination (p. 327).

Allport might suggest that these people are less defended against
their prejudices because they have not marshaled rigid stereotypes as a way
to rationalizetheir otherwiseirrationalfeelings It isthisirrationalquality
of prejudice, which seems to make its presence so toxic and redstant to
change, to which this discussion turns in consideration of some

psychodynarnic interpretations.

ngchodyn__a_r__m_'c intgpretations of prem' dice; A rem

Many psychoanalytic authors have emphasized that prejudice
occurs through the process of defense mechanisms-particularly projection,
scapegoating, displacement, or some combination of these (Adamo, et a1,
1950/1964; Bettelheim & Janowitz, 1964; Bird, 1957; Butts, 1971;
Frenkel-Brunswick & Sanford, 1947; Freud, 1939/ 1965; Kris, 1949;
Loewenstein, 1947 ; Mohan, 1991, Money-Kyrle, 1960; Reiser, 1961,
Schick, 1971; Schoenfeld, 1966; Silverman, 1985) .
Projection

Freud's (1913/1955, 1915/1956) classic deﬁnition of projection is
the attribution to others those traits and impulses in oneselfthat cannot be
recognized This process is intended to protect the individual from the
generation of anxiety, guilt, or other unwanted feelings. In the classical
deﬁnition, projection results in a distorted view in others due to lack of
insight regarding one's own feelings and beliefs. From the general
deﬁnition spnmg various permutations of projection as a defense
mechanism (see Holmes, 1978). Rabin (1981) reminds us of the extended
deﬁnition of projection which is that it is not merely a defensive dynamic,
but something that occurs as a consequence of the more general tendency

we all have to ﬁll in our extemal perceptions with internal processes.

Projection, presumably deﬁned in the pathological sense, has been
linked extensively to psychodynamic theories of prejudice. Bettelheim and

Janowitz (1964) make the interesting observation from their extmsive
study of intolerance on W.W.II veterans that people will split off different
parts of their personality ftmctioning to project onto diﬁ‘erent groups They
observed that the Jews became the target of the envy and demands of their
ego ideal, while Blacks became the target of projected repulsive, id
impulses. "Id" impulses such as sexuality, and aggressiveness have been
thought to be commonly targeted on Blacks, whereas the ego ideal features
of pride, deceit, unsocialized egotism, grasping ambition, and so forth are
projected onto the Jews (Bird, 1957).

Allport (1954) maintains that the need to project the malicious,
dirty, and violent parts of ourselves onto outgroups seems rmiversal. He
notes that in Europe, for instance, the Jews were targeted with these
projections because the Black was not as available. In America, however,
the Blacks, are the bearers of these unacceptable features. Loewenstein
(1947) remarks similarly that there are two types of minority groups: those
who arouse contempt because they believe them inferior (id impulses) and
those to whom the majority feels inferior, admires and imitates (ego ideal
demands).

Hamilton's (1986) essay examines the anal components of white's
hostility and aggression toward blacks as they are projected onto blacks.
He argues that these traits are what rmderlies resistance against racially
integrated housing. This type of projection of what is dirty could be said
to contribute to the ”ethnic cleansing" movements which have'been
underway in the past and continue into the present. In "ethnic cleansing,”
one is attenrpting to evacuate those feelings about oneself that may be
associated with disgust and hatred.

10

To the extent that sexuahty is regarded as "dirty" and "bad," sexual
impulses are consequently also cermnonly projected features in prejudicial
feelings toward eutgreups. Of course, rmwanted sexual impulses and the
guilt and ambivalence associated with sexuality are commonly projected
onto outgroups. The Black has been the general depository for inhibitory
sexual responses. In the following citation, it is clear that this prejudiced
attitude belies fears about the proper "place" for sexuality and a subsequent
fear of losing control of sexual urges.

I do not remember how or when, but by the time I had
learned that God is love, that Jesus is His Son and came to give us
more abrmdant life, that all men are brothers with a common
Father, I also knew that I was better than a Negro, that all black
folks have their place and must be kept in it, that sex has its place
and rrmst be kept in it, that a terrifying disaster would befall the
South if ever I treated a Negro as my social equal...(Smith cited in

Allport, 1954; p. 290).

Blacks came to be forbidden the same way that sex is forbidden. At
the same time that individuals may project their unacceptable sexual
impulses, they also seem to envy the Black for what they imagine to be
unrestrained sexual indulgence. Bird (1957) has suggested that, in general,
prejudiced people project not only their feelings of inferiority but also their
envy, believing the eutgreup to be anxious, ambitious and trying to rise
above their situation.

In each case, prejudicial feelings are stimulated by depositing onto
outgroups what traits in themselves cannot be fully recognized-a sort of
disguised seltlrepulsion. Furthermore, Reiser (1961) astutely observes that

the need for whites to maintain a superior position over blacks is

ll

"analogous to the egos need to remain in control of the id" (p. 171). These
mechanisms, as are all defense mechanisms, are designed to alleviate the
shame and anxiety which might otherwise confront the individual.

What is the evidence that prejudice is, at least in part, a
consequence of projection? There are a few correlation studies which
suggest a relationship between prejudice and the use of projection
(Adomo, et al, 1950; Kelley & Stahelski, 1970) as well as one
experimentally designed study (Peak, 1060). The evidence for classical
projection in general, when empirical tests of it are attempted in the
laboratory, is not convincing (Hehnes, 197 8).

Scapegoating
Related to projection, but not considered to be one of the classic

defense mechanisms, is what many have called the scapegoating theory of
prejudice. Allport (1954) explains that the term “scapegoat”

originated in the famous ritual of the Hebrews, described in the
Book of Leviticus ( 16:20-22). On the Day of Atonement a live
goat was chosen by lot. The high priest...cenfessed ever it the
inequities of the children of Israel The sins of the people thus

symbolically transferred to the beast, it was taken out into the
wilderness and let go. The people felt purged, and for the time

being, guiltless (p. 244).

Applied to prejudice, this theory holds that minority groups bear the
burden of our despicable feelings, that they are employed as a means for us
to discharge our unwanted emotions. The scapegoat is essartially blamed
for our faults; he or she is targeted as a way to externalize our irmer
conﬂicts. In both projection and scapegoating, the individual is
externalizing internal conﬂict.

12

In general, prejudice can be thought of as a means of externalizing
conﬂict. In their in-depth study of anti- Serrritic personalities, Ackerman
and Jahoda (1950) formd that depression and anti-Semitism rarely co-exist.
Following one line of psychoanalytic thought that depression is a turning of
hostile feelings against oneself, it may be that depression is antithetical to
prejudice, since the latter is an externalizing process. Bird (1957) agrees
with this assumption. He presents a case history of a woman whose most
successful period of life was a time during which she was also quite
intensely anti-Semitic. Following Ackerman and Jahoda (1950), Bird
maintains that his patient was perhaps best equipped to ﬁrnction in the
work sphere when she could outwardly direct her aggression

In their extensive, in-depth study of ethnic intolerance among
psychiatric patients, Adomo, et al (1950/1964) report similar evidence.
They formd that the more highly tolerant patients were diagnosed primarily
with depression. However, those lowest in ethnic tolerance were more
typically plagued with various symptoms of anxiety and hostility.
Displacement

Another mechanism considered to motivate prejudice is
displacement. Displacement is a defense mechanism whereby an individual
experiences feelings and/or acts out against a person who is other than the
original target of those feelings. Usually, strong prohibitions against direct
expression of certain feelings toward the original targets are establidred.
Present-day feelings of jealousy, envy, or hostility toward people in present

circumstancesaresaidto oﬁmbeﬁreledbythosesamereactionswhich

13

were stirmrlated in regard to our earlier childhood relationships (this is the
concept on which transference is based).

To the extent that a scapegoated target represents a diquaced
target, these two mechanisms are similar or can be the same. Several
authors have maintained that the aggressive feelings of prejudiced people is
a displacement of their intense anger originally directed at tyrannical and
authoritarian parents (Ademo, 1950/1964;A11port, 1954). A few
experimental studies have found that more prejudiced individuals tend to be
more aggressive when compared to less prejudiced individuals (Dustin &
Davis, 1967; Genthner & Taylor, 1973; Lipetz & Ossorio, 1967; Smith,
1967). Furthermore, a longitudinal study by Stephen & Rosenfeld (1978)
demonstrated a correlation between parental punitiveness and authoritarian
parenting with negative changes in children's racial attitudes. In general,
experimental studies of displaced aggression is supportive of the theory
(See Fenigstein & Buss, 1974; Nacci & Tedeschi, 1977).

Related to anger, jealousy is one particular feeling said to be
associated with hostility toward eutgreup members One of the sources of
hostility and jealousy is associated with sibling rivahy. Freud (1933/1964)
writes that the arrival ofa new brother or sister is erqrerienced as a
traumatic shock to the child Each new birth creates terriﬁc anger and
resentment in the child and that the impact of that trauma persists into

adulthood Through clinical observations, we can recognize that in

l4

adulthood the source of nruch of our irrational feelings of anger and
jealousy toward others who are perceived as intruders can be related to our
personal histories of being dethroned by newcomers or less preferred in the
presence of other family members.

Strong, irrational reactions against minority group members have
been viewed as representing displaced reactions stemming from early
family disappointments, especially Oedipal rivalry and sibling rivalry
(Ostew, 1991). For instance, several authors have suggested that Jews
have commonly been the target of displaced feelings of jealousy, rivalry,
and hostility due to various associations (Freud, 1939/1965; Loewenstein,
1947; Schoenfeld , 1966; Sirnmel, 1946).

Sterba's (1947) paper on the Black race riots is a very clear
explication of the rivalrous roots of prejudice. Sterba suggests that there
are two unconsciously motivated forces behind the antagonism felt towards
Blacks. The ﬁrst is related to the notion that Blacks are "experienced
emotionally, as unwelcome intruders” (p. 412). He believes that the
severity of the reactions towards Blacks betrays their unconscious roots.
Through displacement, Blacks represent the rmwanted, newborn siblings
who usurp the prized position in the family and limit the attentions ofthe
caretakers.

Sterba maintains that white Americans regard the Black movement

into their society as a threat which paralleled their early sibling rivahy. He

15

adds that the desire to suppress and control the inﬁltration of Blacks and
keep them inferior is unconsciously ﬁreled by the early struggle to restrict
the maturation of the ﬁercely resented younger siblings. "The older child
oﬂen attempts to deny the younger child's achievement, or to belittle it:
since the younger child is there at all, he should at least remain stupid,
immature and a permanent infant, ﬁom whom the older child need not fear
too much competition" (p. 415). He continues to explain that interracial
marriage is considered the " greatest horror" because it connotes being ﬁrlly
accepted by the fanrily.

Sterba maintains also that another rmconscious motive for hatred toward
blacks is represented in the race riots which involve several white men violently
attacking a black man. In this instance, it is Oedipal rivahy or rmcenscious sexual
jealousy that ﬁrels the hostility and aggression targeted at the black man. Sterba's
interpretation of the lynching of a black man by a group of white men is that it is
an unconscious enactment of intense Oedipal rivalry and patricidal wishes.

Gordon (1965) points to the connotation of the sexual nature of
prejudice with the racist cliche: "Would you want your sister to marry one
of them?" (p. 107). Ostow (1991) presents a clinical case of a gentile man
whose Oedipal rivalry manifests itselftemporarily as prejudice against a
Jewish man. Ostow’s essay (1991), "A psychoanalytic approach to the

problems of prejudice, discrimination, and persecution,” describes how

16

early conﬂicts pertaining to Oedipal rivalry or sibling rivalry may fuel
prejudicial feelings in adults.

A persisting tendency to resurrect and then resolve
rmreselved Oedipal rivahies may seize upon some realistic or
imagined rivalry with another individual, and respond to it as
though it were the original Members of other ethnic greups...may
then be disparaged nominally for their ethnic difference, but actually
with the motivation derived from early experience." (p. 84)

Ostew warns, however, of the danger of applying, tee
stereotypically, Oedipal conﬂicts to the whole problem of prejudice.
Additionally, Ostew asserts that the explanation of prejudice as simply the
result of the socialization process (Jones, 1972), is incomplete. That is,
prejudiced parents do not necessarily produce prejudice children through
the process of identiﬁcation. Ostew (1991) argues that a powerful
determining factor in whether eﬂ‘spring identify with their parents'
prejudices is the kind of relationship that is fostered between parent and
child. A study by Hassan and Khalique (1987) found that religious
prejudice was highest amongst children who's parents were both prejudice
and authoritarian and restrictive during upbringing.

In summary, the early psychodynanric theories of prejudice
generally speak to various interrelated defense mechanisms. The
“authoritarian personality” was the ﬁrst attempt to deﬁne the speciﬁc
proﬁle of defenses and dynamics which deﬁned the general personality of
these highly intolerant. In the next section, another sweet of pathological
personaﬁty features will be viewed as forming the context for prejudiced
beliefs and feelings.

