"x. 31.11.} THESIS / I . This is to certify that the dissertation entitled The Role of the Media in the Process of Ingroup- Outgroup Differentiation: A Social Identity Approach presented by Dana E. Mastro has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph 0 D 0 degree in Communicat ion Date __..ILLn£_ZB.._2_QQ_0___ MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 LIBRARY Mlchigan State Unlversity PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 'AR 3 5 2003 sr‘lfib M55 THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA IN THE PROCESS OF INGROUP - OUTGROUP DIFFERENTIATION: A SOCIAL IDENTITY APPROACH By Dana E. Mastro A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fiilfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 2000 ABSTRACT THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA m THE PROCESS OF INGROUP — OUTGROUP DIFFERENTIATION: A SOCIAL IDENTITY APPROACH By Dana E. Mastro Based on the assumptions of social identity theory (SIT), this study examined the relationship between exposure to media depictions of race and subsequent social judgments. According to SIT, an individual’s identity is bound to the social groups and categories to which the person belongs. Such states of belonging delineate the self from others based on the primary characteristics of the social groups. As a social classification becomes salient, the norms of that group direct the individual’s beliefs and behaviors in order to enhance self-esteem and confirm attitudes and behaviors. Consequently, difi‘erences across categories are accentuated and differences within categories are diminished to favor of the ingroup. The present experimental design was constructed to test this theoretical model when the process of intergroup discrimination was initiated by depictions in the media. Specifically, the association between Caucasians’ evaluations of self and other (Latino) as a result of varying depictions of racial stereotypes was investigated. To this end, a 2 x 2 x 3 factorial design was created to assess adherence to stereotypic, ambiguous, and counterstereotypic messages regarding racial ingroup and outgroup members. Three hundred fifiy six undergraduate students from a large, Midwestern university participated in the pretests and 249 were used in the actual experimental design. The findings provided limited support for the posited relationship. When exposed to negatively stereotypical racial depictions in the media, increasing levels of ingroup association were significantly associated with increased ingroup favoritism. Additionally, ingroup favoritism resulted from exposure to ambiguous depictions of a negative outgroup stereotype. However, no support was found linking counterstereotypic depictions with intergroup bias. Copyright by DANA E. MASTRO 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1 CHAPTER 1 Social Identity Theory ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 2 Stereotyping in Social Identity Theory ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 8 Functions of Stereotypes ,,,,,,,,,,,, 10 Self-Categorization Theory ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 19 Theoretical Influences ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 22 CHAPTER 2 Method ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 24 Participants ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 24 Pretests ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 25 Independent Variables ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 30 Dependent Measures ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 35 Procedure ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 38 CHAPTER 3 Results 40 Criminality Stereotype ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 4O Uneducated Stereotype 46 CHAPTER 4 Discussion ____________ 52 Limitations and Implications for Future Research 57 APPENDICES 60 Appendix A: List Making Task: Latino/Hispanic Negative Stereotype Pretest 61 Appendix B: Actor Race Pretest“ 62 Appendix C: Full Crime Script: Guilty (John/Juan) 63 Appendix D: Crime Script: Ambiguous (John/Juan) 78 Appendix E: Crime Script: Innocent (John/Juan) 81 Appendix F: Crime Script Pretest (John/Juan) 85 Appendix G: Complete Lack of Educational Attainment Script: Drop-Out (John/Juan) _87 Appendix H: Lack of Educational Attainment Script: . ' Ambiguous (John/Juan) 100 Appendix 1: Lack of Educational Attainment Script: Innocent (John/Juan) 102 Appendix J: Education Script Pretest (John/Juan) 104 Appendix K: Experimental Survey: Criminality (John/Juan)_ _ 106 Appendix L: Experimental Survey: Lack of Educational Attainment (John/Juan) ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, l 11 REFERENCES , - 116 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Essential Contributions from Each Theoretical Influence ,,,,,, 23 TABLE 2 Lack of Educational Attainment Correlation Matrix: Ingroup Association TABLE 3 Criminality Correlation Matrix: Ingroup Association ,,,,,,,,, oooooooooooooooooooooooo TABLE 4 Analysis of Variance for Criminality Condition: Guilty ,,,,, 41 TABLE 5 43 Analysis of Variance for Criminality Condition: Innocent TABLE 6 Analysis of Variance for Criminality Condition: Ambiguous ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, TABLE 7 ,,,,,,,,,, 44 Analysis of Variance for Self-esteem: Criminality Condition TABLE 8 Analysis of Variance for Lack of Educational Attainment Condition: .45 47 ’ Drop-out TABLE 9 Analysis of Variance for Lack of Educational Attainment Condition: Graduate TABLE 10 Analysis of Variance for Lack of Educational Attainment Condition: Ambiguous TABLE 11 Analysis of Variance for Self-esteem: 49 51 Lack of Educational Attainment Condition ................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Race by Ingroup Association Interaction on Justification viii 41 INTRODUCTION Examinations of the relationship between television exposure and perceptions of minorities yield a paucity of findings addressing the impact of the medium on individual and social perception. While patterns in portrayals suggest that Latinos in the United States (among the heaviest consumers of TV) have been both dramatically underrepresented (Mastro & Greenberg, in press; NCLR, 1994; NCLR, 1996) and excessively stereotyped (Barrera & Close, 1992; Berg, 1990; Greenberg & Baptists- Fernendez, 1980; Greenberg & Brand, 1994; Greenberg, Burgoon, Burgoon, & Korzenny, 1983; NCLIL 1994; NCLIL 1996), attempts to advance this understanding on a sociocognitive level have been limited. Extant effect studies on the relationship between television and racial/ethnic groups indicate that the medium reinforces social norms which devalue minority cultures and bolster majority values thereby shaping perceptions and influencing beliefs (Burgoon, Burgoon, Carvalho, Greenberg, & Korzenny, 1983; Faber, O’Guinn, & Meyer, 1987; Greenberg & Brand, 1994; Subervi- Velez & Necochea, 1990). Yet research concurrently indicates that Caucasians perceive television to be a fair and accurate representation of Latinos (Faber et al., 1987; Burgoon et al., 1983). As such, the compelling question becomes, does exposure to portrayals of Latinos on television lead to increases in ethnocentrism among Caucasians? Social Identity Theory provides a framework for such an assessment. CHAPTER I I n i Th Social Identity Theory (SIT) emerged out of the works of H. Tajfel on the socio- psychological components of intergroup behavior, particularly with regard to the cognitive aspects of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination (Hogg & Abrams, 1999; Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995; Rabbie, Schot, & Visser, 1989; Tajfel, Billig, Fundy, & Flament, 1971). His early research examined individuals’ tendencies to evaluate physical stimuli by way of accentuating the intra-dimensional similarities and inter-dimensional differences against a focal object; specifically along factors believed to be correlated with the stimuli (Hogg & Abrams, 1988, Hogg & Abrams, 1999). Tajfel suggested that this judgment process, termed the accentuation effect, occurred in order to provide a better understanding of the physical world. The application of such accentuation to individuals’ judgments of social stimuli became prominent for Tajfel (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel, 1969) as both experimental and naturalistic research amassed supporting its manifestation with regard to attitudes and stereotypes (Eiser & Stroebe, 1972; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Secord, 1959; Secord, Bevan, & Katz, 1956; Tajfel, 1981). As such, Tajfel began to explore the cognitive aspects of social differentiation in the context of intergroup relations. It is fi’om this research that Social Identity Theory was established (Hogg & Abrams, 1999). Derived from the principles of accentuation, SIT suggests that the discrete, social groups and categories to which an individual belongs offer the characteristics which define a member’s self-conceptualization by furnishing the normative attitudes and behaviors associated with membership (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995; Billig & Tajfel, 1973). Such affiliations, together with the value placed on those memberships, are termed social identities (Tajfel, 1978). These social identities are used in social comparisons between groups in order to promote positive self-distinctiveness (Abrams & Hogg, 1990). When a specific social identity becomes salient, its characteristics provide a contextually relevant model of behavior emphasizing category-based distinctions (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). A particular category becomes noteworthy when it maximizes differences along socially valued dimensions in favor of the individual, such that the cognitive solidification of these dimensions reinforces group distinctions (Hogg & McGarty, 1990). Tajfel believed that this categorization of stimuli into comprehensible, comparative dimensions was essential to the development and maintenance of self-concept and self- esteem. He argued that individuals strive to maintain positive self-conceptualizations and do so by way of the social comparisons based on membership in distinct social categories (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Hogg & Abrams, 1999; Tajfel, 1969). More specifically, the social identity approach is a belief that an individual’s identity is inextricably bound to the fundamental characteristics of the social groups to which that person belongs (Abrams & Hogg, 1990); Hogg & Abrams, 1988). These states of belonging provide definitions of the self, based on the principal characteristics of the . social groups. Social identity is imbued with meaning, then, by way of numerous contributions fiom a network of discrete memberships. Consequently, as social categories (cg race, university affiliation, team affiliation, sex) become salient, the repertoire of characteristics and attitudes associated with that group prescribes one’s beliefs and behaviors. The result is the accentuation of differences across categories and the abatement of differences within categories. At the cognitive level, this categorization process serves in several capacities: to facilitate esteem maintenance by way of group difl‘erentiation; to organize information meaningfully and parsimoniously; and to allow individuals to have confidence in their attitudes and behaviors based on the consensus with a group (Hogg, 1990). Through these intergroup comparisons, an individual maximizes intergroup difl‘erences to ensure the comparative advantage for the ingroup - thus securing positive social identity and maintaining positive self-esteem. In this respect, categorization is a cognitive operation by which individuals appropriate distinctive and positive social characteristics through a self-attribution mechanism (Perez & Mugny, 1990; Turner, 1981). Put simply, those persons perceived to be similar (with reference to self) are considered ingroup members, those categorized as dissimilar are identified as outgroup members. Therefore, to maintain positive social identity, individuals must preserve their favorable distinctions from other groups by constantly maximizing these differences (Turner, 1982). The ceaseless nature of this evaluative function is fundamental to the perpetuation of a positive self-concept (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). Notably, these comparative dimensions may not be based in reality. Ideological belief structures may be constructed in the quest for positive self-identification (Hogg et at., 1995). As such, the potential for televised images to influence intergroup competition is highly conceivable. When individuals are faced with a threat to self-concept, the images depicted on television may provide a basis for comparison with which to enhance self-esteem. This may be markedly true when considering representations of race/ethnicity on TV as these images are oflentimes representative of White, mainstream norms that disparage minority cultures (Burgoon et al., 1983; Subervi-Velez & Necochea, 1990). There are no assumptions that these social groupings are static; social change can occur. This is ordinarily the case when a positive social identity cannot be acquired by the group. In such instances, the ingroup will attempt to change the implications and/or meaning of the dimension of comparison or