1 7
Narcissism and Prejudice

Most of the psychoanalytic writings on prejudice occurred in the
late 40's and 50's during a time when anti-Semitism was quite intense.
During this time psychoanalysis was primarily inﬂuenced by Freud's
structural theory of drives, conﬂicts, and defenses. In the last 30 years,
however, object relations theory and self-p sycholegy has become
integrated into psychoanalytic practice and theory. The emphasis has been
placed heavily on pre-oedipal trauma, interpersonal deﬁcits in relating and
less on the drive-defense-structural model One of the most important
contributions in recent years has been the theoretical development of the
importance of narcissism and the prevalence of pathological forms of
narcissism (Kemberg, 1974, 1975; Kehut, 1971, 1977).

In this section, a rationale for hypothesizing a relationship between
narcissism and prejudice is provided. Perhaps it would be more accurate to
suggest that prejudiced attitudes and feelings are motivated by many of the
same etiological factors which constitute the narcissistic condition. A
theoretical connection is explored because, in general, it seems that many
of the features of prejudiced people and their childhood experiences are
similar to the characteristics and etiology of narcissism, as described
primarily by Kehut ( 1971, 1977) and Kernberg ( 1974, 1975).

The mom striking similarity is in regards to the descriptions of
childhood experiences given so consistently among prejudiced people when
compared to non-prejudiced people. These high in prejudice or intolerance
portray their parents as cold, harsh, and prmitive (Ackerman & Jahoda,
1950; Adorno, et. al, 1950; Bettelheim & Janowitz, 1964;kae1-
Brrmswik & Sanford, 1947; Triandis & Triandis, 1962). Lack of parental

18

love and affection is considered to be at the root of the foundation of the
narcissistic condition. Speciﬁcally, Kehut (1977) asserts that narcissism is
rooted in the parents continual absence of "empathic responses to the
child's needs to be mirrored and to ﬁnd a target for his idealization” (p.
187). Kemberg (1974) maintains that "the predominance of chronically
cold, narcissistic, and at the same time overprotective mother ﬁgures
appear to be the main etiological element in the psychogenesis" of
narcissism. Miller (1984) argues that one of the etiological elements of
pathological narcissism is related to the rigid disciplinary maneuvers
carried out by parents inspired by a disturbing rmconscieus need to control
others.

Kehut's concept of mirroring, an essential form of empathy, is a
fairly simple operationalizatien of this most basic childhood need. The term
mirroring refers to the warmth and positive responsiveness that a parent
conveys to a child. This responsiveness inchrdes a conﬁrmation of the
child's exhibitionism and innate sense of grandiesity, his or her need for
profound acceptance, and conviction of worthiness. Kehut believes that
this mirroring process results in a healthy intemalizatien of these vital
responses which produce a self structure in the adult that becomes
convinced of its goodness, wholeness, strength, and innate worthiness.
Kehut asserts that the process of mirroring is what is essentially absent
from the narcissist's early relationships. The classic exanrple of an failure in
mirroring is the small child who gleefully bursts home from school eager to
show his mother his new painting. The mother, who is preoccupied,
responds with a cold, abrupt exclamation: "Not now! Can't you see I'm
busy?"

19

The narcissistic condition is predicated, in part, on the caretakers
chronic incapacity to respond according to the child's basic needs for
empathy. The nrirror-hungry child grows up to be a mirror-hungry adult
still striving to be responded to as the special, grandiose individual who
needs constant reassurance and praise. As an adult, then, many
narcissistically injured people crave exclusive attention and endless
admiration in various ways (e.g. beauty, wealth, fame, one-sided
relationships, and so forth). This hunger for praise and admiration from
others is different from the intimacy gained through love and mutual
respect that more mature individuals seek in relationships. Perhaps the
best summary of the plight of the narcissistic personahty is put forth by
Joyce McDougall She comments that the pond that Narcissus stared at
interminably was really the eye of the rmresponsive mother.

What evidence is there that prejudiced people suffer from this type
of narcissistic injury? Several other researchers have linked prejudiced with
lack of parental affection (Ademo, et al, 1950/1964; Dickens & Hobart,
1959; Stephen & Rosenfeld, 1978; Triandis & Triandis, 1962). Most of
these studies involve data collection from only one source: the adult
reporting about or revealing through projective material cold and
unresponsive parenting. However, Dickens & Hobart (1959) interviewed
both mothers and their offspring in a study of anti-Semitism. The mothers
of the ethnocentric children demonstrated what the authors described as
"ignoring attitudes" toward their children. F or instance, 75% of the
nonethnocentric group agreed that the most important consideration in
planning their home activities should be the needs and interests of the
children, whereas only 44% of the mothers of ethnocentric subjects agreed
Fiﬂy percent of the ethnocentric mothers agreed that quiet children were

20

much nicer than "little chatterboxes." Only 6% of the mothers of the
nonethnecentric group agreed In addition, 63% of the ethnocentric
mothers agreed that "parents are usually too busy to answer all of a child's
unimportant questions," whereas 37% of the nonethnecentric group
agreed.

These ignoring attitudes are consistent with the non-mirroring
aspects of parents of narcissistic personalities. In addition, Adome, et al
(1950/1964) documented themes of deprivation rrmning through the
clinical assessments of prejudiced subjects. They reported feeling
"'fergetten'...the victims of injustice who did not 'get' enough" (p. 348).

As a consequence of this early deprivation, rage and envy are
strongly manifest in the narcissistic personality (Kemberg, 1974; 1975).
The role of rage is obvious. The repeated disappointments and neglect of
very powerﬁrl exhibitionist and empathic needs and the shame and
hopelessness that they stimulate leads to rage-more speciﬁcally termed,
narcissistic rage. Narcissistic rage results from the intense humiliation and
degradation that is felt to be aimed at, not a particular part of the
individual, put the core of his/her very essence of self.

It has been commonly noted by many investigators of prejudice that
anger, as well as feelings of deprivation, and envy, are characteristic of
those high in prejudice (Adome, et. al, 1950/1964; Bettelheim & Janowitz,
1964; Frenkel-Brtmswik & Sanford 1947; Triandis & Triandis, 1962;
Weatheley, 1963). In Weatherley's (1963) study of anti-Semitism, they
formd a correlation between the stemness of maternal discipline toward
aggression and anti-Semitism in the daughters

Expressions of envy, like aggression, has also been recorded as
differentiating highly prejudiced individuals from more tolerant individuals

21

(Adome, et al., 1950/1964) . This is not surprising since, according to
Melanie Klein (1957), envy is an aggressive urge. She describes it as an
urge to destroy the contents of the good object; it is motivated by innate
hostility towards the pessessers of what is good or nourishing as it is a
reminder of one's lack of self-suﬁciency. Money-Kyrle (1960) emphasized
the role of envy in prejudice as a major contributor to the "pathological
dislike" of others Studies in anti- Semitism suggest, for example, that the
Jewish association with the acquisition of money and an intellectual -
superiority is said to provoke feelings of intense envy and hostility
(Loewenstein, 1947; Schoenfeld, 1966).

In their study of racial and ethnic intolerance among W.W.II
veterans, Bettelheim and Janowitz (1964) documented signiﬁcant
diﬂ‘erences between high and low tolerant individuals on this dimension.

F or instance, the intolerant men expressed a wish that the Jews have "less"
than they themselves possessed. On the other hand, the tolerant mar
reported that they would have liked as much as they felt the Jews had This
is a description of the expression of envy as an urge to destroy that which
is perceived as good in the form of prejudice.

This deeply felt sense of deprivation shows up in Bettelheim's study
in various ways. Objective measures of deprivation during their army life
was not associated with intolerance; however, the most outspoken and
intense anti- Semites and anti-Negroes subjectively reported increased
feelings of deprivation, both during their army experience and in childhood
Of these who claimed to have had a "bad break" in the army, ahnest ﬁve
times as many were intolerant as tolerant.

The authors cenchrde that their ﬁndings suggest that intolerance is
highly associated with feelings of deprivation "and that such feelings persist

22

despite the 'knowledge' that one's fate was by no means particularly bad"
As a likely manifestation of this sense of deprivation, the intensely
intolerant subjects also erqrressed fearful anticipation of not being taken
care of by the government. This association was independent of veteran's
actual incomel .

As merrtiened above, Kehut (1971; 1977) believed that idealization
was another of the most primitive needs served by the self-object for the
building of self-esteem He maintained that the need for idealization began
with an infant's need for merger with his/her caretakers. This merger is
ﬁrst experienced during physical holding, something we know is as
essential to human life as feed and water. Kehut argues that
psychologically, holding provides an important sense of the parent's
strength, infallibility, calmness, and omnipotence. The child's need to ﬁnd
this kind of perfection and strength continues throughout development and
can easily be seen through modeling and imitating behavior. Early and
repeated disappeintrnents in the idealized parents leads to a powerﬁrl need
to ﬁnd others to admire and imitate in adulthood. Kehut & Wolf (1978)
provide a simple illustration of a failure in empathic responding to a child's
need for idealization.

A little boy is eager to idealize his father, he wants his father
to tell him about his life, the battles he engaged in and won. But
instead of joyfully acting in accordance with his son's need, the
father is embarrassed by the request. He feels tired and bored and,

 

‘ The authors point out that this subjective sense of deprivation, as it exists in

absence of objective evidence, and ﬁercely felt prejudice is contrary to the notion
that there is a realistic source of competition in the environment which stimulates
eutgreup hoaility. In social psychology, this is termed Realistic Conﬂict Theory
which states that antagonism generated between groups is caused by a scarcity of
resources for what we vahre such as wealth, power, etc. (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

23

leaving the house, ﬁnds a temporary source of vitality for his
enfeebled selfin the tavern, through drink and mutually supportive
talk with ﬁiends (p. 418).

Is there any evidence that prejudiced people display any of the
features of a need for archaic idealization formd in narcissism? Frenkel-
Brunswik & Sanford (1947) asked college students several questions, many
of which seemed to differentiate the high- and low-scoring anti-Semites.
When asked to list the great people whom they admire most, the low-
scorers listed humanitarians, artists, and scientists, whereas the high-
scerers tended to list patriots and people with power and control This is
consistent whh the ﬁndings of Adorno, et al (1950/1964) whose high
scoring prejudice subjects demonstrated a strong attraction to power and
toughness in others and a complementary readiness to submit.

In a recent study of parenting styles and narcissism (Watson, et.al,
1992), subjects who reported having been parented in an authoritarian way
displayed more inadequate idealization than these parented in other styles
The authors used Kehut’s concept of idealization and measured inadequate
idealization by an index of goal instability.

In general, one can re-interpret features of the well-know
authoritarian personality (Adome, et al, 1950/1964) as strivings for an
idealized parental ﬁgure who is all-powerful, protective and to whose
authority one is happy to submit as a way to compensate for their sense of
inferiority. Kehut & Welf( 1978) write: The "ideal-himgry
personalities..can experience themselves as worthwhile only as long as
they can relate to self-objects [caretakers] to whom they can look up" (p.
421). They assert that the consequmce of not having had early idealinble
self-objects to internalize is that one searches for external ﬁgures who
encompass values and ideals to ﬁll their inner void This sounds very rmrch

24

like the authoritarian personality, whose need to appeal to an all-powerful,
controlling, external force, is so conspicuously associated with prejudice.

As a defense against their rage, envy, and profound sense of
inferiority, the narcissistic personahty employs what is often, but not
always, the most conspicuous defense: a sense of omnipotent control and
grandiosity. Kemberg (1974; 1975) writes that narcissists oﬂen strive to
satisly their grandiose fantasies through the compulsive accunmlation of
wealth, a preoccupation with beauty, or brilliance. In essence, anything
which will elevate them to the sphere of “specialness” to which they were
deprived in childhood. In fact, this interest in social standing, and striving
for status has been documented among prejudiced people compared to
non-prejudiced people (Frenkel-Bnmswik & Sanford, 1947). In response
to the question: What is the most embarrassing experience? these high in
prejudice responded with instances which were a "blow to their prestige
and narcissism," [italics mine] whereas these low on anti- Sernitism
reported feelings of inadequacy and failures in achievement and ﬁiendship
as the most embarrassing experiences (Frenkel-Brunswik & Sanford,
1947)

Despite the smooth facade in prejudiced people (as formd by
Frenkel-Brrmswik & Sanford's 1947 study), the primary researchers and
authors of narcissism unanirneusly agree that the narcissistic condition
involves a deep sense of inferiority and vuhrerability in their self-esteem
underneath the defensive ﬁmctions (Kehut & Wolf 1978; Kemberg, 1974;
1975). Low self-esteem has been documented among prejudiced persons
(see Ehrlich, 1973 for a review; Stephen & Rosenfeld, 1978).

Kehut & Welf( 1978) suggest that the intensity of the narcissists
needs, which were repeatedly ignored, and their feelings of neediness

25

arouse "deep shame," hopelessness, and depression. These people equate
their feelings of needirress of others as weakness and inferiority, thus the
commonly ascribed narcissistic attribute of withdrawal and superﬁcial self-
suﬁciency (Kemberg, 1974, 1975). In Adomo, et al's (1950/ 1964) study
of prisoners, one of the features that differentiated the more prejudiced
prisoners ﬁ'om the low scorers was that they seemed to attempt to deny a
sense 0 "weakness." Furthermore, their crimes seemed to represent this
feature as compared to the crimes of more tolerant subjects.

In addition, the low- scoring subjects were more capable of forming
genuine attachments to others as opposed to the intolerant subjects. In
contrast to those who were tolerant, "normal" prejudiced subjects in
Adomo's study were also more reluctant to see themselves as weak. They
displayed a contempt for weakness and inferiority, as well as an inability to
tolerate shows of emotion in others. This contempt for wealmess is a
central focus of Alice Miller’s (1981) development of narcissistic
disturbance. She describes the "vicious cycle of contempt" as the process
by which children identify with their parent's contempt for weakness and
sense of inferiority against which they (parents) are trying to defend.

Though he predated the works of Kemberg and Kehut, Ackerman's
(1965) discussion of the psychological mechanisms of prejudice sormds
very much like a chapter out ofa book on the narcissistic personality
disorder. He suggests that the prejudiced person's "precarious" sense of self
is "basically weak, confused, fragmented." He goes on to say that they
suﬂ‘er ﬁom a feeling of inferiority, vacillating between viewing themselves
a "big or small, relations with others are ﬂeeting or superﬁcial and
exploitative, tend to be aggressive, put on a "false front" and they

"experience constant fear of inner injury." He added that they tend toward

26

a "compensatory self-aggrandizement through attachments to symbols of
power." This association with a superior power, though illusory, oﬂ‘ers
the person a sense of magical omnipotence and grandiosity. This
description bears an amazing resemblance to Kehut's and Kernberg's
depiction of the narcissistic personality disorder.

madam

Due to the social stigma associated with overt discrimination,
prejudicial beliefs and feelings exist but in more subtle forms. While the
study of stereotypic thinking per se may be ﬁ'uitful in regards to purely
cognitive processing abilities, it cannot be a sufﬁcient means of
rmderstanding the complex motivations and meanings of prejudice.
Stereotypes often serve as ways of rationalizing eutgreup hostility and the
irrational quality of prejudice suggests unconsciously motivated forces.

Projection of rmwanted feelings or traits onto eutgreups is one of
the most commonly cited explanations of much eutgreup hostility in the
psychoanalytic literature. Feelings of dirtiness, aggression, envy, and
sexuality have all been deposited onto minority groups as a way to defend
against self-repulsion. Also, the role of both sibling rivahy and Oedipal
rivalry are seen as contributors to prejudice. It is believed that eutgreup
members, as they represent displaced rivalrous objects in childhood are
perceived as antagonists who threaten to take away one's intensely guarded
privileges and possessions.

Many of the personality features of the highly intolerant suggest
that they are narcissistically injured individuals. Inadequate mirroring and
empathic failures leading to a deep sense of inferiority, deprivation,
contempt for weakness, envy, and hostility all characterize the highly

27

prejudiced personality. A narcissistic grandiosity and striving for power

and status ﬁmctien to defend against envy and profound inadequacy.

28
mammals

Most of the research on prejudice generated by the psychodynanric
approach has been in the form of case study reports. Ne research has been
done to demonstrate that one of the motivating forces of prejudice involves
feelings of jealousy (including envy2 ). Further, there has been no attempt

to apply the concepts of pathological narcissism as a means of

rmderstanding the prejudice personality.
H l [E I . .

This audy is an investigation of some of the psychodynamic
interpretations of the causes of prejudice. This study is divided into two
sections testing 1) jealousy as a motive of prejudice and 2) the relationship
between prejudice and narcissism
Section I: Jealousy and Prejudice

The general theoretical hypothesis is stated thus: Feelings of
jealousy are hypothesized to contribute to an attitude of prejudice toward
minority groups. In addition, according to Sterba (1947), an individual’s
feelings of prejudice toward eutgreups is speciﬁcally related to the sense of

jealousy that is stinmlated by the birth of siblings Hence, the greater

2 While Melanie Klein (1957) makes a distinction between envy and
jealousy, the concepts are so closely related that they will be considered one within
the framework of this study.

29

number of times an individual is displaced by siblings, the greater the

tardency for a prejudiced view of eutgreup members.

Operational Hypotheses:

1) Subjects presented with a story stem completion task which
inchrdes a minority group member will be more likely to respond with
feelings of jealousy, as measured by the sum of the jealousy responses, than
control subjects whose stories do not contain minority group identiﬁcation.

2) Individuals who have been displaced more often by the birth of
yormger siblings will exhibit more prejudice, as measured by the Modern
Racism Scale, as compared to individuals displaced by fewer or those who
have no yormger siblings. This relationship should be positive and linear.

3) Subjects with higher prejudice scores, as measured by the
Modern Racism Scale, will report having felt less loved by their parents
according to items derived from the Personal Questionnaire (“Ratings of
Parents Aﬂ‘ection”).

4) Subjects with higher prejudice scores, as measured by the Modern
Racism Scale, will report having felt less preferred by their parents as compared to

their siblings (termed “Ratings of Parents Favoring Siblings”).

30

Section II: Narcissism and Prejudice

The theoretical hypothesis is stated thus: There is a positive
relationship between narcissistic personath features in a sub-clinical
sample of college students and racism

Operational Hypothesis:

5) Subjects' narcissism scores, as measured by O'Brien's
Multiphasic Narcissism Inventory, will correlate positively and signiﬁcantly

with scores on racism, as measured by on the Modern Racism Scale.

METHOD

Undergraduate students were recruited for this study, which was
labelled “Personality Development,” from the subject pool In several
group settings, they were administered a packet containing a brief personal
questionnaire, a short stories test, a measure of narcissism, and a social
attitude survey. They were given a consent form indicating that no
identifying information was requested other than age, gender, and race.

Students were instructed to read a cover letter that explained that
their participation is entirely voluntary and that the information gathered
would be kept conﬁdential and anonymous. They were asked to sign a
consent form (Appendix A) which was turned in separately from the rest of
the test materials. They were also encouraged to leave their name and
phone number with the investigator in case they wanted more information
about the study and its ﬁndings aﬂer data collection was completed. All of
the surveys were hand-scored. The quantitative data was analyzed using

T-tests, Pearson product moment correlations, and regressions.

31

32

Subjects

Data were collected from a total of 688 rmdergraduate students at
Michigan State University. A subset of this total (N=343) consisted of a
pilot study for the Jealousy Stories; therefore, the number of subjects used
for various analyses will vary. Speciﬁc samples will, of course, be
described in each case. From the total number of subjects, 203 (30%) of
these subjects were men, and 469 (70%) were women. The mean age was
21 (sd=3.2). The minimum age was 18 and the maximum age was 48.
The grorq) were predominantly white (83.7%). Table 1 below depicts the
racial breakdown of the study population. Subjects were predominately
ﬁ'om psychology classes with the exception of one group who were

recruited from an Art History course.

 

TABLE 1
Racial Breakdown
(N= 669)

Cumulative
EAL—W
Caucasian 560 83.7 83.7
African—American 58 8.7 92.4
Asian (/American) 35 5.2 98.8
Hispanic 8 1.2 93.6

other 8 1.2 100.0

 

33

Materials
Personal Questionnaire
The Personal Questionnaire (Appendix B) was designed (by the author) to
assess subjects' feelings about their subjective sense of whether or not they
felt emotionally deprived in their family settings. There are essentially two
questions, applied to each parent. First, subjects are instructed to cheese,
on a continuum of 1 to 7, the extent to which they felt they received
enough “love and affection” from each of their parents. Second, they were
asked to indicate the extent to which they felt each of their parents favored
one or more of their siblings over them

A pilot study was performed to assess test-retest reliability of these
items. The questionnaire was administered twice over a 5-week period to
20 MSU undergraduates. Tables 2 and 3 below give correlation
coeﬂicients for the two mother questions and the two father questions
respectively. These analyses indicate adequate test-retest reliability for
these items (alpha < .01). The distribution of responses across all items
was skewed. Perhaps due to social desirability, subjects tended to respond

to these items in a highly favorable manner.

34

Initial

Test-retest Correlations Coeﬂicients for Mother Items"

1111112

M1 M2
M1 .7399“ .3312

Time]
M2 .5347" .7693“

* M1=Ingareraldoyoufeelthatyougetenoughloveandaﬂ'ectimfromyour
mother?
M2=Ingeneral doyoufeelthatyourmotherfavoredoneormoreofyour

siblings over you?
' p <.001bya one-tailedtest
b p < .01 bya one-tailedtest

labia}

Test-retest Correlation Coefﬁcients for Father Items"

Timez
F1 F2
F1 .9244“ .5998"

F2 .5648" .9377“

* F1= In general do you feel that you got enough love and affection from your
father?
F2 = In general do you feel that your father favored one or more ofyour

siblings over you?

' p<.001byaono-tailedtest
bp<.01byaone-tailedtest

35

Measure of Narcissism

The O'Brien Multiphasic Narcissism Inventory (0W1), developed
by Michael O'Brien (1987, 1988), was chosen for measuring narcissism in a
college population The OMNI (Appendix D) seems best suited for the
purposes of this study for a variety of reasons. First, O'Brien normed this
measure using graduate students at Teachers College, Columbia and with a
clinical population. Second, the OMNI was designed to capture the
complexity of narcissism by encompassing three forms of narcissistic
pathology derived ﬁ'om the object-relations literature.

The OMNI includes items which factored into three categories: (1)
narcissistic entitlement, (H) controlling others and perfectionism, and (III)
the "narcissistically abused personality." The ﬁrst category was designed
to reﬂect Kernberg's (1975) conception that individuals described as
narcissistic display a strong sense of entitlement, lack empathy or
reciprocity in relationships, and tend to be exhibitionist and exploitative.
The scale for this category is composed of 16 items. Fifteen items make up
factor II and reﬂect an individual's need to control other people and
maintain a sarse of perfectionism. Factor III contains 10 items which
capture the "shame-prone dimension" of narcissism. The items measure a
tendency toward self-depreciation, approval-seeking, and a need to put
others needs ﬁrst. This latter factor purportedly reﬂects Kehut's (1977)

deﬁcit model which assumes that narcissistically prone people look for

36

idealized others in an attempt to rectify their lack of such mirroring in their
early relationships.

O'Brien (1987) presents results ﬁ'om a factor analysis of his scale
which suggest that the three dimensions of pathological narcissism used are
orthogonal and internally consistent (.76, .73, and .71 for Factors 1, II, and
III respectively). O'Brien also obtained test-retest coeﬂicients on a sample
of 46 subjects after six weeks of .74, .72, and .71 for Factors I to 111,
respectively. As a test of the validity of OMNI, O'Brien (1988) compared
the factorial structures of the scale between both normal subjects and a
clinical population Results revealed that the scales were congruent for
both populations, and that the clinical population scored much higher on
all three dimensions.
Measure of Prejudice: The Modern Racism Scale

The Modern Racism Scale (MRS) developed by John McConahay (1986)
was used to assess level of prejudice (See Appendix E). The author reports alpha
coeﬂicients ranging from .81 to .86 in college student samples Test-retest
reliability ranges from .72 to .93 across several samples. The MRS, composed of
seven items, replaced the Old Fashioned Racism Scale which tended to produced
strong negative reactions which caused some to reﬁrse participation or induce a
higher potential for faking. The Old Fashioned Racism Scale consisted of arch
items as: How strongly would you object if a member of your family had

ﬁendship with a black? and Generally speaking, do you favor ﬁll! racial

37

integration, integration in some areas of lie, or full separation of the races? The
MRS items, on the other hand, were designed to capture valid anti-black prejudice
which tap into less overtly controversial viewpoints.

The author reviews studies which lend supporting evidence for the validity
of the MRS. For example, in one study (McConahay, 1986) subjects scoring high
on the MRS showed more ambivalence and displayed greater inconsistency in their
behavior towards blacks in a simulated hiring procedure. MRS scores also
correlated with evidence of personal concern, as measured by both physiological
response and helping behavior, for black victims than for white victims. This was
true when the subjects were in the presence of other bystanders (and their
responsibility became more diffuse), but not true when they were the only
witnesses to the distress of the victim (McConahay, 1986).

The MRS was given in conjunction with some other questions used
primarily as ﬁller items on a questionnaire entitled "Social Attitude Survey" (See
Appendix E) developed by Shepard & Bodenhausen (1993). These items question
beliefs about other socially controversial issues arch as immigration, feminism, etc.
The MRS score was obtained by summing up the score of the 7, Likert-type
scales. Responses for each item range from 1 to 5. On the actual questionnaire,
the direction endorsing racist beliefs on some items is inverted to avoid a response
set bias. The minimum possible racism score is, therefore, 7 and the highest score

possible is 35.