will attempt to use another dimension of comparison. Change is imperative because ingroup favoritism is a means for positive social distinction, rather than a product. For example, low standardized test scores in math and science among US. high school students in comparison with Japanese students may lead us. high schoolers to reemphasize the quality of their education, placing focus on their well-rounded training. Social identity, therefore, is malleable. In order to enhance self-concept, individuals are motivated to make ingroup - outgroup distinctions which are particularly favorable for the ingroup (Grant, 1993; Kelly, 1990; Jackson, Sullivan, Hamish, & Hodge, 1996). This tendency is a reflection of the psychological link between individual’s identities and their group memberships (Platlow, Hadey, Hunter, Hanning, Shave, & O’Connell, 1997). Thus, membership in a positively valued group both strengthens self-esteem (Blascoviclr, Wyer, Swart, & Kibler, 1997; Kelly, 1990) in relation to the degree of individual identification with the group (Tajfel, 1981; Diehl, 1988) and compels the individual to search for dimensions which selectively accentuate favorable differences (Abrams & Hogg, 1990). Unfavorable intergroup distinctions, when compared along legitimate dimensions of social comparison, threaten an individual’s self esteem (Bohon, Singer, & Santos, 1993). Clearly then, membership in low status groups resulting in unfavorable intergoup comparisons is undesirable. The selection of comparative dimensions is not arbitrary. Not only are those factors upon which ingroups are most positively evaluated emphasized and prioritized, but characteristics associated with an outgroup’s negatively distinguishing identifiers are favored as well (Jackson, Sullivan, Hamish, & Hodge, 1996). A specific social categorization, or social identity, also increases in relevance in a particular context simply when the category includes oneself (Abrams & Hogg, 1999). For example, the enthusiasm Americans demonstrated when the United States successfirlly landed on the moon was an expression of positive (national) social identity. Such social identities influence self-evaluation by motivating groups/members to maintain favorable intergroup comparisons, and thus achieve positive evaluations of themselves (Hogg, 1992). This accentuation of differences between groups occurs along those dimensions pertinent to the category reflecting an individual’s need for a positive and distinct social identity. The relative importance of the comparative dimension is oftentimes a function of the potential for status-gain resulting from that particular differentiation (Spears & Manstead, 1989). Moreover, in creating ingroup-outgroup categories, the most effective and salient social distinctions highlight realistic and normative dimensions (Haslam, Turner, Oakes, McGarty, & Hayes, 1992). As such, group behavior is regulated both by categorization and by social comparison. Thus, as contexts emerge which make pertinent specific social categorizations, the social comparisons between the groups provide support for one’s own attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and social self (Hogg, 1992; Turner, 1991). This holds significance for intercultural interaction as social contexts are regularly linked to racial/ethnic identities as a result of the simplicity in generating distinctions based on race (Coover & Murphy, 2000). At the behavioral level, this procedure may emerge in a number of ways including outgroup discrimination (differentiating based on bias against outgroup); outgroup homogenization (minimizing individual differences among the outgroup); and intergroup competition (conferring favor to the ingroup over the outgroup) (Abrams & Hogg, 1990). Further, it is suggested that the mere act of arbitrary categorization is sufi'rcient to generate an outgroup distinction (Ryan & Bogart, 1997). Sherif and Hovland (1961) and Ferguson and Kelley (1964) suggest that the simple existence of an outgroup is adequate to bring about intergroup behavior. Research indicates that individuals show significant ingroup favoritism both when the groups are formed based on valued dimensions as well as when they are derived along trivial dimensions (Billig, 1976). This finding has been repeatedly supported in experimental settings (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Tajfel & Billig, 1974; Turner, 1975). Such ingroup favoritism is intensified when individuals anticipate future interaction or group-based outcomes (e.g. classmates, coworkers) as well as with the increasing reality of the social category (e.g. race, sex, religion) (Doise, Csepeli, Dann, Gouge, Larsen, & Ostell, 1972). Tajfel and Wilkes (1963) report that difi’erentiation is amplified when categories are deemed important and appropriate by individuals. Ingroup identification can be strong enough to replace more individualistic orientations when there are meaningful/favorable ingroup preferences. Consider then, current depictions of Latinos on television. Content analyses reveal that when shown, Latinos are most often represented as either police officers or criminals (Mastro & Greenberg, in press). They are portrayed as less articulate than their White counterparts (Mastro & Greenberg, in press) and are more likely to be the object of excessive force at the hands of White police officers (Mastro & Robinson, in press). Ifcriminality and/or low educational attainment can be assumed to be stereotypic characteristics associated with Latinos along which Whites can positively differentiate themselves, then these images may create a symbolic environment through which the process of ingroup—outgroup differentiation can be initiated, based simply on the mediated existence of an outgroup. In this way, ethnocentric reactions may be reinforced through exposure to stereotypes in media content. These stereotypes of criminality and low educational attainment will be used throughout the text to illustrate potential variations in intergroup differentiation that may result from differing media images along this dimension. Stmtyping in Smial Identity Theog As a result of the process of categorization in social identity theory, stereotyping is inevitable. When stereotyping occurs, individuals are perceived in terms of their shared group characteristics rather than their personal attributes (Turner, 1982). Because such group memberships are fundamental to the maintenance of self-esteem and, as such, are used in the accentuation of intergroup distinctions along their most ingroup—beneficial dimensions, stereotyping is essential to the success of this function (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Additionally, the stereotyping process serves to simplify and organize the vast and complex assortment of information produced by the social environment in such a way as to subjectively classify others as either ingroup or outgroup members (Condor, 1990; Tajfel, 1981b). Given the context-dependent nature of stereotypes, they may allow individuals to infer others’ characteristics based on their group memberships and thereby reduce the impact of their impression (Abrams & Hogg, 1990; Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985; Hamilton & Sherman, 1994; Tajfel, 1978). The strength and nature of the stereotypic dimensions vary accOrding to the comparative context and are activated when individuals are motivated to judge an outgroup (Locke & Walker, 1999; Tajfel, 1981b). Such motivation occurs in instances of perceived or actual threats to social identity. The evocation of the categorization process (that of stereotyping) may also occur simply as a result of the presence of an outgroup member (Banaji & Hardin, 1996; Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Lepore & Brown, 1999). Categories such as race/ethnicity or sex, appear to be so highly distinct and salient that that they become automatically activated. It should be expected, then, that portrayals of race on television provide sufficient conditions for stereotyping to occur. Another important specification of the stereotyping process within SIT is that stereotypes are considered shared beliefs (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). It is this feature which allows self-categorization to occur. The representative characteristics of both ingroups and outgroups can be socially understood due to this shared meaning and, as a result, the norms and beliefs of the category are defined. Therefore, individuals are characterized by group norms, while their distinctive, personal qualities are discounted (Turner, 1982). Yet, while noting this tendency to disregard the unique, idiosyncratic , nature of individuals (Condor, 1990; Hogg & Abrams, 1988), the social identity framework fails to specify the cognitive mechanisms which activate certain assumptions regarding group membership and ignore others (Locke & Walker, 1999). Instead, SIT explains the process as firnctioning automatically from existing internalized perceptions (inclusive of status, emotions, traits, attitudes, and behaviors (Turner, 1982). Thus, because category memberships defined by clearly observable differences between groups are most accessible, distinctions based on race/ethnicity are highly likely (Coover & Murphy, 2000). This notion of shared beliefs is salient to televised portrayals of crime and deviancy, for example, when depictions are focused on racial/ethnic minority characters. Because the medium has the ability to create collective norms that may or may not reflect real-world distinctions, dubious stereotypic comparisons may be perpetuated. Once more, if Whites perceive Latinos to be predisposed to criminality, then televised depictions of such behaviors will reinforce this perception. Additionally, these portrayals may create the perception that this is a normative stereotype shared by others, and thus further reinforce the legitimacy of accentuation along this dimension. MW Tajfel (1981b) suggests that stereotypes serve both individual and social functions. On an individual level, as previously identified, stereotypes allow individuals to make sense of the social world by categorizing and simplifying social stimuli. Further, stereotypes, as a reflection of the value associated with membership in particular groups, contribute to individuals belief systems (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel, I981b). Although not all stereotypes are value-laden, those which are personally consequential to one’s own conceptualization of self are vital to protect. This preservation can occur by way of disregarding disconfirming messages or through the process ofover-excluding individuals from the ingroup (Tajfel, 1981b). In order to ensure the ingroup’s distinctiveness and longevity, those individuals whose 10 categorization in the group may lead to group ambiguity are rejected (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel, 1981b). The social functions of stereotyping identified by Tajfel include social causality, social justification, and social differentiation (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel, 1981b). Social causality is the process by which individuals attempt to explain complex events in the social environment. This encompasses specifying the groups salient to the social event, the rationale for the event, and the stereotypic attributes that account for the groups’ behaviors. One example of this in contemporary US. society is the tendency to scapegoat immigrants for high rates of unemployment and low wages. Another example may be the inclination to blame racial/ethnic minority groups for crime rates in US. urban centers. Secondly, social justification pertains to the promulgation of stereotypes specific to a particular. group (i.e. lazy, unintelligent, helpless) in order to justify disagreeable, planned actions against that group (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). This process of degradation makes the marginalization and exploitation of that group seem permissible. This can be seen throughout the history of the United States in the indignities committed upon the indigenous people of this country for the sake of economic and geographic expansion. A more current illustration would be the tendency to identify low standardized test scores among Latinos high school students as a justification for the elimination of bilingual education opportunities. Finally, social differentiation is concerned with ethnocentric behavior (Hogg & Abrams, 1988).. Specifically, it is the tendency to enhance distinctions between groups (favoring the ingroup) when it appears that the status difference may be illegitimate or II changeable. This allows the high status group to maintain its current positive standing. Typically, this is the form of stereotyping that could result from television content. It is this social differentiation which may reinforce prejudicial judgments about minority groups when TV images violate Caucasians’ social expectations. Understanding the potentially negative consequences of stereotype activation is critical to comprehending intergroup relations within the model of social identity theory. It is these stereotypes which may lead to intergroup conflict and discrimination when inaccurate characteristics are used as dimensions for accentuation. This is particularly meaningful when considering interethnic/racial