38

Measure of Jealousy: Story Stems

In addition, Story Stems (Appendix C) were used to assess whether
feelings of jealousy, rivalry, and envy are associated more frequently with
minority groups than with non minority group members in a between-
groups design. Halfthe subjects received Story Stems which inchrded a
minority group member while the other halfwill receive an identical story
which lacks mention of minority group afﬁliation. Both groups include two
identical ﬁller stories in addition to 4 stirmrlus stories.

These story stems are only a few sentences long. In each of the
stinnrlus stories, a negative feeling is expressed toward a person or group.
Each story was followed by a set of three explanations as to why this
feeling is being stimulated. Subjects are instructed to rank order the three
explanations in terms of which one “jumps out” at them as being the most
likely. They place a “1,” “2,” or “3” in the space provided in front of each
explanation. This design is intended to capture the hypothesized feelings of
jealousy that will be chosen more ﬁ'equently in the experimental group than
in the control group. The jealousy responses, their position varied
amongst the three choices, were coded in terms of which position arbjects
chose to place it in. For instance, if they indicated that the jealousy
explanation was the most likely by placing a “1” in ﬁont of that response,

that is scored with the highest possible point (i.e., 2). Ifthey ranked the

39

jealousy item in the second position by placing a “2,” it was coded with a
weaker score of 1. An item was scored 0 if it was placed in the last or “3”
position. The arm of the 4 jealousy items form the Jealousy Scale score,
the minimum score being 0 and the maxinnrm score being 8.

This projective test, albeit limited because it involves a forced-
choice response format, is being used in lieu of a subjective reporting. In
accordance with the “projective hypothesis,” employing a story completion
task is important in order to capture less conscious feelings with little
awareness on the part of the subject (Rabin, 1981). The direct questioning
of objective measures are more likely to cause subjects to deny prejudicial
motives.

Pilot Study of Jealousy Story Stems

Pilot studies of the Jealousy Story Stems were performed to
determine the suitability of various story stems. Items were selected based
on the relative breadth of their responses. Subjects were drawn from the
undergraduate subject pool A within subjects design was performed using
the administration of both the minority stories and the exact control stories
for each subject. A few subjects commented that the study was obviously
testing whether or not they were prejudiced; one subject angrily refused to
answer on this basis. For this reason, the within subjects design was
abandoned for a between subjects design. This latter group comprised a
total of 345 arbjects, 179 in the experimental condition and 166 in the
control condition. The experimental condition Story Stems comprised of
four scenarios which identiﬁed a minority group member as the stimuhrs

The control group Story Stems were comprised of the exact same

40

acmarios except they did not identify the stirnuhrs person or group of
people as being minority members.

A ton-retea reliability analysis (Pearson product moment
correlation) was performed on 20 subjects exactly ﬁve weeks apart.
Subjects were all MSU students who either vohmteered or were given
extra credit for their participation. A test-retest correlation of the Jealousy
Scale was signiﬁcant at the p<.001, r= .83 indicating adequate reliability.
An internal consistency (alpha) test was not applicable for this scale
because it is an ipsative scale. However, the summing across all four
allows us to look at the aggregate score as meaningful

A validity check of the Jealousy Story Stem scale was performed
The scale was presented to 7 graduate students in Clinical Psychology.
They were instructed to indicate which of the three response options for
each scenario is indicative of jealousy, envy, or rivalry as the primary

motive. Agreement was 100% for all scenarios among all raters.

RESULTS
11 .. S ..

Descriptive statistics for independent variables and dependent
variables are presented. A subset of 132 participants were used in
calculating questions concerning sibship size. This smaller sample size was
due to an error in the ﬁrst distribution of questionnaires in which the
question about number of Siblings was ambiguously worded. Among these
132 participants, roughly 40% reported being the eldest born, 24% middle
children, 33% yormgest, and only 5% reported being the only child in their
family. Total number of siblings in the farm’ly ranged from 1 to 11 with a
mean of 3.3 and a modal average of 2 children per family. For more
statistics pertaining to birth order, number of times displaced by siblings,
and family size, the interested reader can ﬁnd detailed tables in Appendix F.

In general, subjects responded quite positively to questions on the
Personal Questionnaire (Appendix B) pertaining to their relationship with
each parent. The items asked subjects the extart to which they felt they
received enough love and affection ﬁom each parent and the extent to
which they felt each. parent favored other siblings over them On a scale of
1 to 7 with 1 representing the most favorable response, the mean ranged
from 2 to 3, but the modal response was 1 overall. Many arbjects rated
their relationships with their mothers and fathers and sibling preference in
an extremely favorably manner. While the distribution of these items was
skewed, there was sufﬁcient variance to utilize in meaningful statistical

41

42

analyses. Detailed descriptive statistics for these items on the Personal
Questionnaire can be found in Appendix G. In addition, Appendix G
displays inter-correlations among items.

The dependent variables used in this study are the measures for
narcissism, jealousy, and racism. The O’Brien Multiphasic Narcissism
Inventory (OMNI) was grouped by a total OMNI score and the three
subtypes, type 1, II, and 111 Table 4 below provides a comparison between
the descriptive statistics for the OMNI for this sample and compares these
to the college student sample used by O’Brien to norm his data on a
college student sample. Also ﬁ'om O’Brien’s study, the means and
standard deviations of a clinical sample are provided. These data suggest
that the clinical sample clearly score above the two non-clinical samples on
all three sub-types of narcissism. See Welowitz (1991) for similar ﬁndings.

IABLEA
OMNT Means and Standard Deviations

 

 

IQIAL lapel Israeli Imam
man ssl mean_sd__mean_sd_mean__sd
A 16.80 5.08 5.64 2.49 7.22 2.48 3.95 1.89

5.72 3.37 5.90 2.99 3.92 2.1.4
11.23 2.87 11.23 2.87 7.81 1.73

 

A = study sample (F542)
B = O’Brien’s college sample (n=256)
C = clinical sample (n=230)

43

The four items comprising the Jealousy Scale were added together
for a single composite score ranging ﬂour 0 to 8. Amongst the 345 valid
responses to this test, the mean was 4.5 and the standard deviation was 1.7.
These responses appear to be normally distributed

The Jealousy Scale was administered in male and female versions to
345 participants; 179 of these participant received the minority scenarios,
and 166 received the control scenarios. Subjects were instructed to rank-
order each response option by placing a l, 2, or 3 next to each (See
Appendix C for the instrument including all versions). Responses to the
four items of the Jealousy Scale are listed in Appendix H. Before each item
is a breakdown, in percentages, of the distribution of responses; these
percentages reﬂect responses ﬁ‘om subjects in both the experimental and
control conditions. For simplicity, however, the actual amateurs
displayed in the table are ﬁ'om the female minority version. Later, statistical
analyses are applied to test the speciﬁc hypothesized differences.

Table 5 displays the relevant statistics for the Modern Racism
Scale, with a breakdown by race. The data are normally distributed with a
skew less than .44 for each racial subgroup. These statistics show that
Caucasians, as well as other non-Black minorities have a signiﬁcantly
higher racism score as compared to the Aﬁican-American respondents
(1:8.29, .df=612, p<.001 and 1:5.16, df=106, p<.001 respectively). This
ﬁnding would be expected given that a majority, though not all, of the
questions on the MRS speciﬁcally ask about racism. towards Aﬁican-

Americans.

IABJJLS

Statistics for Modern Racism Scale

 

 

W5 N Mew
Total 668 18.95 5.17
Caucasians 556 19.54 5.02
Aﬁican-Americans 58 13.91 3.85

Other Minorities 50 18.16 4.71

 

*range=7-35

45

Hypothesis Tests

HYPOTHESIS 1: { Subjects presented with a story stem completion task
which includes a minority group member will be more likely to respond
with feelings of jealousy, as measured by the sum of the jealousy items,
than control subjects whose stories do not contain minority group
identiﬁcation}

Table 6 provides a T-Test for independent samples assessing
whether statistically signiﬁcant differences occur between the control group
and experimental group. The results indicate no statistically signiﬁcant
difference between the two groups. Consequently, this hypothesis was not

supported

IABLEJ
T-Test for Control and Experimental Groups

Scores on Jealousy Scale

 

Group N Mean SD t-value df 2-Tai1 Sig
pvalue

control 166 4.39 1.636
-1.23 343 .218

minority 179 4.61 1.716

 

HY POTHESIS 2: { Individuals who have been displaced more often by
the birth of younger siblings will exhibit more prejudice, as measured by the
Modern Racism Scale. This relationship should be positive}

Results of the regression analysis for racism scores with number of
times displaced are presented in Table 7. This analysis shows that a

statistically signiﬁcant amount of the variance in the distribution of racism

46

scores is accormted for by the ﬁequency with which one is displaced by
siblings. By deﬁnition, sibship size is signiﬁcantly, positively related to
number of times displaced by siblings Therefore, a regression analysis was
performed contrasting racism scores with sibship size to rule out that
fannTy size was not accounting for a substantial amount of the variance in
racism scores. Results ﬁ'om this regression analysis are also shown in
Table 7. Although sibship size and number of times displaced are
signiﬁcantly correlated (F .68; n= 109; p<.001), total sibship size, per se,
does not account signiﬁcantly for the amount of variance in the racism

scores. This hypothesis was supported.

IABLEJ

Regression Analysis for Racism Scores With Number of Times Displaced
and Sibship Size (N=109 Caucasians)

 

 

Variable Beta Weight an R2 1:“
DISPLACEMENT .784 .33 .05 560*
srasrnp SIZE .474 .293 .024 2.62

 

a = indicates test for change in R2
* = p< .05
df= (1,106)

47

HYPOTHESIS 3: { Subjects with higher prejudice scores, as measured by
the Modern Racism Scale, will report having felt less loved by their parents
according to items derived from the Personal Questionnaire ('L e. Ratings of
Parents Affection - M1 and F]).}

Table 8 presents Pearson product moment correlation coefﬁcients.
Subjects who reported feeling they received less love and affection ﬁom
their parents (M1 and F1.) did not exhibit higher racism scores. This
hypothesis was not supported.

In this analysis, since a directional hypothesis was made, a one-
tailed test of signiﬁcance was used. Only subjects who identiﬁed
themselves as Caucasian were used in. computing this analysis and all others

in which, the Modern Racism Scale was used (unless otherwise speciﬁed).

TABLE 8
Pearson Correlations for Racism and Ratings of Parents Affection (1)

and Favoring Siblings (2)*

M1 M2 F1 F2
RACISM .015 .053 -.027 .039
N= 556 SW 548 510
P VALUES .36 .117 .66 .19
* M/Fl =Ingeneral doyoufeel Myougotmoughloveandaﬂ‘ectim from
your mother/father?

M/F 2 = In general do you feel that your mother/father favored one or more of
your siblings over you?

48

HYPOTHESIS 4: {Subjects with higher prejudice scores, as measured by
the Modern Racism Scale, will report having felt less preferred by their
parents as compared to their siblings, according to items derived from the
Personal Questionnaire (i.e.Ratings of Parents Favoring Siblings - M2 and
F2).}

The results of these correlations are presented in Table 8 also.
Subjects who reported feeling less preferred over their siblings by their
parents do not exhibit higher racism scores. This hypothesis is not
supported.

HYPOTHESIS 5: { Subjects' narcissism scores, as measured by O'Brien's
Multiphasic Narcissism Inventory (OMNI), will correlate positively and
signiﬁcantly with scores on racism, as measured by the Modern Racism
Scale}

Higher racism scores correlated signiﬁcantly with total OMNI as
well as with OMNI types I and I] as shown in Table 9 below. Scores of
Caucasian subjects are shown separately from scores of all subjects taken

together. This hypothesis was supported.

IABLEQ

Pearson Correlations For OMNI and Racism Scores

W

RACISM Caucasians (450) .1623" .1185“ .1581" .0705
AllSubjects(538) .1511b .1293“ .1389“ .0527

°=p<.01
b=p<.001

49

12W
Although no hypotheses were made regarding age and sex differences in

relation to the dependent measure, some exploratory analyses were performed.
To assess possible gender differences, T-tests for independent samples were
done for scores on racism (MRS), narcissism (OMNI), Jealousy Story Stems,
and Ratings of Parents Affection and Favoring Siblings (M1, M2, F1, F2).
These ﬁndings are displayed in Table 10. below. Gender differences were found
only amongst racism scores, as measured by the Modern Racism Scale. Males

racism scores were signiﬁcantly higher than those of females (alpha < .05).