distinctions. As a whole, Latinos have been characterized as a minority group wielding less status and power than Caucasians in the US. (Santos, Garza, & Bohon, 1990). This status differential indicates a positive characterization for members of the majority/Caucasian group and a negative characterization for members of the minority ILatino group (Santos et al., 1994). As such, media images become a part of the ongoing process of negotiating the self. Whether motivated by esteem needs or group maintenance needs, individuals are constantly pursuing positive social identities. Therefore, content depicted in the media may be used (either consciously or unconsciously) to ensure this positive self identity. Again, what SIT posits is that every social group works to maintain positive social identity by way of a contradistinction fi'om an outgroup along particular dimensions (Billig, 1976; Tajfel, 1981). When considering television messages, this would result in varying degrees of intergroup distinction based upon the specific imagery. Because stereotypic dimensions are value-laden, they maintain the ingroup’s identity through the intergroup distinctions they evoke. The assumptions are that positive group identity is 12 produced by the group, not by chance and that every social group will attempt to view itself positively and outgroups negatively. Therefore, when a particular social identity emerges as the basis for group comparisons, an individual’s conduct, attitudes, beliefs, and values become congruent with ingroup norms and behaviors, while perceptions of outgroups become homogenized and behaviors between groups (intergroup behavior) become competitive (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). Concurrently, outgroup members are distanced along stereotypic dimensions and ingroup members are stereotyped along ingroup nonnative dimensions as well as intergroup differentiation dimensions. Such should be the case whether the identity threat is mediated or interpersonal. Both cognitive (schemas in memory facilitating memory and information retrieval) and social (widely accepted images of social groups) aspects are considered in this process (Hogg & Abrams, 1999). Certainly, televised images would be consequential by these parameters. With this in mind, the implications of SIT toward the study of the impact of the media on perceptions of ingroup and outgroup members suggest that television may provide the necessary elements for cognitive self-evaluation based on the perceived relationships and/or threats associated with portrayals. Thus, television depictions that are inconsistent with Caucasians’ expectations may challenge the social identity or norms of the group and initiate the cognitive process of intergroup competition. When the value dimension in question is that of race, television may increase and reinforce ethnocentrism. IfCaucasians perceive criminality to be a stereotypical dimension upon which they can positively differentiate themselves fiom Latinos, then media images depicting Caucasians as unlawful should be rejected while parallel images of Latinos would be 13 accepted. This pattern would be consistent for perceptions of Latinos as uneducated. Media images that reinforced low levels of educational attainment among Latinos would be acknowledged while parallel images of Caucasians would be renounced. This fiamework provides the foundation for Hypothesis 1. H1: When a negative outgroup attribute is depicted stereotypically in the media and is associated with either the outgroup or the ingroup, then ingroup members will attribute that characteristic more to the outgroup and less to the ingroup. Operationally then, when considering the stereotype of criminality this suggests that Caucasians will attribute more guilt and less justification for the behavior to media depictions of Latino criminality than identical depictions of Caucasian criminality. When considering the uneducated stereotype, Caucasians will attribute less education and less justification for the circumstances to media depictions of uneducated Latinos than identical depictions of uneducated Caucasians. Additionally, because it is common for status differentials to exist between groups, more powerful groups attempt to maintain their favorable distinction by promoting the status quo (Abrans & Hogg, 1990; Grant, 1992; Grant, 1993; Reicher & Levine, 1994). Thus, high status groups will differentiate in order to secure position or to combat illegitimate comparisons while low status groups will discriminate in attempts to enhance social identity (Spears & Manstead, 1989). Although studies on naturally l4 occurring groups such as race or gender have met with mixed findings at the level of ingroup favoritism, challenges to social identity within these groups have invariably resulted in intergoup competition (Santos, Garza, & Bohon, 1994). Tajfel et a]. (1971) note that regardless of the perceived outcome or the existence of threat, ingroup members may engage in needless discrimination against an outgroup. Billig and Tajfel (1973) and Tajfel (1978) report similar findings. In their early study on race and outgrouping, Secord, Bevan, and Katz (1956) found that highly prejudiced individuals perceived Black’s skin color to be darker than it was, thus maximizing the Black-White difference. Because group members internalize socialized norms of power, both highly and lowly valued groups will conform to group expectations, thereby reinforcing discrimination against the low-status group (Santos et al., 1994). As a result, one would expect that depictions of race in the media should initiate intergroup behavior simply by the presence of the naturally occurring groups. Thus, when counterstereotypic images of Latinos are portrayed that equate Latinos with Whites on a valued differentiation dimension (such as non-criminality or well-educated), cognitive attempts to discriminate against the outgroup should result in order to preserve ingroup favor. Accordingly, Hypothesis 2 states: H2: When a negative outgroup attribute is depicted counterstereotypically in the media and is associated with either the outgroup or the ingroup, then ingroup members will attribute that characteristic more to the ingroup and less to the outgroup. 15 Again, when considering the stereotype of criminality, this would operationally suggest that Caucasians will attribute less innocence and less justification for the behavior to media depictions of innocent Latinos than identical depictions of innocent Caucasians. With regard to the uneducated stereotype, Caucasians will attribute less education and less justification for the circumstances to media depictions of educated Latinos than parallel depictions of educated Caucasians. Moreover, in a setting where few distinguishing features/categories are present or accessible except race, judgments will likely be made based upon that dimension as a result of its availability for use (Abrams, 1999). Thus, individuals are likely to rely heavily upon racial stereotypes in the decision making process when race is the singularly distinctive means of comparison. More specifically, when exposed to media content that is ambiguous in its depictions of criminality or level of educational attainment among Latinos and Whites, the White viewer will default to the Latino/White categorization on the dimension to make the value judgment. This will result in reliance on stereotypes of the low status group (Latino) to favor the ingroup (White). Based on these specifications, Hypothesis 3 was formed. H3: When a negative outgroup attribute is depicted ambiguously in the media and is associated with either the outgroup or the ingroup, then ingroup members will attribute that characteristic more to the outgroup and less to the ingroup. l6 This can be operationalized for the criminality stereotype to suggest that Caucasians will attribute more guilt and less justification for the behavior to ambiguous depictions of Latino criminality in the media than ambiguous depictions of Caucasian criminality. When considering the uneducated stereotype, Caucasians will attribute less education and less justification for the circumstances to ambiguous depictions of Latino educational attainment in the media than ambiguous depictions of Caucasian educational attainment. Again, due to the magnitude of import associated with self-esteem and its link to group membership, cognizance of an outgroup will result in the immediate emphasis on distinctions (T zeng & Jackson, 1994). The more similar the groups the less clear the distinction of superiority between the two and the greater the effort to establish positive distinctiveness (Diehl, 1988; Johnston & Hewstone, 1990). However, for these perceptions to progress into action, it is desirable that outgroup resistance be perceived to be easily subdued (Reicher & Levine, 1994). Grant (1992) states, “members of a group that have a secure power advantage will use this power to ensure that their group will win in a forthcoming competition by discriminating against members of the low power group... [Moreover] members of high power groups are more likely to use their power to take resources that give them an advantage in an intergroup competition because they know that this discriminatory behavior is unlikely to lead to effective retaliation. [T]he motive for such discrimination is that it ensures that the high power group will do well in 17 the subsequent competition and, therefore, enhance its members’ social identity” and individual self-esteem (p. 350-351). . Essentially, the motivation for any ingroup/outgroup comparisons, according to the social identity model, is to bolster individual esteem by way of the resultant positive ingroup evaluations. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was formulated based on the assumption that positive intergroup evaluative bias will result in elevated self-esteem through the maintenance and enhancement of the valued self image. H4: When a negative outgroup attribute is depicted in the media (stereotypically, ambiguously, or counterstereotypically) and portrayed by either the outgroup or the ingroup, then ingroup members will report greater self-esteem when ingroup- outgroup distinctions are associated with portrayals of the outgroup than parallel portrayals of the ingroup. When applied to the stereotypes of criminality and low educational attainment, this hypothesis would be operationalized as follows: Caucasians who attribute more guilt and less justification to media depictions (guilty, ambiguous, or innocent) of Latino criminality will report higher self- esteem than Caucasians attributing IeSs guilt and more justification to parallel depictions of Caucasian criminality. Similarly, Caucasians who attribute less education and less justification to media depictions (uneducated, ambiguous, educated) of Latino educational attainment 18 will report higher self-esteem than Caucasians attributing more education and more justification to parallel depictions of Caucasian educational attainment. W In an attempt to better explain the categorization process involved in SIT, self- categorization theory (SCT) was developed by Turner and colleagues (Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Richer, & Wetherell, 1987; Turner, 1991). This theory suggests that the process of categorization occurs through the accentuation of similarities within groups and differences between groups in comparisons with a prototype member. The prototype is an enduring representation of the defining characteristics of membership within the particular social group. This comparison leads to the depersonalization of the self in order to enhance group cohesion cooperation, and collective behavior. Depersonalization is not considered to be a negative loss of identity but instead a contextual change in level of identity fiom individual to group. It allows individuals to synchronize self-perception and behavior. For example, if an African American male encounters a Caucasian male on a public basketball court, the Black male may draw distinctions along the stereotypic perception that White males do not excel at basketball to the same extent as Black males. As such, the Black male may behave in a manner emphasizing his perceived prowess along this dimension. Self-categorization theory modifies the theoretical focus of group behavior from positive intergroup distinctions as the explanatory mechanism to social identity (judged against the model member) as the mechanism for group behavior (Hogg & McGarty, 1990). SIT would specify that social behavior exists along a continuum with distinctive, individual behavior comprising one end of this spectrum and group behavior, the other 19 (Hogg, 1992). Movement from one end to the continuum to the other for SIT is representative of a shift in self-conception from personal to social identity; with personal identity defined as an individual’s understanding of self distinct from others and, social identity characterized by ingroup cohesiveness and conformity to group behavior. When social categorical characteristics are salient, individual behaviors are consistent with group membership (Abrams & Hogg, 1990). If personal identifications are most relevant, an individual is aware of distinctions between self and other and does not act as a group member. This defining of the self at the group as well as the personal level allows individuals to feel a sense of both uniqueness and belonging, thereby facilitating in the attainment of positive social identity (Brewer, 1991; Coover & Murphy, 2000). Self-categorization theory considers both interpersonal and intergroup behavior as different levels of the same action of the self, as opposed to distinct actions of the individual and the group. It is the level of group salience, then, which determines responses to identity threat (Espinoza & Garza, 1985). The higher the salience of the social category, the greater the ingroup favoritism. The rationale for this behavior, posited by SCT, is that those persons who are highly ingroup associated on a particular dimension, perceive different others to be more different from themselves as a result of their social distance on that position (Haslam & Turner, 1995). Within the social identity model, therefore, the basic idea is that group membership is part of individual self-concept, and as such once a particular social identity becomes the salient basis for conduct, intergroup behavior commences (Hogg, 1992; Smith, 1993; Smith, 1999). That is, self-concept becomes competitive, ingroup normative, and outgroup stereotypical (Hogg, 1992). SCT advances these theoretical 20 assumptions with its emphasis on level of ingroup association - specifying that greater levels of ingroup association will result in more extreme accentuation tendencies (Haslam & Tumer, 1995). One potentially detrimental outcome of this tendency can be seen in the possibility for hostility resulting from highly ethnocentric Whites’ contact with Latinos in the criminal justice system. In a situation where the criminality of a Latino is in question, the highly ingroup-associated White will be more inclined to accentuate differences between Whites and Latinos along this dimension by presuming the guilt of the Latino. In keeping with the example of criminality in the media, such portrayals may serve to reinforce ethnocentrism when highly ingroup associated individuals are exposed to images of Latinos on television that initiate ingroup-outgroup differentiation. This emphasis on ingroup association forms the basis for the interaction effect predicted in Hypothesis 5: H5: When a negative outgroup attribute is depicted in the media (stereotypically, counterstereotypically, or ambiguously), and is associated with either the outgroup or the ingroup, then ingroup members who are more strongly associated with that ingroup will demonstrate greater ingroup favoritism than those members who are less strongly associated with the ingroup. When considering the stereotype of criminality, Caucasians reporting high ingroup association for race will attribute more guilt and less justification to depictions of Latino characters (as opposed to Caucasian characters) than will Caucasians reporting low ingroup association for race. 21 When operationalized for the uneducated stereotype, Caucasians reporting high ingroup association for race will attribute less education and less justification to depictions of Latino characters (as opposed to Caucasian characters) than will Caucasians reporting low ingroup association for race. As such, different levels of ingroup association are expected to interact with race on attributions of guilt and justification for Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3. More specifically, high levels of ingroup association will result in increases in ingroup favoritism for each hypothesis. Despite these distinctions, the common theoretical background between SIT and SCT often results in the latter being referred to as social identity theory of the group. As such the theoretical model for this research will be premised upon the mechanisms specified by social identity theory, taking into consideration an increased emphasis on ingroup association as accented by SCT. Th r ' Infl n To provide a better understanding of the primary theoretical factors underlying the posited hypotheses in the current study (as contributed by SIT, stereotyping, and SCT) the following illustration has been created (see Table 1 below): 22 Table 1 Essential Contributions from Each Thmretical Influeng Social Identity Theory Stereotyping in SIT Self-Categorization Theory 0 Intergroup competition Stereotypes intrinsic to 0 Level of ingroup e Ingroup favoritism categorization process association (interacts with o Outgroup discrimination Shared beliefs SIT Hypotheses l, 2 & 3) o Outgroup Observable differences homogenization highlighted o Distinctions reinforce Social causality self-esteem Social justification Social differentiation 23 CHAPTER 2 Method In order to examine the hypothesized relationships between media content and audience members’ judgment processes along racial/ethnic stereotypes, the present study was conducted. A 2 x 2 x 3 factorial design assessed adherence to stereotypes when exposed to varying levels of mediated stereotypic and counter-stereotypic messages regarding racial ingroup and outgroup members. Both criminality and lack of education were tested to increase validity. Multivariate analysis of variance was used in the examination of these data. ANOVA is preferred when an experimental method is used with multiple independent measures; when participants are randomly assigned to conditions; when equal sample sizes exist at all levels of the independent variables (though robust to this assumption); and when interactions are expected between the independent measures. W A total of 679 undergraduate students at a large, Midwestem university participated in the study. Students received class credit for their voluntary and anonymous participation. Three hundred fifty six students took part in the pretests and the remaining 323 were used in the experiment. All experimental hypotheses were premised upon White/Caucasian-specific stereotypes regarding Latinos. Accordingly, only White/Caucasian students were included in analyses. As a result, 40 Black/African American, 18 Asian American, six Latino/Hispanic, one Pacific Islander, and 9 ‘other’ students were dropped from all 24 analyses. The final White/Caucasian participant count for the experiment proper was 249. 2mm Prior to the experimental induction, pretests were conducted with students outside the experimental group (N=356). Specifically, investigations were performed examining the salience of White/Caucasian racial stereotypes regarding Latinos; the race of the ‘actor’ used in the experiment; the name of the scripted character; and the stereotypic level (high/ambiguous/low) of the television scripts. Additionally, all scales were pretested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA tests a specified factor structure based on theory-driven indicators. The confirmatory factor analysis process was repeated with the actual experimental group, including tests of internal consistency and parallelism. These reliabilities are individually reported in the sections titled, “Independent Variables” and “Dependent Measures”. W- Stereotypes were investigated by way of a list-making task requiring students to identify five negative and five positive stereotypic characteristics related to Blacks/African Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, and Whites/Caucasians. Only the negatively valenced stereotypes regarding Latinos were used. A total of 89 White/Caucasian students participated in this pretest. Again all Black, Latino, Asian American, and ‘other’ students were excluded from analyses in order to ensure stereotypic salience for White students. The participants were informed that this task was designed to ascertain the existing stereotypes across different racial groups, not to evaluate beliefs in these stereotypes. After specifying the stereotypes, the students were 25 asked to rate each one for its level of social acceptance by responding to'the following two questions: In general, people perceive this stereotype to be true. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree 1 2 3 4 5 On a scale from 1-10, how strongly do you believe this stereotype is held by the general public? Not at al Very strongly strongly held held 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 This list-making task/questionnaire can be found in Appendix A A total of 23 different stereotypes emerged from this process. The most commonly identified was that of ‘criminality’ (n=47, 19%) followed by ‘uneducated’ (n=3 8, 16%). These stereotypes were used in the creation of the mock TV scripts. ‘Poor’ and ‘lazy’ were named 10.7 percent (n=26) and 10.2 percent (n=25) of the time, respectively. All other stereotypes were specified less than 10 percent of the time. The mode for the believability of the ‘criminality’ stereotype was a ‘4’ (n=20, 43%). This score indicated agreement in the truth of this stereotype. A score of ‘3’ or neutral (n=l7, 36%) was the second most frequently identified response. In addition, respondents most often indicated a belief that the stereotype of criminality was strongly held by the general public. Scores of ‘6’ and ‘7’ (1=Not at all held, 10= Very strongly held) were reported most commonly (n=9, 19%), followed by scores of ‘8’ and ‘9’ (at n=8, 17% each). With regard to perceptions of the veracity of the ‘uneducated’ stereotype, these respondents were most likely to report either a score of ‘3’ for neutral (n=15, 39%), or a ‘4’ (n=14, 37%) for agreement. The most frequent score for the belief held by the general 26 public with regard to this stereotype was that of ‘7’ (n=12, 32%), followed by ‘6’ (n=6, 16%). Again, a score of‘ 1’ indicated that this belief was not at all held, while a score of ‘ 10’ represented that the belief was very strongly held. m. Actors’ composite-shots fi'om a local modeling agency were pretested in order to find one White/Caucasian and one Latino/Hispanic actor with similar attractiveness characteristics and ages to be used in conjunction with the mock TV script. The participants (N=30) viewed different combinations of photographs, such that each composite was evaluated by 15 respondents. The students were asked to identify the actor’s race (Asian American, African American/Black, Caucasian/White, Latino/Hispanic, or Other), the actor’s attractiveness to the general public on a 5-point Likert scale (1=Very Attractive; 5=Very Unattractive), and the actor’s age (1=high school, 2=college—age, 3=college graduate or older). This questionnaire can be found in Appendix B. The actor selected to represent the White character, was deemed to be White/Caucasian by 73% of the students (n=1 1). This actor scored somewhat above average on attractiveness (M =2.5) and was identified to be between high school and college age (M=l .7). The actor chosen to be the Latino character was perceived to be Latino/Hispanic by 67% of the students (n=10). The actor scored slightly above average on attractiveness (M=2.9), and fell betvveen high school and college age (M=l.4). To ensure similarity across these attributes, t-tests were performed to identify differences along these variables. With an alpha level of 0.05, no significant differences between the White and Latino actors were found for either attractiveness (tr-1.6, p>.05) or for age «=13, p.05). 27 Names, The names for the White and Latino characters were pretested (N=13) to reinforce the race associated with the picture. The name “Juan Rodriguez” was selected for the Latino character. All respondents (n=l3, 100%) identified this name to be characteristically Latino/Hispanic. The corresponding name for the White character was “John Rodgers”. Eighty-five percent of participants (n=1 1) found this name to be typical of a White/Caucasian individual. fights, Having identified ‘criminal’ and ‘uneducated’ as the prominent stereotypes about Latinos for White, college students, scripts were created based upon these dimensions. For realism, the scripts were written in a TV scripting format utilizing a two-column technique. They were printed on professional paper and spiral-bound. The scripts were designed to represent actual scripts for upcoming television pilots. While scripts allow for maximum control over experimental inductions and higher realism compared to independently produced mock TV shows, they can not be expected to replicate the fill] impact of exposure to television programming. For both topics, three scripts were created varying the level of adherence to the stereotypic norm. Thus, for the criminality stereotype, a crime-drama storyline was created by modifying and merging several episodes ofNITD Blue and New York Undercover. The first script depicted an unquestionably guilty main character involved in a murder (Appendix C). In the second script, the guilt of the main character was ambiguous (Appendix D). In the third script, the main character was clearly innocent of the murder (Appendix B). All three scripts were identical in dialogue, setting, and background, except in the final scene addressing the guilt/ambiguity/innocence of the main character. 