TABLE 10
T-tests Comparing Sex Differences Amongst Dependent Measures

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable 3%. ﬂ Mean SD t-value df [Ll/M
2-611 sig

MRS M 200 19.66 5.27
F 467 18.64 5.10 2.35 665 019*

OMNI M 157 16.57 5.13
F 385 16.90 5.07 - .69 540 .491

JEALOUSY M 108 4.26 1.56
F 237 4.62 1.72 -1.86 343 .064

M1 M 203 1.98 1.25
F 469 2.12 1.52 -1.19 670 .235

M2 M 187 2.15 1.65
F 429 2.27 1.66 - .97 614 .333

F1 M 201 3.17 1.88
F 457 3.05 2.02 .73 656 .463

F2 M 184 2.49 1.93
F 419 2.33 1.82 .98 601 .329

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*p < .05

50

Age was also considered with respect to the dependent measures
although no Speciﬁc hypotheses were made. Table 11 below displays these
ﬁndings in a correlation matrix using Pearson. The Ratings of Parents
Affection (M 1 and M 2 for mother and father respectively) and Favoring
Siblings (F1 and F2 for mother and father respectively) correlate Significantly
with age of subject (p < .01). This means that the older the subjects were, the
less they felt their parents provided enough love and affection and the less they

felt preferred by each parent when compared to their siblings.

TABLE 1]
Correlation Matrix for Age and Dependent Measures
0_Mﬂ MRS. EAL M1 M2. F_1 El
AGE -.053 -.059 -.098 .196 .154 .219 .148

N = (540) 664 344 669 613 655 601
p= .217 .130 .068 .000 .000 .000 .000

DISCUSSION

The present study examined some psychodynamic meanings of prejudice.
The results pertaining to the theory that jealousy is a motivator of prejudice
were mixed. Jealousy responses as a motivator of prejudice in a story completion
task did not differentiate control ﬁom minority scenarios. Self-reporting of the

amount of love received by parents and sibling rivalry did not correlate with racism

Scores either. If these ﬁndings are valid, it would suggest that the jealousy
theory of prejudice is not tenable. The ﬁnding that sibling rank is apparently
related to racism prevents a total dismissal of this theory, however, because
sibling rank can be thought of as an indirect measure of jealousy. The number
of times an individual was displaced by siblings was derived from Sterba’s
(1947) theory that hostility toward racial outgroups may be a displaced reaction
to one’s rivalry with siblings.

The second general hypothesis that narcissism is related to racist beliefs
and feelings was also supported. This general ﬁnding suggests that there is a
relationship between the personality characteristics of narcissism and the
tendency toward prejudiwd drinking, although the precise nature of this

relationship can only be speculated.

51:5

52

This study found that racism scores increased with the number of times
participants were displaced by the birth of yormger siblings. Sibling rank, or more
speciﬁcally, number of times displaced by siblings, was used as an indirect measure
of jealousy. Based on Freud’s theory, the assumption is that feelings of rivalry and
jealousy are produced and intensiﬁed with the birth of each new brother of sister.
This sense of being displaced and the painful jealousy is presumably carried on into
one’s adult life, that it manifests in various social contexts. Consistent with
Sterba’s (1947) observation, racist feelings and beliefs are apparently related to
birth order. However, these speculations have not been empirically tested
previously.

These ﬁndings suggest that the defense mechanism. displacement3 needs
more serious consideration as a determinant of prejudice. Displacement as a
defense mechanism could be said to be operating insofar as one’s early rivalrous
objects in childhood are displaced in minority group members whose struggles for
equality may unconsciously remind one of early rivalry with siblings. This sibling
rivalry, and the accompanying feelings of resentment, hostility, and wanting to limit
their maturation and capacity to compete with us, is refueled and enacted in our

interpersonal relations with out-group members.

 

3 Because the word “displacement” appears in this study in the context of the
number of times displaced by the birth of new siblings and operates as a signiﬁcant
independent variable, it needs to be pr0per1y distinguished from the general
defense mechanism displacemmt (reviewed on page 13) to which this measure is
related. To avoid conﬁrsion, displacement as the defense mechanism will be
referred to as such henceforth in the text.

53

One caveat to consider in. relation to the ﬁnding that sibling rank is related
to racism is that jealousy is assumed to be the most salient moderating variable
amongst all possible variables that operate in terms of being displaced by siblings.
This is a test of Sterba’s theory. Other theories might predict that different
characteristics related to being amongs the eldest born such as having an increased
sense of responsibility, more independence, for instance, may be operating as
determinants of prejudice.

“111.111.11155

Several possible pitfalls in methodology should be considered in relation to
the results pertaining to the Jealousy Story Stems (i.e. that responses indicating
feelings of jealousy did not differentiate minority from control stories as a whole).
First, this study utilized only four scenarios in the interest of keeping the survey
relatively brief. A greater number of scenarios may have provided greater
variation in responding and hence revealed possible differences if any exist in the
population. Second, the forced- choice format of the story completion task used in
this study may have greatly limited the range of responses which could have been
given. in an open-ended format. Expressions of jealousy may have emerged in. a
less structured format. That is, the classic story completion method that requires
subjects to write story endings of any length Ifdifferences between one’s
responses to minority vs. non-minority members exist, an open-ended story
completion may have captured such differences more effectively than the one

employed in this inveﬁigation. Another way to expand response possibilities while

54

maintaining a forced-choice format would have been to provide greater than three

response choices.

 

The hypothesis that self-reported parental love and affection would predict
racism was not supported. These findings are inconsistent with several researchers
(e. g. Stephen & Rosenfeld, 1978; Triandis & Triandis, 1962). Participants were
also asked about the degree to which they believed their parents had shown
favoritism to other siblings, a related question. It was assumed that sibling rivalry
and jealousy would be products of having felt that one’s parents favored other
siblings. This measure, however, did not correlate with racism scores as was
predicted. On the other hand, the OMNI did correlate with racism scores. Since
measures of narcissism are theorectially derived from the idea that narcissism is a
product, by and large, of a deﬁciency of parental affection, there is an apparent
inconsistency in these results.

A dichotomy between conscious and unconscious layers of experience
may help explain this inconsistency. A similar discrepancy between what was
reported superﬁcially and what was discovered after using indirect measures and
deeper probing was noted in Adorno, et. al.’s (1950/ 1964) study of highly
intolerant people. The authors observed in those with highly racist proﬁles that
some were open about having had cold, punitive parents and having felt
deprived in childhood. However, many more were idealistic in their initial self-

reporting of their parents. The authors speculated that these individuals had

55

developed defensive, idealized images of their parents; this proﬁle was unlike
non-prejudiced personalities. Similarly, Frenkel-Brunswik’s (1946) study of
anti-Semitic college women showed that, on the surface, bigoted students
possessed happy, charming, and well-adjusted personalities. Further clinical
probing and projective testing found underlying hostility, intense anxiety, and
hatred of their parents. The tolerant students did not have this split between
conscious and unconscious layers. However, interviewer bias has been a
criticism of these Studies Since interviewers had prior knowledge of subjects’
prejudice scores (Dillehay, 1978).

If there is any validity to the dichotomous pattern between conscious and
unconscious data, insofar as the measures employed in this investigation truly
capture conscious and unconsious material, it might help explain why
hypotheses 3 and 4 in the current study were not supported. These hypotheses
involved subjective self-reporting about the extent to which participants felt they
had received enough love and affection from each of their parents. As
mentioned, the range of responses to these questions were extremely skewed
with the modal response representing the most idealistic. One could speculate
that, for some people, this idealism may be a general defensiveness about
deeply personal and conflictual issues, representing the kind of cleavage
between conscious and unconscious feelings described in the previous Studies.

The maturity level of participants is another aspect worth considering

with regard to why these two hypotheses were not supported. This speculation

56

is supported by the fact that age of participants was the only variable affecting
this pattern of responses (Table 11). Younger participants were more positive
than older participants in reporting their views about their parents. Older
individuals tended to select more negative responses to the questions about the
extent to which they felt they received “enough love and affection” fiom each
parent and the extent to which they felt each parent had shown more favoritism
toward other siblings. On the other hand, maturity may not have anything to do
with the age differences. A possible cohort effect or actual differences in parental

behavior may account for this pattern in the ﬁndings.

What can be said about narcissism and racism?

 

The signiﬁcant correlation between narcissism scores and racism scores
suggests various interpretations. Perhaps narcissistic vulnerabilities create
racists attitudes. Another way to view the relationship is thus: narcissism, as
derived from etiological factors related to unempathic parenting, serves as a
moderator of prejudice. This way of conceiving this correlational relationship
assumes that there are a third set of factors (i.e. empathic failures in childhood,
grandiose defenses, the need to control others, etc.) which lead to both
prejudiced views and narcissistic character development. Since the theory
behind narcissistic pathology suggests early failures in object relationships, the
same etiological factors can be said to be responsible for racism. The early
research on ethnocentrism found certain unconscious dynamics and early family

relations to be predictive of the highly intolerant.

57

This study’s operational deﬁnition of narcissism should be considered in
furthering discussion of it’s theoretical link with racism. Narcissism, in this
study was deﬁned by the OMNI, a scale divided into three subtypes: narcissistic
entitlement, controlling, and “narcissistically abused.” AS reported, while
overall OMNI scores correlated with racism scores, only OMNI subtypes I and
II also correlated signiﬁcantly with racism scores. OMNI subtype 111 did _r_r_o_t
correlate with racism scores. This suggests that a conservative approach to
understanding the link between narcissism and racism is warranted. A closer
look at these speciﬁc subtypes of narcissism in light of the proposed theoretical
link with racism might elucidate its relationship with racism. In doing so,
however, we need to consider that while these subtypes are presented in an
isolated fashion, they are obviously interrelated.

Type 1, the “narcissistic personality,” represents the dynamics related to
entitlement, exhibitionism, and exploitation. This dimension was based on the
observation that narcissistic-like behavior appeared to be based on individuals
who are thought to have little empathy and who lack of a sense of reciprocity in
relationships. This dimension probably reflects the basic failures in mirroring
more than the others and is reminiscent of the cold parenting described by those
who are highly intolerant (Ackerman & Jahoda, 1950; Adomo, et. al.,
1950/1964; Bettelheim & Janowitz, 1964; Frenkel-Brunswik & Sanford, 1947 ;

Triandis & Triandis, 1962).

58

The exploitative, entitled aspect of narcissism is linked to envy and a
sense of deprivation. The envy, once again, constitutes the aggressive urge
produced by a sense of having felt deprived in early relationships (Kemberg,
1974‘, 1975). Again, these dynamics were recorded by several of the early
researchers of ethnocentric personalities (Ackerman, 1965; Adorno, et. al.,
1950/1964; Bettelheim & Janowitz, 1964; Frenkel-Brunswik & Sanford, 1947;
Triandis & Triandis, 1962; Weatherley, 1963). As noted by Ackerman (1965)
especially, the highly intolerant have characteristic relationships with others that
are “ﬂeeting or superﬁcial and exploitative.” More recently, in a theoretical
essay, Elizabeth Young-Bruehl (1993) has suggested that narcissism plays an
important role in the expression of some types of prejudice.

Type 11 reﬂects the excessively controlling attitude and a sense of
perfectionism seen in narcissistic pathology. This dimension, the “poisonous
pedagogy dimension,” was named such because of the narcissistic parenting
described by Miller (1979). These parents were described as being overly
concerned with a sense that children should be controlled, dominated, and not
permitted to fail. The controlling, punitive parenting found in the proﬁles of
the high F-scorers in the authoritarian research is consistent with this subtype of
narcissism. The personality feature involving the control of others is one of the
conspicuous cornerstones of the early research on racism. Hence the term
authoritarian personality. The sense of needing to control others and Striving

for perfectionism is derived from the excessive superego demands internalized

59

by children who are subjected to the cold and punitive early environments. This
phenomena can be thought to be related to the lack of empathy which. is
reﬂected in Type 1 above.

‘ Type III, the “narcissistically abused personality,” reﬂects the dynamics
related to excessive shame, low self-esteem, and excessive idealization of
others. This subtype is generally the ”opposite” of Type I which captures the
unempathic, exploitative aspect of narcissism. Miller (1979) suggests that these
two styles are really different Sides of the same underlying wound: narcissistic
grandiosity is a defense against low self-esteem and depression and need to
idealize others is a result of the early loss of an idealizable self/other.

This dimension, as measured by the OMNI Type 111, did not correlate by
itself with racism scores. While a Speciﬁc prediction about each subtype was
not made, it is nevertheless inconsistent with the overall theoretical hypothesis.
Given the observations that highly intolerant individuals possess low self-esteem
and overly idealize others, it is a somewhat surprising result. It appears,
therefore, that racist attitudes are more consistent with defensive grandiosity,
exploitativeness, and the need to control others than with the more shameful,
ideal izing aspects of narcissistic pathology.