28 Seventy-six students were used to pretest these conditions. Twenty-six of the respondents examined the guilty storyline, 25 evaluated the ambiguous script, and another 25 assessed the innocent story. The respondents were asked to evaluate their perceptions of the guilt/innocence of the main character (unnamed). One-way analysis of variance with Schefi’e post hoc analyses were used in this determination. These findings indicated that each level of the script was significantly different from the other in the predicted direction (F=7l.7, p <.001). More specifically, on a 5-point Likert scale (5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree) those in the guilty condition found the character to be guilty on an absolute level (M=4.5, p,<.001) and significantly more than those in the ambiguous condition. Respondents in the ambiguous condition were neutral in their determination (M=2.7) and again significantly more than those in the innocent condition. Finally, participants in the innocent condition found the main character to be innocent (M=1.8). Assessments of the readability of the script, interest in the script, and typicality of the script compared with other primetime programs also were conducted. On a 5-point Likert scale (5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree) the criminalin scripts were found to be above average in case to read (M=3.8), slightly above average in interest CM= 3.6), and typical of prime time programs currently on the air (M=3.7). This pretest can be found in Appendix F. The same procedure was used in pretesting the ‘uneducated’ induction. Storylines fi'om several episodes of Party of Five and My So Called Life were modified and adapted in creating these scripts. A total of 77 students took part in this assessment. Twenty-five participants read the high school drop-out script (Appendix G), 26 evaluated 29 the ambiguous education script (Appendix H), and another 26 examined the high school gaduate script (Appendix 1). ANOVA findings revealed a main effect for condition (F=57.9, p<.001). Again, Scheffe post hoc analyses indicated significant differences between each condition in the desired direction. Using 5-point Likert scale items (5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree), it was found that the main character in the drop- out condition (M=4.2) was believed to have dropped-out of high school. This score was significantly different (p<.001) fiom that in the ambiguous condition (M = 2.9) in which respondents were unsure if the character dropped—out. Finally, the character in the high school graduate condition (M=l .8) was believed to have graduated and was found to be significantly different (p<.001) fi'om that of the ambiguous condition. Again, these scripts varied only in the final scene which addressed the graduation status of the main character. On a 5-point Likert scale (5=strongly agree, 1=strongly disagree) these education scripts were found to be above average on readability (M=4.0), average in interest (M=3.0), and slightly below average for typical ity compared to current primetime programs (M=2.6). Appendix J contains this pretest survey. Independenflariaues The independent variables in this design include the level of racial ingroup association of the participants (lower/higher); the race of the main character (White/Latino); and the stereotypic nature of the television scenario (highly stereotypic, ambiguous, counterstereotypic). Experimental questionnaires can be found in Appendices K and L. Appendix K contains the crime survey. Names were changed to reflect that of the script. Appendix L contains the education survey. Again, names on the survey matched that of the script. 30 For each scale construct, confirmatory factor analysis was performed including tests of internal consistency and parallelism. This process was conducted separately for the ‘criminality’ group and those in the ‘uneducated’ group. As such, individual standardized item alphas are reported for each. W911. Items for the measurement of ingroup association were extrapolated from several existing versions of various group cohesion scales (see Hogg, 1992). Alphas for these preexisting measures ranged from .74 to .82. For the present study, a three factor structure was tested and determined to exhibit tendencies of second order unidimensionality. The three factor construct passed tests of internal consistency and parallelism. Scales were significantly intercorrelated and exhibited convergence and divergence with external constructs. Ideally, it true test of second order unidimensionality would require four scales in testing for internal consistency, however in the absence of a fourth factor, the present construct was evaluated only on correlations between the three factors and similarities in covariation with other measures. In so doing, this measure of ingroup association was found to be of second order unidimensionality and was treated as such in all analyses. The factor correlation matrices for the ‘lack of educational attainment’ and ‘criminality’ groups follows in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. 31 Table 2 kf ' A 'nmn rrlainMarixIn u iin Factor A Factor B Factor C Ed. Just. Esteem Factor A 1.0 Factor B .54" 1.0 Factor C .46“ .33“ 1.0 Education -.12 -.05 -.15"' 1.0 Justification .12 .01 .14“ -.33“ 1.0 Esteem -.20“ -.28" -.25" .13“ -.17” 1.0 " Correlation is significant at the .01 level. "' Correlation is significant at the .05 level. Table 3 Factor A Factor B Factor C Esteem Just. Guilt Factor A 1.0 FactorB .47“ 1.0 Factor C .56” .35” 1.0 Esteem -.18" -.32** -.16"‘ 1.0 Justification .06 .15“ .06 -.30** 1.0 Guilt .12 .12 .14" -.02 -.17" 1.0 "”" Correlation is significant at the .01 level. * Correlation is significant at the .05 level. 32 These constructs yielded standardized item alphas of 0.87 for the ‘criminality’ group and 0.89 for the ‘uneducated’ group. The items for this measure follow: Compared to the other characteristics which define you, how much do you value your race/ethnicity? Very much Not at all I 2 3 4 5 How strong a sense of belonging do you have with your race/ethnicity? Very strong Not at all strong 1 2 3 4 5 How much do you like being defined by your race/ethnicity? Very much Notatall 1 2 3 4 5 How closely knit are you with others of your race/ethnicity? Veryclose Notatallclose l 2 3 4 5 How much pride do you take in your race/ethnicity? Very much pride Not proud at all 1 2 3 4 5 I feel included by others of my race/ethnicity. Very included Not at all included 1 2 3 4 5 I My; feel involved with others of my race/ethnicity. Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 The typical person of my race/ethnicity is hard working. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 4 5 The typical person of my race/ethnicity is intellectual. AW 32'0“!” may? strongly 33 The typical person of my race/ethnicity is politically aware. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 4 5 The typical person of my race/ethnicity is practically minded. Agree Strongly Disagrgee strongly 2 3 4 This measure of ingroup association was subsequently categorized into ‘lower’ and ‘higher’ based on the scale distribution in order to assess differences in intergroup bias as a result of level of ingroup association. Because the lack of dispersion on this variable, it was not possible to break the respondents into classifications of absolute high and low on the five point scale. Instead, a median split was used to create an artificial high and low based on the distribution. This constitutes a more conservative test of the hypothesized relationship between high and low ingroup association as the division is more representative of a low/lower split than that of a high/low split. For the ‘criminality’ group, the mean in the lower condition was 1.8 and the mean in the higher condition was 2.9. The standard deviation was .65 with 69% of the partiCipants reporting scores on or between 2 and 3. Among the ‘uneducated’ group, the mean for the lower condition was 1.8 and the mean on the higher condition was 2.8. The standard deviation for these participants was .64 and 68% reported scores between 1.7 and 2.8. W. The independent variables of character race (White/Latino) and television scenario (highly stereotypic, ambiguous, counterstereotypic), were manipulated by random assignment to conditions. 34 W The dependent measures include level of self-esteem, adherence to stereotypic norms, and justification for the depicted behavior. Again, the complete instruments can be found in Appendices M-N. Self-esteem. Self-esteem was measured using Rosenberg’s (1991) self-esteem scale. This measure has been found repeatedly to exhibit internal consistency as well as convergent and divergent validity, with alphas ranging from .77 to .88 (Rosenberg, 1991). Confirmatory factor analysis from these experimental groups reported a standardized item alpha of 0.85 for the ‘criminality’ group and 0.89 for the ‘uneducated’ group. The items follow: I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree I feel that I have a number of good qualities. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. Strongly agree Agree Neutral - Disagree Strongly disagree I am able to do things as well as most other people. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree I feel I m have much to be proud of. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree I take a positive attitude toward myself. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 35 I wish I could have more respect for myself. Strongly tam Arne Neutral ”haw Stirs-sir W I certainly feel useless at times. Stu-2|! W AW Nwtfll Dinar" SUD-sly dim At times I think I am no good at all. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree W. Assessments of stereotype adherence were evaluated based on ingroup favoritism (allocation of highest favorable rating to the ingroup) (Hogg & Abrams, 1988). For the ‘criminality’ group, the following two items (I: = .73) were used to assess culpability (the specific name reflected that of the script): How confident are you that John/Juan is guilty of the murder? Completely confident Not at all confident S 4 3 2 1 How confident are you that John/Juan is innocent? Completely confident Not at all confident 5 4 3 2 I The following two items 0; = .70) were used in detemrining graduation from high school for the ‘uneducated’ scenarios (again, the name mirrored that of the script): How confident are you that John/Juan graduated fiom high school? Completely confident Not at all confident 5 4 3 2 I How confident are you that John/Juan dropped-out of high school? Completely confident Not at all confident 5 4 3 2 1 36 mm. The measure of behavioral justification examined perceptions of behavioral legitimacy ranging fi'om socially justified to altogether unjustified. The names specified in these items again reflected the appropriate race condition. The ‘criminality’ items follow (a = 0.80): Considering the circumstances, John/Juan’s crime was justified. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree In the same circumstances I would behave the same way. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree This type of crime is never justified. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree In instances such as this, sometimes crimes have to be committed. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree These conditions make John/Juan’s actions more acceptable. Strongly agree ’ Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Because of the circumstances, I can not support John’s actions. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree The items examining justification for the ‘uneducated’ group follow (a = 0.71): Considering the circumstances, John/Juan’s situation was justified. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Under the same circumstances, I would be in the same situation as Juan/Juan. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree The circumstances make John/Juan’s situation more acceptable. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 37 Because of the circumstances, John/Juan is not to blame. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Procedure The students involved in the experimental design (N=323) were randomly assigned into one of the six experimentally manipulated conditions including two levels of race for the main character and three levels of the television scenario. All data were collected outside of regular class period during the month of April 2000. Approximately 22 sessions were held per week over the one month period. No data was collected on weekends. Sessions contained no more than 12 participants and no less than two. On average, 5 students participated at a time. One Caucasian female and one Caucasian male undergraduate jointly conducted all sessions. Participants were told that they were taking part in a nation-wide effort being conducted by the broadcast networks in order to examine the quality and realism of new TV programming for the Fall 2000 season. The purpose of the project was to acquire audience feedback on the realism and credibility of scripts and actors for several TV pilots in order to reduce expenses and optimize success rates prior to the costly production phase. They were further told that their secondary objective was to rate the quality of the shows provided and evaluate the social dilemma presented. Students were asked to base their judgments on the merit of the script rather than their personal preferences for TV programming as the scripts had been designed for differing audience segments. Additionally, they were informed that their responses were both voluntary and anonymous and that they were free to skip any items they did not wish to answer or quit 38 the study at any time. The students were asked to complete the survey only after having read the script in its entirety, evaluating the photograph of the character, and noting the name of the character. The administrators informed the students that they would be asked to evaluate the storyline involving the specific character identified/photographed in their script so to be sure to note this character. This process was expected to activate race as the salient social category. After this introduction, the mock, pretested scripts including photographs for the main character were randomly assigned to participants. Each student evaluated one ‘criminality’ script and one ‘uneducated’ script. Script combinations were also made through random assignment, precluding the possibility of assignment of two scripts from the same stereotypic level or two characters of the same race/name. The scripts (in two- column script format) were spiral-bound and the composite shots were laser-copied and bound into the script to enhance the realism of the testing materials. After completing the study, students were thanked for their time and dismissed. Once all data had been collected, students were debriefed via email as to the true nature of the study. They were informed that the scripts were not actually pilots for the Fall 2000 season but were instead created by the researcher on the project to evaluate adherence to stereotypes when making judgments about the actions of characters in the media 39 CHAPTER 3 Results Stereotypic, ambiguous, and counterstereotypic scripts for the two prominently identified stereotypes about Latinos for Caucasians (‘criminality’ and ‘uneducated’) were tested. The findings for the ‘criminality’ condition follow. 