Criticism

While this investigation focused on jealousy and narcissism as roughly

separate as predictors of prejudice, theoretically they are related. As Freud

noted, the ego is insatiable in its demands for gratiﬁcation. It would seem that

 

60

the more intense rivalry to which one is subjected, the greater deprivation and
sense of narcissistic injury would be experienced. This may be true in general.
However, the data in this study investigating the extent to which each may
predict racism scores suggest that they are not synonymous. Narcissism scores
predict racism; sibling rank also appears to be related to racism. However, sibling
rank and narcissism are not related to each other as might have been expected.
The pattern of responses suggests that narcissism and the dynamics associated 'with

birth order are not necessarily related, that each is contributing something unique

as a moderator of racism.

ln general, one of the most interesting conclusions that can be made
about the ﬁnding that narcissism is related to prejudice is a reiteration of what
Gordon Allport stated 40 years ago. Allport (1954) thought of the highly
intolerant as deeply insecure individuals who used their prejudicial attitudes as a
“crutch” to cope with their fragility. “It is not his speciﬁc social attitudes that
are malformed to start with; it is rather his own ego that is crippled” (p. 396).
The crippled ego of the narcissist can be recognized in the irrationality, the
hostility, the unbending and narrow judgment of highly intolerant individuals.
According to narcissistic personality theorists, a distorted, unempathic view of
others is derived from the internalized images of self and other. To the
narcissitically injured individual, that internalized other began as a real other in

the form of an unempathic parent. Insofar as empathy serves to bind us

 

61

together by emphasizing similarities, lack of empathy then would lead to an
emphasis on intolerance and superﬁcial differences.

Some limitations of the present study are worth mentioning. The type of
population used in this investigation certainly limits the general izabil ity of the
ﬁndings. The sample of participants used in this investigation were
predominantly 18-20 years old. The overall homogeneity of the sample,
especially age, limits generalizing any conclusions to the general population. A
more heterogeneous sample of respondents would provide greater validity of the
ﬁndings. In addition to viewing the homogeneity of age as a possible
explanation for the non-supported ﬁndings, it need also be considered with
respect to the positive ﬁndings.

Problems with self-report data require mentioning as a possible
limitation. In light of the highly personal judgments subjects were asked to
make, problems with social desirability/defensiveness limit valid interpretation
of those results.

Another issue of generalizability has to do with the racial composition of
the participants. A vast majority of them were Caucasian. One dependent
measure, the Modern Racism Scale, is essentially used as a test of White
racism. It would not be valid to say that those factors which predicted or did

not predict prejudice in this study would necessarily apply to racial or other

62

minorities. It is not clear whether Black racism, for instance, is moderated by
narcissism or birth order.
Directions for fumre reﬂch

This study looked at racism. Racism is one among many forms of
prejudice. Ethnocentrism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and others are
familiar terms that can be viewed under one umbrella of prejudice. Is there a
generalized prejudice attitude that applies to all outgroup members as per
Allport? Would narcissism scores correlate with other forms of prejudice such
as sexism, “homophobia,” or ethnocentrism? Elizabeth Young-Bruehl (.1993)
argues that there are various pathological defensive modes which motivate
different forms of prejudice, that “prejudice is not a single phenomenon (albeit
with plural manifestations and plural causes) and that there is no Single
prejudiced personality type” (p. 67). Contrary to the notion proposed by Allport
(1,954) that prejudice is a generalized attitude, Young-Bruehl asserts that
ethnocentrism, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. are forms of prejudice that
can be differentiated from each other in terms of their pathological defensive
functioning.

For instance, she views white racism as a manifestation of a hysterical
defense. The animosity aimed at Blacks, she asserts involves blatant and subtle
projections and extemalizations of sexual conﬂict which take on the dynamics of
a hysterical defense. The ethnic cleansing movements she views as the

“obsessional prejudices” which are “marked, clinically, by extreme

63

intellectualimtion and dissociation of affectnthey are cerebral and cold
blooded.” Narcissism, she believes, operates in the expression of ethnocentrism
insofar as it involves the need to invoke inter-group differences and debase the
other. If a theory of this kind were true, we would need to consider the
generalizability of this study’s ﬁndings about racism in terms of other forms of
prejudice. How might narcissistic pathology be a moderator of other forms of
prejudice? Future research separating out the various forms of prejudice and
their relationship to various pathological styles of relating to others would
broaden our understanding of prejudice.

In light of the ﬁnding supporting sibling rivalry as a predictor of racism,
it may be helpful to test whether other forms of jealousy contribute to prejudice.
Most notably, Oedipal rivalry has been suggested as an unconscious motivator
of racial tension and hostility. Male racism against the Black male in particular
has been considered, certainly assumed by many, to be fueled by unconscious
sexual jealousy. A measure of sexual rivalry, separated out from general
rivalry or sibling rivalry in particular, and racism might serve to help verify
this strongly held bias among psychodynamic theorists. It would also broaden
our understanding of the extent to which the defense mechanism displacement is
operating in racist personalities. In other words, does any form of rivalry
experienced in early childhood create displaced hostility toward outgroup

members?

64

The gender differences found in regard to racism scores may be worth
further investigation as well. With males in this study scoring signiﬁcantly
higher than females on racism, other predictors of prejudice hypothesized thus
far may be moderated by gender.

Further research is needed to broaden an understanding of the possible
causal pathways from jealousy and narcissism to racism, and the inter-
relationship among racism, narcissism, and sibling rank. One potential research
endeavor could be to ferret out jealousy as just one aspect of the effects of being
early-born from other general vulnerabilities that also may contribute to
intolerance of out-groups. For instance, the elder born children may be more
authoritarian in general. This would make sense in light of the relatively
greater demands and responsibilities often placed on earlier born children.
Investigating other possible personality variables associated with being ﬁrst-born
seems valuable given the ﬁndings in this study that birth order may inﬂuence

the development of intolerance towards outgroups members.

APPENDICES

 

65

APPENDIX A: CONSENT FORM

This is a study investigating some aspects of normal personality
development. It uses a two short tests, a short questionnaire about your
family, and three short multiple choice questions.

Your participation is completely vohrntary. If you choose to not
participate at any time, you are free to do so. No identifying information
will be collected other than your sex and age. Your answers will be
conﬁdential and anonymous.

Ifyou decide to participate, please sign and date this statement. It
should take no more than 20 minutes to complete this packet. Your
participation beneﬁts psychological research. If you have any questions or
comments, please contact me:

Shasha Camaj

Room 4, Olds Hall
Michigan State University
355-9564

NAME DATE

 

 

66

APPENDIX B:
PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Age:_ Gender: Race: Caucasian _ African-American__

Hispanic _ Asian-Amer. _ Other _
Did you grow up with both a mother and a father living with you for at least the
ﬁrst ﬁve years of your life? Ifnot, please disregard the questions that do
not pertain to you.

Number of children in your fannTy? (including yourself and all brothers and sisters
and any step- or half-siblings who lived with you)

Please list, IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER, the brothers and sisters in your
fann'ly, include yourself in the lines provided below.

For example, if your are the third of four children and have two older brothers
and one younger sister, you would write:

bto’cker
.mathel;
me
sister

 

 

 

(add more lines on back if needed)
For the following questions, please circle the number below the question that best
approximates your feelings.
In general, do you feel that you got enough love and affection from your mother?

more than enough deﬁnitely not enough
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Do you feel that your mother favored one or more of your siblings over
you? (Skip if you were an only child)

not at all very much so

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In general, do you feel that you got enough love and affection from your father?
more than enough deﬁnime not enough
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Do you feel that your father favored one or more of your siblings over
you? (Skip if you were an only child)

not at all very much so

I 2 3 4 5 6 7

67

APPENDIX C: STORY STEMS
(CONTROL VERSION)

FEMALE VERSION

Please read the following brief stories. After each story, there are three
different responses to the question at the end of the story. Read each of the
three responses. Then, rank order them in terms Of which ones " jump out at
you” the most. Put a '1 " next to the letter of the response that seems most
likely; put a "2" next to the second most likely response; put a "3" next to the
least likely response.

For instance, in the example below, letter B) is ranked as the most likely; letter
C) is the next most likely; and letter A) is ranked last.

Q A)

l B)

3: C)

1. Mary Jackson is a 22-year-old college senior who is studying American
history. She is graduating next semester and is prepared to begin her new
career as a teacher. Women generally dislike her; she has no close female
friends. WHY?

A) Mary is a shallow and untntstworthy person who is prone to talking about
others behind their back.
B) Mary has strange hobbies and is very introverted.

C) Mary is envied by other women because she is bright and very attractive.

II. Mrs. Allison has lived alone for several years. Her nearest and dearest
companion has been her cat, Daisy. In the last few days, Daisy has been acting
strange. She hisses and growls a lot and has not been eating regularly. WHY?

A) Daisy has some kind of illness.
B) Mrs. Allison brought home a new kitten.
C) Mrs. Allison has abruptly changed Daisy 's schedule.

111. Kathy and Bob have been married for ﬁve years. They have one 3-year-old
and have tried unsuccessfully to have another baby. They are drinking about
adopting a child. They havemixed feelings because...

A) they are won'ied about the expenses involved in adoption procedures.

B) they are concerned that their 3-year-old will not welcome a new addition to
the family.
C) they are worried about the unknown genetic makeup of an adopted child.

68

IV. For his creative writing class, Joshua decided to submit a science ﬁction
short story. The plot begins with an alien culture from outer space who decide
to inhabit North America. There are factions in the United States government
who want to promptly destroy the aliens although this is controversial because
some believe the aliens are quite harmless. Why do some want to destroy the
aliens?

___A) Because the aliens have already begun to build colonies and they are
competing with us for the resources of the (mid.

B) Because some believe the aliens may be quite dangerous to Americans.

C) Because there is tremendous economic proﬁt in waging war.

V. Elizabeth is a 25 year-old woman. She and Jackie, an old college roommate,
used to be best friends. They roomed together for four years and took many of
the same courses. After graduation, they were planning to go to Colorado
together on vacation. However, Jackie is now furious at Elizabeth. WHY?

A)Elizabeth spread a rumor about Jackie that has made all of her friends and
relatives very uncomfortable about being around her.

B) Elizabeth stole about $3000 in travelers checks and jewelry from Jackie 's
apartment one summer when Helen was gone.

C) Jackie 's old boyfriend has recently begun dating Elizabeth. Jackie was very
much in love with him at one time.

VI. The Allen family live in a wealthy suburban neighborhood. They have been
very happy until their new neighbors, the Johnson's, moved into their
neighborhood. WHY?

A) Their new neighbors have invaded the once lovely park at the end of the block
which the Allen 's had enjoyed all to themselves.

B) Their new neighbors are very withdrawn and somewhat unfriendly.
C) Their new neighbors are somewhat messy and obnoxious.

69

MALE VERSION

Please read the following brief stories. After each story, there are three
different responses to the question at the end of the story. Read each of the
three responses. Then, rank order them in terms of which ones " jump out at
you” the most. Put a "1 " next to the letter of the response that seems most
likely; put a ”2" next to the second most likely response; put a "3" next to the
least likely response.

For instance, in the example below, letter B) is ranked as the most likely; letter
C) is the next most likely; and letter A) is ranked last.

_.LA)
I B)
LC)

1. Stephen Jackson is a 22-year-old college senior who is studying
American history. He is graduating next semester and ready to begin his
career as a teacher. Men dislike him; he has no close male friends.
WHY?

A) Stephen is a shallow and untmsmorthy person who is prone to talking about
others behind their back.

B) Stephen has strange hobbies and is very introverted.
C) Stephen is envied by other men because he is bright and very good-linking.

11. Mrs. Allison has lived alone for several years. Her nearest and dearest
companion has been her cat, Daisy. In the last few days, Daisy has been
acting strange. She hisses and growls a lot and has not been eating

regularly. WHY?
A) Daisy has some kind of illness.
B) Mrs. Allison brought home a new kitten.

C) Mrs. Allison hm abruptly changed Dairyis schedule.

11]. Kathy and Bob have been married for ﬁve years. They have one 3-year-old
and have tried unsuccessfully to have another baby. They are thinking
about adopting a child. They have mixed feelings because...

A) they are worried about the unknown genetic makeup of an adopted child

B) they are concerned that their 3-year-old will not welcome a new addition to the
family.

C) they are worried about the expenses involved in adoption procedures.

70

IV. For his creative writing class, Joshua decided to submit a science ﬁction
short story. The plot begins with an alien culture from outer space who
decide to inhabit North America. There are factions in the United States
government who want to promptly destroy the aliens although it is
controversial because some believe the aliens are quite harmless. Why do
some want to destroy the aliens?

A) Because the aliens have already begun to build colonies and they are
contacting with us for the resources of the land

B) Because some believe the aliens may be quite dangerous to Americans.

C)Because there is tremendous economic proﬁt in waging war.

V. Fred is a 25 year-old man. He and Roy, an old college roommate, used to
be best friends. They roomed together for four years and took many of the
same courses. After graduation they were planning to go to Colorado
together on vacation. However, Roy is now ﬁrrious at Fred. WHY?

A) Fred spread a rumor about Roy that has made all of his friends and relatives
very uncomfortable about being around him.

B) Fred stole about $3000 in travelers checks and stereo equipment from Roy's
apartment one summer when Roy was gone.

C) Roy’s old girlfriend hm recently begun dating Fred Roy was very much in love
with her at one time.

VI. The Allen fannTy live in a wealthy suburban neighborhood. They have been
very happy until their new neighbors, the Johnson's, moved into their
neighborhood. WHY?

A) Their new neighbors have invaded the once lovely park at the end of the block
which the Allen's had enjoyed all to themselves.