5 . i l. S Hypothesis 1 posited that Caucasians would auribute more guilt and less justification to media depictions of Latino criminality than media depictions of Caucasian criminality. Thus, when exposed to a guilty scenario it was expected that attributions of guilt and justification would favor the ingroup (Caucasian) over the outgroup (Latino). Additionally, as specified in Hypothesis 5, ingroup association should interact with race such that more guilt and less justification would be allocated to the guilty Latino when the audience member reports higher levels of ingroup association as opposed to lower levels of ingroup association. With an alpha level of 0.05, MANOVA finding reveal only limited support for this relationship (see Table 4 below). No significant main effect was found in determinations of guilt based on the race of the character F (I, 81) = 0.01, p>.05. The Latino character (M=4.61) and White character (M=4.62) were deemed nearly identical on guilt. Further, the proposed interaction effect based on level of ingroup association (Hypothesis 5) was not found for evaluations of guilt (E (1, 81)=.00, p>.05). The examinations of perceptions of justification for criminal behavior failed also to expose significant differences 13 (1, 81) =2.44, p>.05 between Latinos (M=1.4) and Whites (M=1.6). Notably, a significant interaction was found for level of ingroup 40 association E (1, 8]) =5.3, p<.025, 92 =.05 in the predicted direction. Respondents who were higher on ingroup association were more likely than those lower on ingroup association to allocate more justification for the actions of guilty Whites than guilty Latinos. The following graph (Figure 1) illustrates this relationship: +Low harp p—cr—m rm was. Lanna RneoCondltlon Em Race by Ingroup Association Interaction on Justification. Table 4 ' f r rimin li ndi i n' il _aygarm M df F p a’ Race 1 .01 ns White 4.62 Latino 4.61 Ingroup Association 1 .32 ns Low 4.65 High 4.58 Race x Ingroup Association 1 .00 ns Low/White 4.65 Low/Latino 4.66 High/White 4.58 High/Latino 4.58 41 Table 4 (continued) = ’fi i M at F p a: Race 1 2.44 ns White 1.57 Latino 1.40 Ingroup Association 1 1.47 ns Low 1.43 High 1.55 Race x Ingroup Association 1 5.27 .025 .05 Low/White 1.38 Low/Latino 1.49 High/White 1.80 High/Latino 1.35 Note: Means for race and ingroup association are marginal means. Means for race x ingroup association interaction are cell means. Hypothesis 2 suggested that Caucasians would attribute less innocence and less justification to media depictions of innocent Latinos than innocent depictions of Caucasians. Based on the interaction effect predicted in Hypothesis 5, higher levels of ingroup association should result in even greater levels of differentiation. Findings reveal no support for these assumptions (see Table 5 below). Race of the character was not significantly associated with either guilt attributions E (1, 83) = 0.22, 2?.05 or judgments of justification _F_ (1, 83) = 1.63, p >05. Additionally, level of ingroup association was not significantly related to either guilt evaluations F (1,83) = 0.15, 9 >05 or justification assessments E (1,83) = 0.12, p >.os. 42 Table 5 WW Dyfinnt M df F 9 ti Race 1 .22 ns White 2.59 Latino 2.50 Ingroup Association I 2.92 ns Low 2.37 High 2.74 Race x Ingroup Association 1 .15 ns Low/White 2.46 Low/Latino 2.27 High/White 2.75 High/Latino 2.74 Dysrustineation M df F 9 iii Race 1 1.63 ns White 1.77 Latino 1.61 Ingroup Association 1 1.14 ns Low 1.63 High 1.76 Race x Ingroup Association 1 .12 ns Low/White 1.73 Low/Latino 1.52 High/White 1.82 High/Latino 1.71 11915: Means for race and ingroup association are marginal means. Means for race x ingroup association interaction are cell means. Hypothesis 3 stated that Caucasians would attribute more guilt and less justification to Latinos depicted in an ambiguous criminal scenario than Caucasians in the ambiguous criminal scenario. Again, level of ingroup association was expected to result in increased intergroup differentiation (Hypothesis 5). MANOVA findings reveal no support for these predictions (see Table 6 below). Race was found to have no significant association with attributions of either guilt F (1,80) = 1.99, p >.05, or justification 13 (1, 43 80) = 0.51, p>.05. In addition, ingroup association had no effect on guilt E (1, 80) = 0.00, p>.05 or justification E (1, 80) = 0.05, p>.05. Table 6 Analysis 91: 2mm for; Criminality Condition; Ambiguous M M «r F p 92’ Race 1 1.99 ns White 3.28 Latino 3.50 Ingroup Association 1 1.63 ns Low 3.29 High 3.49 Race x Ingroup Association 1 .00 ns Low/White 3.19 Low/Latino - 3.39 High/White 3.38 High/Latino 3.60 Race 1 1.94 ns White 1.73 Latino 1.55 Ingroup Association 1 .22 ns Low 1.62 High 1.67 Race x Ingroup Association 1 1.46 ns Low/White 1.63 Low/Latino 1.61 High/White 1.84 High/Latino 1.51 Note: Means for race and ingroup association are marginal means. Means for race x ingroup association interaction are cell means. Hypothesis 4 postulated that Caucasians engaging in ingroup-outgroup distinction based on comparisons with a racial outgroup along a negative outgroup stereotype would report greater self-esteem than those differentiating based on parallel comparisons with the ingroup. Again, SIT suggests that esteem maintenance is fundamental to self identity 44 and as such, successful, positive ingroup-outgroup differentiation should result in elevated self-esteem. This hypothesis failed to reach significance for the guilty E (1, 81) =1.92, p>.05, ambiguous _E (1, 80) =0.51, p>.05, or the innocent F (1, 83) =1.69, p>.05 scenario (see Table 7 below). Table 7 f ' fr el- m: riminli niin M! M df F IL L Race 1 1.92 ns White ‘ 4.07 Latino 3.88 Ingroup Association 1 4.12 .05 Low 4.11 High 3.85 Race x Ingroup Association 1 .10 ns White/Low 4.19 White/High 3.92 Latino/Low 3.99 Latino/High 3.80 =1 of Race 1 1.69 ns White 4.05 Latino 4.20 Ingroup Association 1 1.54 ns Low 4.20 High 4.05 Race x Ingroup Association 1 .08 ns White/Low 4.10 White/High 3.99 Latino/Low 4.30 Latino/High 4.11 45 Table 7 (continued) W M at F 12 n: Race 1 .51 ns White 4.03 Latino 4.10 Ingroup Association 1 8.54 .01 Low 4.23 High 3.90 Race x Ingroup Association 1 .04 ns White/Low 4.20 White/High 3.85 Latino/Low 4.26 Latino/High 3.95 Note: Means for race and ingroup association are marginal means. Means for race x ingroup association interaction are cell means. 11W A second stereotype, that of the ‘uneducated’ Latino, was tested simultaneously to validate findings. Again, highly stereotypic, ambiguous, and counterstereotypic hypotheses were formulated. This replication yielded the following results: Hypothesis I predicted that Caucasians would attribute lower levels of educational attainment and less justification to media depictions of Latino high school drop-outs than Caucasian high school drop-outs. This relationship should be moderated by level of ingroup association, with higher ingroup associated individuals exhibiting greater levels of ingroup favoritism (Hypothesis 5). No main effect for race was found for either lack of educational attainment E (1, 82) = 0.01, p> .05 or justification E (1, 82) = 1.00, p>.05 (see Table 8 below). Unlike the criminality condition no differences emerged as a result of differences in ingroup association for either educational status E (1, 82) = 0.19, p > .05 or justification E (1, 82) = 0.11, p>.05. 46 i1}- . ' 3-13.1; 9 Li k. 41,43. 1011 filinli' ' "1... .Jl..‘.A.l 81': r n M df F p a): Race 1 01 ns White 3.91 Latino 3.90 Ingroup Association 1 3.82 .05 Low 3.74 High 4.09 Race x Ingroup Association 1 .18 ns Low/White 3.77 Low/Latino 3.72 High/White 4.05 High/Latino 4.15 = 'l' i 11 Race 1 1.00 ns White 2.09 Latino 2.00 Ingroup Association 1 .20 ns Low 1.99 High 2.10 Race x Ingroup Association 1 .11 ns Low/White 2.08 Low/Latino 1.91 High/White 2.10 High/Latino 2.01 Note: Means for race and ingroup association are marginal means. Means for race x ingroup association interaction are cell means. Hypothesis 2 posited that Caucasians would attribute lower levels of educational attainment and behavioral justification to depictions of Latino high school graduates than depictions of Caucasian graduates. Ingroup association was expected to interact with assessments of educational attainment and justification such that Caucasians with higher levels of ingroup association would report less education and justification for Latinos than Caucasians with lower ingroup association (Hypothesis 5). 47 MANOVA findings failed to reach significance for these predictions (Table 9). No main effect was found for race on either lack of educational attainment E (1, 77) = 1.3, p>.05 or justification 15(1, 77) = 2.0, p>.05. Moreover, level of ingroup association failed to interact with race on assessments of education 13 (1, 77) = 0.20, p>.05 or behavioral justification E (1, 77) = 0.90, p>.05. Table 9 22=Eggggtign M df F p 49: Race 1 1.28 ns White 1.36 Latino 1.56 Ingroup Association 1 3.15 as Low 1.62 High 1.33 Race x Ingroup Association 1 .20 ns Low/White 1.56 Low/Latino 1.67 High/White 1.20 High/Latino 1.45 Dy=gustificgtign Race 1 1.96 ns White 2.49 Latino 2.70 Ingroup Association 1 .18 ns Low 2.64 High 2.56 Race x Ingroup Association 1 .90 ns Low/White 2.60 Low/Latino 2.67 High/White 2.39 High/Latino 2.74 Note: Means for race and ingroup association are marginal means. Means for race x ingroup association interaction are cell means. 48 Hypothesis 3 predicted that Caucasians would attribute lower levels of educational attainment and lower levels of justification to Latinos in an ambiguous educational attainment scenario than Caucasians in the same ambiguous scenario. Again, level of ingroup association was expected to moderate these findings (Hypothesis 5). Partial support was found for these predictions (see Table 10 below). On a 5 point Likert scale (1=graduate, 5=drop-out), Caucasians were significantly more likely _Ii (1, 87) = 5.91, p<.025, (92 =05 to associate higher levels of educational attainment to Caucasians CM= 2.24) than Latinos (M=2.64). No effect was found for ingroup association for level of educational attainment E (1, 87) = 0.47, p>.05. Neither a main effect for race F (1, 87) = 0.04, p>.05 nor an interaction effect E ( 1, 87) = 1.12, p>.05 with ingroup association was found on evaluations of justification (see Table 10): Table 10 i fV 'n fr ckofEdctionlA 'nmen nition'Ami D¥=Eguggtion M df F a nfi Race 1 5.91 .025 .05 White 2.24 ’ Latino 2.64 Ingroup Association 1 .28 ns Low 2.50 High 2.37 Race x Ingroup Association 1 .47 ns Low/White 2.23 Low/Latino 2.72 High/White 2.25 High/Latino 2.53 49 Table 10 (continued) = ifi i n M df F p 9 Race 1 .04 ns White 2.37 Latino 2.38 Ingroup Association 1 1.16 ns Low 2.30 High 2.45 Race x Ingroup Association 1 1.72 ns Low/White 2.39 Low/Latino 2.23 High/White 2.35 High/Latino 2.58 11919: Means for race and ingroup association are marginal means. Means for race x ingroup association interaction are cell means. Hypothesis 4 stated that Caucasians exhibiting ingroup-outgroup differentiation based on comparisons with a racial outgroup along a negative outgroup attribute would report greater self-esteem than those differentiating based on parallel comparisons with the ingroup. No support was found for this prediction (see Table 11). Differences in self- esteem were not reported in the drop-out condition E (1, 82) = 1.14, p>.05, the ambiguous condition E (1, 87) = 0.05, p>.05, or the graduate condition;: (1, 87) = 0.00, p>.05. 50 Table 11 'LLQ- * ‘ f a' -- fr lf-m' Lack f o- ionl -1.'nmn o-niion _lximum M df F 9 4L Race 1 1.14 ns White 4.23 Latino 4.13 Ingroup Association 1 6.58 .05 Low 4.32 High 4.03 Race x Ingroup Association 1 .03 ns White/Low 4.39 White/High 4.07 Latino/Low 4.25 Latino/High 3.98 ML Race 1 .00 ns White 4.05 Latino 4.20 Ingroup Association 1 5.48 .05 Low 4.20 High 4.05 Race x Ingroup Association 1 .33 ns White/Low 4.21 White/High 4.02 Latino/Low 4.27 Latino/High 3.95 !!=Ambiggggs Race 1 .05 ns White 4.03 Latino 4.10 Ingroup Association 1 10.94 .01 Low 4.23 High 3.90 Race x Ingroup Association 1 .32 ns White/Low 4.17 White/High 3.88 Latino/Low 4.24 Latino/High 3.85 Hots: Means for race and ingroup association are marginal means. Means for race x ingroup association interaction are cell means. 51 CHAPTER 4 Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between media exposure and social judgments from a social identity perspective. Based on the assumptions of SIT, an unfavorable group comparison with respect to a low status outgroup would result in a threat to social identity and commence the process of intergroup comparison to preserve self-esteem and elevate group status (Tq'fel & Turner, 1986). This experimental design was intended to test this presumption when the threat to identity emerged from media depictions. More precisely, the association between Caucasians’ evaluations of self and other (Latinos) resultant fi'om varying media depictions of stereotypic norms were examined. Potentially, if such depictions provoke intergroup bias, then the images in the media may reinforce ethnocentrism. According to the theoretical model, when challenges to the norms for the ingroup were presented along negative outgroup stereotypes, Caucasians should engage in intergroup differentiation in favor of the ingroup (Hypothesis 1). At the same time ingroup association (as emphasized in SCT) was predicted to moderate this relationship, indicating that increasing levels of ingroup association were related to increased ingroup favoritism (Hypothesis 5). Minimal support was found for these hypotheses across both the criminality and lack of educational attainment stereotypes. Equivalent evaluations of both Caucasians and Latinos were reported; with ingroup association found only to moderate the relationship for the criminality condition. This'failure to initiate ingroup-outgroup differentiation may be illustrative of the black-sheep effect associated with SIT which safeguards ingroup members’ self- 52 perception when individual members violate valued dimensions of the group (Marques, 1990). In order to protect social identity from such transgressions, more variability is perceived to exist within the ingroup and more homogeneity within the outgroup (Marques, 1990). As sucl; not all ingroup members are considered to be equally representative of the relevant value dimension. This diversified and differentiated schema for the ingroup facilitates ingroup preservation and simplifies outgroup generalization. Therefore in an incident where the action of the ingroup character is clearly deviant, Caucasians would, according to the black-sheep effect, accept both the deviant ingroup and the deviant outgroup behavior by disassociating with the anomalous ingroup member. The infrequent findings for ingroup association across this and all hypotheses may i have resulted from the lack of variance found on this measure. Group means for both the criminality and lack of educational attainment conditions fell slightly below the scale midpoint and as a result, respondents were categorized into an artificial high and low based on this distribution - thus creating a highly conservative test of this variable. This lack of a true high and low on this critical variable may have hindered the ability to achieve the postulated outcome. Additionally, the respondents orientation toward low to moderate ingroup association may have nullified perceptions of threat to social identity as race was not considered a valued dimension. Correspondingly, existing research has suggested that race may be less prominent for majority members than minority members in forming categories for social comparison (Brewer & Harasty, 1996; Santos et al., 1994). Because racial majority group members have a variety of socially valued dimensions upon which they can 53 positively distinguish themselves from racial minority groups, the majority group member may not consider race to be a salient comparison to secure social identity (Espinoza & Garza, 1985). As a consequence, the highly stable status of the Caucasian participants may not have sufficiently produced the perception of an unstable status system. Alternatively, when more than one social category applies, individuals will likely choose that association which will result in the most favorable distinction. Therefore, when faced with a scenario that may possibly damage self-conceptualization based on race-an individual may select socio-economic status, gender, or another group upon which positive ingroup differentiations can be formed. No support was found for the prediction that counterstereotypic depictions of Latinos which threatened a value-distinction for Caucasians would lead to intergroup competition in favor of the ingroup (Hypothesis 2). Although SIT and its derivative SCT suggest that social competition will likely result from the threat to a valued attribute of a high-status group (particularly when the comparison is illegitimate or refirtable), this tendency did not emerge with these data One possible reason for the failure to support this proposition may be explained by the out-group homogeneity hypothesis (Marques, 1990). This hypothesis suggests that limited information and/or contact with an outgroup will lessen the likelihood of encountering counterstereotypic information regarding outgroup attributes. lfindividuals perceive less variability across groups with which they are not associated, outgroup inconsistency is reduced and perceptual discrimination is facilitated (Johnston & Hewstone, 1990). As such, increased contact may provide additional information upon which to base subsequent judgments. Thus, the outgroup 54 schema becomes more complicated and may no longer lead to the utilization of independent value-dimensions. This may have been the case for the. participants in this study. As college students, they may have been exposed to more diverse cultures thereby creating inconsistencies in the value—dimension and providing additional information upon which to form judgments. In future studies of this nature, the extent of contact with other racial/ethnic groups should be assessed. However, there are conflicting findings with regard to the influence of intergroup contact on the process of ingroup -outgroup differentiation. Studies examining contact between members of different ethnic/racial groups suggest two possible outcomes (Masson & Verkuyten, 1993). Contact may allow for the discovery of similarities between the groups and thus lessen the ability to homogenize outgroups along unfavorable dimensions. Conversely, increased contact may lead to negative experiences and the discovery of dissimilarities between the groups. Research also indicates that the extent to which contact with an outgroup member is perceived to be positive may affect enhanced liking (Johnston & Hewstone, 1990). This effect appears to lead to the individuation of the outgroup member rather than the diminution of intergoup effects. SIT researchers would suggest that intergroup contact may increase the availability of information for subsequent intergroup judgments, (thus decreasing the tendency to negatively generalize across all group members), however, such interaction would lead to accentuation along different, contrasting dimensions in order to maintain intergroup distinctiveness and positive self-esteem. Nevertheless, it appears that the accentuation of differences is more likely to be meaningful (particularly among higher ingroup associated individuals) when a that to 55 positive distinction arises based upon the degradation of an ingroup member along a valued dimension rather than elevation of an outgroup member along that variable. Therefore, when there is little or no perceived threat, less need seems to exist to engage in ingroup-outgroup differentiation. Contrary to the suggestion put forth by SIT, the mere existence of an outgroup may not be sufficient to evoke intergroup competition when the challenge to a valued attribute emerges from a media context. This notwithstanding, the presence of an outgroup may be adequate grounds to engage in ingroup favoritism when the context is ambiguous. In the absence of additional relevant information, SIT suggests that the attributes of the available value- dimension will be used to benefit the ingroup over the outgroup (Hypothesis 3). The findings of this study lend some support to this prediction. While the data do not overwhelmingly reinforce this tendency, it seems that race may be an important consideration in determinations of the behaviors of outgroup races when the actions fall along a socially valued dimensions for the ingroup. In other words, without sufficient information to make a determination along a negative racial outgroup dimension, Caucasian respondents will make value judgements based on the low status of the outgroup (Latino) and the high status of the ingroup (Caucasian). Again, however, low levels of ingroup association among these Caucasian students may have limited the extent to which race was identified as a comparative attribute. Based on the assumptions of SIT, this differentiation process, results in increased levels of self-esteem (Hypothesis 4). While the results of this study failed to affirm this suggestion, this may have resulted from a lack of ingroup—outgroup differentiation among participants. Ifthe theoretical fiamework indicates that the process of attenuation of 56 differences across groups will produce elevated self-esteem, then clearly, it cannot be expected that that esteem will vary if ingroup-outgroup differentiation has not occurred. Furtha, this lack of findings may have resulted fiom the particular test of self- esteem used in this experimental study. Researchers submit that global, self-report tests of self-esteem such as that used in the present design, fail to isolate self regard and instead, concurrently assess perceptions of self-presentation, impression management, and self-deception (Farnham, Greenwald, and Banaji, 1999). Instead, indirect measures of self-esteem may be more effective and accurate. One such measure, the Implicit Association Test (IAT) accounts for individual tendencies to over-estimate one’s abilities and disassociate with negative traits. It is this type of measure that may be more appropriate for the examination of trait esteem evaluated in the present study. As such, findings on this variable may have been affected. L'mi i n Im li ti n f r F ture Research One critical limitation to this study identified previously, was the inability to create absolute highs and lows on ingroup association. The current findings seem to suggest some differentiation in attributions based on this variable, thus, a more discriminating manipulation of this relationship would be essential. Similarly, an indication of the strength of all experimental manipulations would aid in the determination of the ability to evoke the desired stereotype for use in the decision-making process. Such assessments also would connote the value placed on these stereotypes. It may be the case that while these negative outgroup stereotypes are identifiable, they are not held strongly. 57 The manipulations may have been further confounded by the fact that in the criminality conditions, the suspect did engage in some criminal activity. Although the character only committed murder in the guilty condition, he was involved with a robbery and assault prior to the murder. Perhaps the use of a less violent offense, such as distributing drugs, may provide a less troublesome story-line. In addition, the use of non-college participants who are not as highly sensitized to issues regarding race may be beneficial in minimizing social desirability in responses. Researchers examining the role of racial stereotypes in the decision making process suggest that differences may exist between college students and the general public with regard to the specific influence of stereotypes on formulating judgments (Huang & Tamborini, 1999). Specifically, the tendency to demonstrate unbiasedness and equity may be more prevalent in college students. A third shortcoming of the present design, was the use of TV scripts and actors’ composite shots rather than actual TV/Film exposures. The ability to create equally high quality, realistic television program while still controlling for variability was beyond the production and financial parameters of this project. However, the use of actual television programming clearly would provide a more accurate understanding of the influence of exposure to subsequent judgment processes. Additionally, future research should take into consideration the difficulties in triggering social differentiation by race among Caucasians and instead direct efforts on minority groups for whom race is more salient (Brewer & Harasty, 1996; Santos et. a1, 1994). Such threats to self among minority group members (which may be more likely to be mirrored by real-world status distinctions) may reinforce invalid status differences 58 upon which these groups are discredited through social comparisons. This is not to say, however, that the influence of the media in reinforcing stereotypes and ethnocentrism among Caucasians does not merit further consideration. For many Americans, the primary form of interaction they have with Latinos is on television (NCLR, 1994). It should be expected that these individual’s views would be shaped, to some extent, by the images they see in the media. Ifthis contributes to the promotion of negative images about Latinos and subsequent ethnocentric belief-systems then the extent of this relationship needs to be more firlly understood. It may be the case that more fiequent media depictions of positive, counterstereotypic images of Latinos could effectively prevent such dimensions from becoming the basis for outgroup differentiation by Whites. In effect, the inequitable power structure, which presumably affects attitudes toward ingroup and outgroup members, may be severely undermined. 