B) Their new neighbors are my withdrawn and somewhat unfriendly.

C) Their new neighbors are somewhat messy and obnoxious.

 

71

STORY ST‘EMS
(MINORITY VERSION)

FEMALE VERSION

Please read the following brief stories. After each story, there are three
different responses to the question at the end of the story. Read each of the
three responses. Then, rank order them in terms of which ones " jump out at
you" the most. Put a '1' next to the letter Of the response that seems most
likely; put a "2" next to the second most likely response; put a ”3" next to the
least likely response.

For instance, in the example below, letter B) is ranked as the most likely; letter

C) is the next most likely; and letter A) is ranked last.

_&_A)

I B)

_?_C)

l. Teresa Gonzalez is a 22-year-old college senior who is studying Latin
American history. She is graduating next semester and is prepared to
begin her new career as a teacher. Women generally dislike her; she has
no close female friends. WHY?

A) Teresa is a shallow and untrustworthy person who is prone to talking about
others behind their back.

B) Teresa has strange hobbies and is very introverted.

C) Teresa is envied by other women because she is bright and very attractive.

[1. Mrs. Allison has lived alone for several years. Her nearest and dearest
companion has been her cat, Daisy. 1n the last few days, Daisy has been
acting strange. She hisses and growls a lot and has not been eating
regularly. WHY?

A) Daisy has some kind of illness.
B) Mrs. Allison brought home a new kitten.
C) Mrs. Allison has abruptly changed Daisy 's schedule.

11]. Nicholas and Grace have been married for ﬁve years. They have one 3-
year-Old and have tried unsuccessfully to have another baby. They are
thinking about adopting a child from India. They have mixed feelings

A) they are worried about the expenses involved in adoption procedures.

B) they are concerned that their 3-year-old will not welcome a new addition to
the family.

C) they are worried about the unknown genetic makeup of an adopted child.

IV.

72

For his creative writing class, Joshua decided to submit a science ﬁction
short story. The plot begins with an alien culture from outer space who
decide to inhabit North America. There are factions in the United States
government who want to promptly destroy the aliens although this is
controversial because some believe the aliens are quite harmless. Why
do some want to destroy the aliens?

A) Because the aliens have already begun to build colonies and they are

competing with us for the resources of the land.

B) Because some believe the aliens may be quite dangerous to Americans.

C) Because there is tremendous economic proﬁt in waging war.

Yolanda is a 25 year-Old Black woman. She and Helen, an Old college
roommate, used to be best friends. They roomed together for four years
and took many Of the same courses. After graduation, they were
planning to go tO Colorado together on vacation. However, Helen is
now furious at Yolanda. WHY?

A) Yolanda spread a rumor about Helen that has made all of her friends and

relatives very uncomfortable about being around her.

B) Yolanda stole about $3000 in travelers checks and jewelry ﬁom Helen 's

apartment one summer when Helen was gone.

C) Helen 's old boyfriend has recently begun dating Yolanda. Helen was very

Vl.

much in love with him at one time.

The Roberts family live in a wealthy suburban neighborhood. They
have been very happy until their new neighbors, the Yang's, who
emigrated from China, moved into their neighborhood. WHY?

A) Their new neighbors have invaded the once lovely park at the end of the block

which the Roberts had enjoyed all to themselves.

B) Their new neighbors are very withdrawn and somewhat unﬁ'iendly.
C) Their new neighbors are somewhat messy and obnoxious.

73

MALE VERSION

Please read the following brief stories. After each story, there are three
different responses to the question at the end of the story. Read each of the
three responses. Then, rank order them in terms of which ones " jump out at
you" the most. Put a '1' next to the letter of the response that seems most
likely; put a ”2" next to the second most likely response; put a "3" next to the
least likely response.

For instance, in the example below, letter B) is ranked as the most likely; letter
C) is the next most likely; and letter A) is ranked last.

_3_A)

find

__3)
a

C)

Antonio Gonzalez is a 22-year-old college senior who is studying Latin
American history. He is graduating next semester and is prepared to begin
his new career as a teacher. Men generally dislike him; he has no close
male ﬁiends. WHY?

A) Antonio is a shallow and untrustworthy person who is prone to talking about

others behind their back.

B) Antonio has strange hobbies and is very introverted

C) Antonio is envied by other men because he is bright and very good-looking.

11.

Mrs. Allison has lived alone for several years. Her nearest and dearest
companion has been her cat, Daisy. In the last few days, Daisy has been
acting strange. She hisses and growls a lot and has not been eating

regularly. WHY?

A) Daisy has some kind of illness.
B) Mrs. Allison brought home a new kitten
C) Mrs. Allison has abruptly changed Daisy's schedule.

III.

Nicholas and Grace have been married for ﬁve years. They have one 3-
year-Old and have tried 1msuccessfully to have another baby. They are
thinking about adopting a child ﬁ'om India. They have mixed feelings

because...

A) they are worried about the unbtown genetic makeup of an adopted child
B) they are concerned that their 3-year-old will not welcome a new addition to the

family-

C) they are worried about the expenses involved in adoption procedures.

IV.

74

For his creative writing class, Joshua decided to submit a science ﬁction
short story. The plot begins with an alien culture from outer space who
decide to inhabit North America. There are factions in, the United States
government who want to promptly destroy the aliens although it is
controversial because some believe the aliens are quite harmless. Why do
some want to destroy the aliens?

A) Because the aliens have already begun to build colonies and they are

competing with us for the resources of the lard

B) Because some believe the aliens may be quite dangerous to Americans.

C) Because there is tremendous economic proﬁt in waging war.

V

Thomas is a 25 year-Old Black man. He and John, an old college
roommate, used to be best friends. They roomed together for four years
and took many of the same courses. After graduation they were
planning to go to Colorado together on vacation. However, John is now
furious at Thomas. WHY?

_____A) Thomas spread a rumor about John that has rrrade all of his friends and

relatives very uncomfortable about being around him

_B) Thomas stole about $3000 in travelers checks and stereo equipment from

John 's apartment one summer when John was gone.

C) John 's old girlfriend has recently begun dating Thomas. John was very much

VI.

in love with her at one time.

The Roberts ﬁrmily live in a wealthy suburban neighborhood They have
been very happy until their new neighbors, the Yang's, who emigrated from
China, moved into their neighborhood WHY?

A) Their new neighbors have invaded the once lovely park at the end of the block

which the Roberm' had enjoyed all to themelves.

B) Their new neighbors are very withdrawn and somewhat unfriendly.

C) Their new neighbors are somewhat messy and obnoxious.

75

APPENDIX D:
OMNT

Please answer the following questions by circling either YES or NO. If you
can't decide, please choose the best answer for how you feel. There is no
“right" answer.

Would you rather try to please others than to have
your own way?

. Would you rather give a gift than receive one?

 

DO you ﬁnd it easy to relax in a group?

 

DO you tend to feel like a martyr?

 

1e?
Do you usually find it hard to settle down?

 

DO you tend to get angered by Others?

 

DO you have a tendency to over-react?

 

1
2
3
4
5. glonypu tend to see people as being either great or
6
7
8
9

Are you jealous Of good-looking people?

 

10. DO you tend to be secretive about your personal life?

 

1,1. Dth you pay a lot Of attention to the ﬁnancial matters Of
O ers.

12. DO you think that movie stars have better lives than
you do?

13. DO you try to avoid dramatizing your feelings?

 

14. Does your life deserve special recognition?

 

15. Will your experience greatly guide Others?

 

16. When confused, do you think ofyour mother's wishes
to help you resolve your conﬂict.

17. DO you appreciate ‘people who march to the beat of a
different drummer.

18. DO you avoid rejection at all costs?

 

TS. Do you have fantasies. about being violent Without
knowim why?
20. DO you tend to feeThumiIiated when criticized?

 

21. Do you know how to solve other people's problems?

 

22. Would your secretive acts horrify your friards?

 

~<~<~<~<~<~<~<~<~<~<~<~<~<~<~<~<~<<~<~<~<~<~<
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

23. Po pgople love you for the way you improve their
rves

76

 

24.

Do on find it easier to empathize with your own
mrs ortunes than With those Of others?

 

25.

DO your views of people change back and forth easily?

 

26.

DO you think that sexual intercourse is clean?

 

27.

DO you wonder why people aren't more appreciative
of your goodness?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
28. DO you avoid telling people "what it‘s all about"? Y N
29. Are you a perfectionist? Y N
70. Is seduction the best part Of your sex life? Y N
31. DO you ﬁnd that going through life is like walking on Y N
a tightrope?
32. DO you ﬁnd yourself fantasizing about your greatness? Y N
33. DO you have problems that nobody seems to Y N
understand?
34. Are you clever enough to fool people? Y N
35. DO you worry a lot about your health? Y N
36. DO you expect people who love you to spend money to Y N
show it?
37. Is it important for you to know how other people spend Y N
their time?
38. DO all your friends come from the same mold? Y N
39. Are you especially sensitive to success and failure? Y N
40. If you're tough on others, is it ”for their own good"? Y N
4]. DO you crave attention from Others? Y N

77

APPENDIX E:
SOCIAL ATTITUDE SURVEY

On the pages that follow you will ﬁnd a number of opinion statements
about various social issues. Please indicate the extent to which you agree
or disagree with each statement by circling the number of the scale
underneath each statement that best indicates your opinion. There are no
"right" or "wrong" answers; we are simply interested in your honest
opinions.

1) Sex education should be taught in public school systems in the US.

Strongly Agree Neutral/No Opinion Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

2) Over the past few years, the government and news media have seemed
more concerned about the rights OfAﬁ'ican-Americans than of other

groups.

Strongly Agree Neutral/No Opinion Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

3) The government needs to pass stricter immigration laws.

Strongly Agre Neutral/No Opinion Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

4) We need more women in leadership positions in industry and
government.

Strongly Agree Neutral/No Opinion Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

5) It is easy to understand the anger of African-Americans.

Strongly Agree Neutral/NO Opinion Strongly Disagree
1 2 . 3 4 5

6) I feel that homosexuality is a sin.

Strongly Agree Neutral/No Opinion Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

78

7) Minority groups are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights
Strongly Agree Neutral/No Opinion Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

8) Blacks seem to have more political power to inﬂuence social policy than
other groups.

Strongly Agree Neutral/No Opinion Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

9) Most feminists have no idea what being a woman is really all about.

Strongly Agre Neutral/No Opinion Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

1.0) Discrimination against Aﬁican-Americans is no longer a signiﬁcant
problem in the U. S.

Strongly Agree Neutral/N O Opinion Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

11) Almost all erotic or sexually explicit material should be outlawed.

Strongly Agre Neutral/No Opinion Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

12) Over the past few years, African-Americans have gotten unfair
economic gains due to preferential policies.

Strongly Agre Neutral/No Opinion Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

13) Too many women make their careers more important than their
families.

Strongly Agre Neutral/No Opinion Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

14) I feel that homosexuality should be against the law.

Strongly Agre Neutral/No Opinion Strongly Disagree
1 2 3 4 5

79

15) Racial integration should not be forced where it is not wanted.

Strongly Agree Neutral/No Opinion Strongly Disagree
1. 2 3 4 5

W
Birth Order
(N= 132)
Sibling Rank Frequency Percent
eldest 5 1 38.6
middle 32 24.2
youngest 43 32.6
only child 6 4.5

Number of Times Displaced by Siblings
(N= 132)

NO. of times Cumulative
Displaced Frequency Percent Percent

0 49 37.] 37.1
I 49 37.1 74.2
2 19 14.4 88.6
3 6 4.5 93.2
4 4 3.0 96.2
5 2 1.5 97.7
6 l .8 98.5
7 2 1.5 100.0

Total 132 100.0 100.0

 

81

Statistics for Total Number of Siblings

(N= 132)
“Sibship” Cumulative

] 6 4.5 4.5
2 53 40.2 44.7
3 32 24.2 68.9
4 17 12.9 81.8
5 10 7.6 89.4
6 5 3.8 93.2
7 4 3.0 96.2
8 3 2.3 98.5
10 1 .8 99.2
11 l .8 100.0

Total 132 100.0 100.0

Mean = 3.250

Mode = 2.000

Std. dev. = 1.796

82

AEEEHQIXE

Statistics“ for Ratings of Parent’ Affection (1)
and Parents Favoring Siblings (2)

 

 

Ratings" N Mean Std Dev

Mother (1) 673 2.07 1.44
Father (1) 659 3.08 1.98

 

 

 

Mother (2) 616 2.25 1.66
Father (2) 603 2.38 1.86

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* Range l-7, mode: lin all cases

** Mother/Father l = In general do you feel that you got enough love and
affection from your mother/father?
Mother/ Father 2 = In general do you feel that your mother/father favored one or more
of your siblings over you?

Pearson Correlation Matrix" for Ratings" of Parents Affection (l)

 

and Favoring Siblings (2) (N)
F1 F2 M 1
F2 .4856
(603)
M] .4645 .1905
(659) (603)
M2 .2456 .3220 .4528

(607) (602) (616)

* for all coefﬁcients, p < .001, byatwo-tailedtest

** WF 1 =lngeneral doyoufeel thatyougotenoughloveand
affection from your mother/father?
W 2 = In general do you feel that your mother/father favored one or more

of your siblings over you?

83

W11;
Statistics for Jealousy Scale:

Rank-Ordered Percentages Across ltems*

N: 345

Teresa Gonzalez is a 22-year-old college senior who is studying Latin American history. She is
graduating next semester and is prepared to begin her new career as a teacher. Women generally
dislike her; she has no close female friends. WHY?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.1 2 3

26 28 47 Teresa is a shallow and untrustworthy person who is prone to talking about others
behind their back.

31 48 20 Teresa has strange hobbies and is very introverted.

43 24 33 Teresa is envied by other women because she is bright and very attractive.

 

 

Nicholas and Grace have been married for ﬁve years. They have one 3-year-old and have tried
unsuccessfully to have another baby. They are drinking about adopting a child from India. They
have mixed feelings because...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Z 3

27 34 40 they are worried about the expenses involved in adoption procedures.

44 31 25 they are concerned that their 3-year-old will not welcome a new addition to
the family

30 35 36 they are worried about the unknown genetic makeup of an adopted child

 

 

 

Yolanda is a 25 year-old Black woman. She and Helen, an old college roommate, used to be best
friends. They roomed together for four years and took many of the same courses. After graduation,

they were planning to go to Colorado together on vacation. However, Helen is now furious at Yolanda.

 

 

 

 

WHY?

l 2 3.

14 56 29 Yohtnda spreada runror about Helen that has made all therﬁ'iends and
relatives very uncomfortable about being around her

17 25 58 Yolanda stole about $3000 in travelers checks and jewelry from Helen 's
apartment one summer when Helen was gone

69 1.8 13 Helen 's old boyfriend has recently begun dating Yolanda. Helen was very
much in love with him at one time

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Roberts family live in a wealthy suburban neighborhood. They have been very happy until
their new neighbors, the Yang's, who emigrated from China, moved into their neighborhood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 2

18 29 53 Their new neighbors have invaded the once lovely park at the end of the
block which the Roberts had eru'oyed all to themselves

36 38 25 Their new neighbors are very withdrawn and somewhat unfriendly

45 33 21 Their new neighbors are somewhat messy and obnora'ous

 

 

 

 

84

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ackerman, N. W. (1965). The social psychology of prejudice. Mental Hygiene, 49,
27-35.

Ackerman, N. W. & Jahoda, M. (1950). Anti-Semitism and emotional disorder: A
psychoanalytic interpretation. New York: Harper.

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brlmswik, E., Levinson, D. J’., & Sanford, R. N. (1964).
The authoritarian personality. New York: Wiley Science Editions.

(Originally published, 1950)

Allport, G. W. (1954). MW. Cambridge, Mass: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

Ashmore, R D. & Del Boca, F. K. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes

and stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Eds.,) W
stereotyping and intergroup behavior. (pp. 1-35) Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.

Bettelheim B &JanownL M (1964) Samﬂshmminteiudiscdnchlding
W. New York: The Free Press.

Bird, B. (195 7) A consideration of the etiology of prejudice Journal of the
AmedsanﬁsychnanahaicAssmiatim, 490-513

Bodenhausen, G. V. (1993). Emotions, arousal, and stereotypic judgments. In D.
Mackie & D. Harmlton (Eds. ), Aﬁ‘ect, cognition, and stereotyping. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Butts, H. F. (1971.). Psychoanalysis and unconscious racism. Journal of
Contemporary Psychotherapy, 3(2), 67-81.

Dickens, S. L. & Hobart, C. (1959). Parental dominance and offspring
ethnocentrism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 297-303.

Dillehay, R. C. (1978). Authoritarianism In H London & J. Exner (Eds)
WW (pp. 85- 127). New York: Wiley.

Dovidio, J. F. &Gaertner, S. L. (1986). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism:
Historical trends and contemporary approaches. In J. Dovidio & S.
Gaertner(Eds.,) '1 611-..- ‘ _. _ a ' _ (pp. 1-34). Orlando,
FL: Academic Press.

 

Dovidio, J. F. & Gaertner, S. L. (1991). Changes in the expression and assessment
of racial prejudice. In H J. Knopke, R J. Norrell, & R W.

85

Rogers (Eda), MW
contemporary America (pp. 122-138). Tuscaloosa, Alabama: The
University of Alabama Press.

Dustin, D. S. & Davis, H. P. (1967). Authoritarianism and sanctioning behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 222-224.

Ehrlich, H. J. (1973). W. New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.

Esses, V. M. ,Haddock, G. ,&Zanna, M. P. (1993). Values, stereotypes, and
emotions as determinants of mtergroup attitudes. In D. M. Mackie and D.
L.Hamilton(Eds.), a - ..

 

Fanon, F. (1967). .. . _ - -
mm. New York: Grove Press.

 

Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1946). Personality and prejudice in women. American
Rmholosist, 239-

Frenkel-Brlmswﬂr, E. & Sanford, N. R. (1947). The anti-Semitic personality. The
Yearbook of Psychoanalysis,3, 243-265.

Freud, S. (1955). Totem and taboo. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans), W
edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 13,
pp. 1-162). London: The Hogarth Press (Original work published in 1913).

Freud, S. (1956). Instincts and their vicissitudes. In J. Strachey (Ed and Trans. ),
The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigrmlnd
Freud (V o]. 14, pp. 109-140). London: The Hogarth Press (Original work
published in 1915).

Freud, S. (1964). Femininity. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans), The standard edition
of the complete psychological. works of Sigmund Freud (V 01. 22, pp. 112-
135). London: The Hogarth Press (Original work published in 1933).

Freud, S. (1965). Moses and ‘monotheism. In J. Strachey (Ed and Trans), The
standard edition of the conrplete psychological works of Sigmund Freud
(Vol. 23, pp. 1-138). London: The Hogarth Press (Original work published
in 1939).

Frosh, S. (1.989). Psychoanalysis and psychology: Minding the gap. New York:
New York University Press.

86

Gaertner, S. L., &Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racrsm In J.

Dovidio & S. Gaertner (Eds) Wmﬁonmdmian (pp
61- -89). Orlando, FL. Academic Press.

Genthner, R. W. &Taylor, S. P. (1973). Physical aggression as a ﬁlnction of

racial prejudice and the race of the target. Wu]
12W, 207-210

Gordon, K. H. (1965). Religious prejudice m an eight-year-old boy.
Wham, 102-107

Hamilton, J. W. (1966). Some dynamics of anti-Negro prejudice. Psychoanalytic
Review, 53, 5-15

Hamilton, D. L. & Trolier, T. K (1986) Stereotypes and stereotyping: An
overview of the cognitive approach. In J. Dovidio & S. Gaertner (Eds),
Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 127-163). Orlando, FL:
Academic Press.

Hassan, M. K. & Khalique, A. (1987). Impact of parents on children's religious
prejudice. Indian Journal of Current Psychological Research, 2(1), 47-55.

Holmes, D. S. (1978). Projection as a defense mechanism. BMW
85(4), 677-688.

Jackson, L. A., Hodge, C. N., Kiehle, D., Ingram, J., Bodenhausen, G. V., Ervin,
K S., Sheppard, L. (1993). Stereotypes and prejudice: Cognition, affect
and behavior in the prediction of prejudice. Unpublished Manuscript.

Jones, J. (1972). Wain Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.

Kardiner, A. & Ovesey, L (1951). The mark of oppression: A psychosocial study
of the American Negro. New York: Norton.

Karon, B. P. (1975). Mam. New York: Springer.

Kelley, H. H & Stahelski, A. J. (1970). Social interaction basis of cooperator's

and competitors' beliefs about others. WW
$911219“. 1.6.66-91

Kemberg, 0. (1974). Further contributions to the treatment of narcissistic

Personality WWW 215- 240

 

87

Kemberg, 0- (1975). W New

York: Jason Aronson Press

Klein, M. (1957). Envy and gratitude. mm
W New York: The Free Press

Kohut, H. (1971). The Analysis of the Self. New York: International Universities
Press.

Kohut, H. (1977). The Restoration of the Self New York: International
Universities Press.

Kohut, A. & Woll; E. (197 8). Disorders of the self and their treatment.
International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 59, 413-415.

Kris, E. (1949). Roots of hostility and prejudice. In: WW1];
Sm. Anniversary Papers of the Cormnunity Service Society of New
York. (pp. 141-155). New York: Columbia University Press.

Levin, J. & Levin. W- (1982). Dsﬁmcngnshidiscriminaticmdmeiudice New
York: Harper & Row.

Lipetz, M. E. &Ossorio, P. G. (1967). Authoritarianism, aggression and status.
W, 468- 472

Loewenstein, R M. (1.947). The historical and cultural roots of anti-Semitism
Psychoanalysis and the Social Sciences, 1, 313-356.

McConahay, J. B. (1983). Modern racism and modern discrimination: The eﬂ‘ects
of race, racial attitudes, and context on simulated hiring decisions.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 555-563.

McConahay, J. B. (1986) Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism
scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds), Prejudice, discrimination
and racism (pp. 91-125). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

McDonald, M.(1970).Nm_b1111_¢_m191'_0£1.h§_§kmNCWYOI'kilntemational

Universities Press

Miller, A. (1979). Depression and grandiosity as related forms of narcrssrstlc
disturbances. ‘ . __ :. _ .

 

Miller, A. (1981). The drama ofthe gifted child. New York: Basic Books.

Miller, A. (1984). Mama. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

88

Mahon, E. J. (1991). A note on the nature of prejudice Pachoanalvtic Study of
the Child, 46, 369-379.

Money-Kyrle, R. E. (1960). On prejudice-a psychoanalytic approachm
Journal of Medical Psychology, 33, 205-209.

O'Brien, M. L. (1987). Examining the dimensionality of pathological narcissism:
Factor analysis and construct validity of the O'Brien Multiphasic
Narcissism Inventory. Psycholog'cal Mona, 61, 499-510.

O'Brien, M. L. (1988). Further evidence of the validity of the O'Brien Multiphasic
narcissism Inventory. W, 879-882.

Ostow, M. (1991). A psychoanalytic approach to the problems of prejudice
discrimination, and persecution. In H. J. Knopke, R. J. Norrell, & R W.
Rogers (Eds) 01.61.1111 .
conten_rpo ra_ry America (pp. 79-99). Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The University
of Alabama Press.

 

Peak, H., Muney, B. & Clay, M. (1.960). Opposites structures, defenses, and
attitudes, Psychological Mgngggahs; (meta! and Applied, 74 (8), 1-25.

Rabin A1 (1981) Assessmentmthmojcct'ntejechnitmcsAmncisc
W. New York, N. Y.: Springer Publishing Company.

Reiser, M. (1961). On origins of hatred toward negroes. American Imago,

 

18,1.67-172
Schick, A. (1971). The Jew as sacriﬁcial victim WW1),
75-89.

Schoenfeld, C. G. (1966). Psychoanalysis and anti-Semitism. WM
KCVICW 53, 24-37.

 

Shepard, L. A &Bodenhausen, G. V (1993, August). W

 

Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychological
Association, Toronto, Canada.

Sirnmel, E. (1946). 6.1.1.
Universities Press.

 

' - = New York: International

Silverman, M. A (1985). Sudden onset of anti-Chinese prejudice in a four-year-
Old girl. W140). 615-619.

89

Smith, W. P. (1967). Power structure and authoritarianism in the use of power in
the triad Journal of Personality, 35, 64—90.

Stangor, O, Sullivan, L. A, & Ford, T. E. (1991). Affective and cognitive
determinants of prejudice. Social Cognition, 9(4), 359-380.

Stephan, W. G. & Rosenfeld, D. (1978). Effects of desegregation on racial
attitudes. f . n i ' P h l 36, 795-804.

Sterba, R. (1947). Some psychological factors m Negro race hatred and m anti-
Negro riots WW 411-427 New

York: lntemational Universities Press.

Taylor, S. E. (1981). A categorization approach to stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton

 

114). Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of mtergroup behavior.

In S. Worchel&W. G. Anstin(Eds.),.ESJLGthng)Lnﬂn1mD.Maﬁ9n§
Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

Triandis, H. C. &Triandis, L. M. (1962). A cross—cultural study of soc1al distance.
WU” 1- 21

Watson, P. 1., Little, T., & Biderman, M. D. (1992). Naracissisrn and parenting
styles. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 9(2), 231-244.

Weatherley, D. (1963). Maternal response to childhood aggression and
subsequent anti- Semitism Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
66(2), 183-185.

Wolowitz, L. A. (1991). Self-object deﬁcit, anger, and envy in the narcissistic
condition. (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University).

Young-Bruehl, Elisabeth. (1993). Discriminations: Kinds and types of prejudices.
W 53-69,

Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
MW, 151- 175

Zajonc, R B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, 117-
123.

"11.1111111191111111.111111111111115