59 APPENDICES 60 Appendix A 1 t- t'v 1. In general, people perceive this stereotype to be true. Strongly agree strongly disagree 4 3 2 1 On a scale from 1-10, how strongly do you believe this stereotype is held by the general public? Very strongly Not at all held strongly held 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2. In general, people perceive this stereotype to be true. Strongly agree strongly disagree 4 3 2 1 On a scale from 1-10, how strongly do you believe this stereotype is held by the general public? Very strongly Not at all held strongly held 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3. In general, people perceive this stereotype to be true. Strongly agree strongly disagree 4 3 2 1 On a scale from 1-10, how strongly do you believe this stereotype is held by the general public? Very strongly Not at all held strongly held 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I 4. In general, people perceive this stereotype to be true. Strongly agree strongly disagree 5 4 3 2 1 On a scale from 1-10, how strongly do you believe this stereotype is held by the general pubhc? Very strongly Not at all held strongly held 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 61 Appendix B Macaw Please refer to the photograph labeled W when answering the following 3 questions. 1. What is the race of ACTOR ONE? Place a check / or an X next to your response. Asian American African American/Black Caucasian/White Latino/Hispanic Other (please specify): 2. On a scale from 1-5, how attractive do you think the general public would rate ACTOR ONE? Please circle your answer. very Attractive Average very Unattractive 1 .......................... 2 .......................... 3 .......................... 4 .......................... 5 3. How old is ACTOR ONE? Place a check I or an X next to your response. high school college-age college graduate or older Please refer to the photograph labeled Ag: 1 £23 1 m2 when answering the next 3 questions. 4. What is the race of ACTOR TWO? Place a check \/ or an x next to your response. _Asian American _African American/Black _Caucasian/White _Latino/Hispanic Other (please specify): 5. On a scale from 1-5, how attractive do you think the general public would rate ACTOR TWO? Please circle your answer. very Attractive Average very Unattractive 1 .......................... 2 .......................... 3 .......................... 4 .......................... 5 6. How old is ACTOR TWO? Place a check \/ or an X next to your response. high school college college graduate or older 62 Appendix C Ful ' " i uan FADE IN (MUSIC: FADE IN INTRO THEME, UNDER) SERGEANT WIDE, police headquarters. (16:00:44 or 03:29, freeze; or 18:02:30, freeze) FADE ON Present Title, supered: THE SUCCESS CURVE SCENARIO: Tommy Adams, a successful stock broker, found late this aftemoon in one of his many luxury apartments in Lincoln Park. His housekeeper entered the apartment, found the victim, and phoned the police. The apartment had been ransacked and Tommy killed. Crime scene has been inspected by the Chicago PD. NARROW, sergeant’s office in Chicago police station afier crime scene inspection. Sergeant, Detective, & Officer] sit in the office. Sergeant SERGEANT: What do you have for us detective? NARROW, inside Sergeant’s office (05:00:49) . DETECTIVE: Last Spring, I wanna say around D etectrve May, this con artist John approached Tommy (INTERRUPTED) 63 Rolling to speaker (17:05:50 or 18:07:06 or 26:00:58-01 :14). Sergeant Rolling (18:06:52 or r47). Detective Officer] Detective Sergeant Detective Sergeant DISSOLVE Officer] walks to desk of partner, Officer2, in open headquarters (23:02:55). FADE UP Officers] & 2 sitting across from one another at desks (25:11:47). SERGEANT: Tommy, the victim? DETECTIVE: Ya, John approached the victim for a loan. They were former classmates, Tommy made good for himself. . .John was all ‘coked-up’ and he knew Tommy had deep pockets and he was hittin’ him up for 10,000 in cash. OF FICER]: Did he give it to him? DETECTIVE: Not sure, it’s hard to say, but anyway, about 3 weeks ago, John is back in- touch and this time he wants 50 grand or he’s gonna leak info about Tommy’s past playin’ around to his wife and kid. SERGEANT: What’s this John’s last name? DETECTIVE: Rodgers, with a D. Here’s the last address we got on him [HANDS THE SERGEANT SCRATCH PAPER] [SERGEANT GLANCES AT PAPER AND HANDS IT TO OFFICERI] SERGEANT: Well, get goin’ on this. [OFFICER] AND DETECTIVE EXIT OFFICE] (MUSIC: FADE IN) (MUSIC: UNDER AND OUT) 64 Rolling. (26:01:41 or other) Officer] Officer2 Officer] Officer2 Officer] fills-in Officer2 on the situation (26:04:01 , including sync up on slip of paper) DISSOLVE OFFICER]: We’ve got business [HANDS OFFICERZ THE SLIP OF PAPER WITH THE ADDRESS] [OFFICERZ LOOKS AT PAPER] OFFICERZ: This happens to be a lousy neighborhood. OFFICER]: I think we can handle it. OFFICERZ: So, what’s the deal? 65 FADE-IN, low income housing, high rise. Rough neighborhood. Graffiti, Crowded & littered streets.(50:15:50; or 15:19:30; or bracing, 51:35:20). Fast cuts of people walking, loitering, pointing (Late Afi 2, 09:00++; 11:10; 13:50; 18:02). Officers] & 2 sit in unmarked police car outside Rodgers’ residence. Suspect spotted. He is standing alongside the driver’s side window of an old Buick. He is speaking to the driver. They shake hands, exchange unidentifiable goods. The officers quickly approach the car on foot. Both officers running (51:08:29) Officer] Officer2 OFFICER]: Hold it right there! [SHOUTING] [JOHN OPENS THE BACK DOOR AND JUMPS INTO THE BACK SEAT] OF FICER2: Don’t move that car! [OFFICERS REACH CAR. DRIVER JUMPS OUT WITH HANDS IN AIR] 66 Scuffle (51:33:54) Officer] John lunges for Officer] and knocks him to the ground with a knee-thrust to the abdomen. Officer2 grabs John by the collar of his shirt and pulls his arm behind his back. He forces John to the ground and cuffs him. Officer2 John Officer2 knee on John’s back. Still on ground (51:36:48) OfficerZ pulls cuffed suspect from ground and places him in back of police car, high angle shot from above, ground bg (49:00:24) DISSOLVE John in cell, pacing and shouting violently (51:34:03) John OFFICER]: Get Out of the car! [SHOUTING] OFFICER2: [SHOUTING] You gonna knock- on my partner! You gonna knock-on my partner! JOHN: Hey, hey man! [SHOUTING & FLAILING] MUSIC: UP MUSIC: UNDER & OUT JOHN: Come-on man, Damn-it, Come-on! [LOUDLY & CONTINUOUSLY] 67 John pacing (39:06:47); sitting and fidgeting (51:00:38). WIDE, Officers] & 2 unlock cell and enter. John continues yelling. Carrying-on, Officers pull John into adjacent cell with a table & chairs. All sit. Officers 1 & 2 are across the table from John (04:11:23). Officer2 John Officer] Officer2 John Officer] John Officer] OFFICER2, VO (40:06:58): The kid is a Chatterbox there, huh. OFFICER2: O.K. just shut-up there. We’re going to do the talkin’ and you’re going to do the listening. Then it’ll be your turn! JOHN: [TO OFFICERl] Sony 1 hit you man. It was an accident [DISORIENTED & UNSTEADY] I got people after me, yo. I was just defending myself. OF FICER]: Just give us some straight answers, that’s apology enough. OFF ICER2: Your voice is on an answering machine in an apartment where a serious crime was committed. JOHN: What apartment? OFFICER]: Tommy Adams. JOHN: Tommy, Tommy was my boy from the neighborhood, from high school. OF FICER]: How long since high school? 68 John Officer] John Officer2 John Officer] John Officer2 John Officer2 JOHN: Two years but me and Tommy kept in touch. [PAUSE & ADIUSTS IN CHAIR. STILL DISORIENTED]. What kind of serious crime? OF FICER]: Tommy Adams was murdered and his apartment robbed. JOHN: On no! Oh no! I didn’t know you brought me in here because my voice was on that answering machine [YELLING] Oh no, man, no! OFFICER2: Ya, Oh No [MOCKINGLY] JOHN: See there’s a natural explanation for my voice bein’ on that machine. OFFICER]: Tell us about that John. JOHN: Tommy was getting me on to a better life. He was helpin’ me out man, getting me on- track. I’m tryin’ to get a better life. That’s what I’m all about. OFFICER2: Obviously [SARCASM] JOHN: A while back he got me some cash, a loan, to help me along the success curve. OFF ICERZ: Ya, success curve [SARCASM] 69 John Officer] John Officer3 John Officer] (04:07:35-12z25) Hallway (04:05:44) Officer3 Officer2 Officer3 Officer2 Officer3 JOHN: Tommy, he was a real mentor-type, you know. [FIDGETING & SPACEY]. Can I get these Off me man? [GESTURING TO THE HAND-CUFF S] [OFFICER] PULLS HIS KEYS FROM HIS RIGHT PANT POCKET, WALKS BEHIND JOHN AND UNCUFFS HIM] OFFICER]: John, were you involved in dealing drugs with Tommy? JOHN: [RUBBING NEWLY FREED WRISTS] I’m not going to answer that, no way. . ..May he rest in peace. [REAR CELL DOOR OPENS. THIRD OFFICER ENTERS] OFFICER3: Can I talk to you fellas a minute? [OFFICERz APPROACHES OFFICER3 AT CELL DOOR] JOHN: Say, how it look like they did ‘im, yo? Look like two guys? Did they shoot ‘im? What? OFFICER]: Shut Up John! [OFFICER] GRABS JOHN BY THE ARM. SHOVES HIM BACK INTO THE CELL. LOCKS THE DOOR. OFFICERS l & 2 EXIT WITH OFFICER3 INTO THE HALL] OFF ICER3: Cocaine psychotic, huh? OF FICERZ: What is it? [SHRUGGING AND ANNOYED BY THE DISTURBANCE] OF F ICER3: He hallucinating? OF FICERZ: What is it Officer? [URGING HIM TO HURRY UP] OFFICER3: We made an ID. of a guy using the deceased’s ATM card. He’s a bagger at a grocery. 7O Officer2 re-enters cell, addressing John (04:12:00) Officerz OFFICER2: We’ll be back shortly, give you time to grieve. DISSOLVE FADE IN, local family owned market. WIDE, bagger unloading boxes Of produce onto the stands Officers] & 2 approach a clerk at the register in the background. Officer] OFFICER]: Is he here today? [SHOWING SMALL PHOTO TO CLERK]. Clerk CLERK: [POINTING] That one, gray shirt. Officer] OF FICER]: Right, thank you. (17:14:01 ). 71 Officers approach Bagger (38:07:55 or 38:08:23) Officer] Bagger Officer2 Bagger Officer2 Bagger Officer] Bagger Officer] Bagger Officer2 ALL EXIT DISSOLVE OFFICER]: Hey there, How you doin’? [OFFICERS] & 2 GRAB BAGGER, PULL HIM CLOSE, THEN AGAINST THE PRODUCE STAND, & FRISK HIM] BAGGER: Whatta you doin’? Hey [CONFUSED, STRUGGLING, NERVOUS] OFF ICER2: We gotta talk. BAGGER: Na man, I’m ‘bout to go on break [TRYING TO BREAK-AWAY FROM OFFICERS, NOT TOO F ORCEF ULLY] OFFICER2: That’s good ‘cause were going for a ride. [PULLING BAGGER TOWARD GROCERY EXIT] BAGGER: What for? [ALL STOP] OFFICER]: Where were you yesterday? BAGGER: Workin’ like I’m doin’ now. OFFICER]: That’s good. . .what about the day before? [SHOVING HIM TOWARD THE DOOR] BAGGER: Listen, I was workin’. . ..[ANXIOUS] Come-on man, don’t mess me up with my boss, she’s watchin here! [OFFICERS PULL HIM OUT OF THE GROCERY] Now I’m gonna get fired, watch. OFFICER2: Tough break. MUSIC: IN 72 FADE IN, police station, interrogation Office (40:03:45) The bagger sits at a table. Both Officers 1 & 2 are standing in front Of him. Officer2 NARROW, interrogation Office (39:00:28) Bagger Officer2 Bagger Officer2 Bagger Officer2 Bagger Officer] Bagger Officer] Officer2 Bagger MUSIC: UNDER & OUT OFFICER2: Break time’s over. BAGGER: What’s this all concerning? Why you pull me out Of my job like it’s World War III or somethin’? [OFFICERS NOW STAND OVER HIM, IN AN INTIMIDATING MANNER] OFFICER2: You’re on video surveillance using somebody else’s ATM card! BAGGER: Th-That ain’t me. OFF ICERZ: It’s not? [ANGRILY] BAGGER: NO OF FICER2: Are you trying to tell me that the positive video ID. is not you [NEARLY YELLING]. BAGGER: It’s NOT me! OFFICER]: DO you know John Rodgers? BAGGER: John? [SHAKING HEAD NO] OFFICER]: Ya, John Rodgers, do you know him [SHOUTING. INTERROGATING] OFFICER2: John! BAGGER: NO 73 Officer] Officer2 Officer] Bagger Officer] Officer2 OFFICER]: John, You don’t know John [YELLING] OFF ICER2: In all your life, you probably never knew a single John I bet! OFFICER]: John, who stole the ATM card that you were caught using on camera. [OF FICER] SITS ACROSS THE TABLE FROM THE BAGGER] BAGGER: I found that ATM card. OFFICER]: You know that’s a damn lie. [LEANS OVER IN CHAIR TOWARD BAGGER] You need to know the PIN number to use the card. OFF ICER2: You got the PIN from somebody. . .and the owner of that card, Tommy Adams, which you’re on camera using, is dead -— murdered! [PUSHING BAGGER TO THE BACK OF HIS CHAIR] 74 Bagger Officer2 Bagger Officer] Bagger Officer] BAGGER: What do you keep bringing John’s name up for? OFFICER2: [COMES UP BEHIND BAGGER, LEANS OVER HIM, FORCEFULLY YELLING] Why do you think, moron! John is who we’re looking at for killing Tommy. BAGGER: Look , all I know is. ...[LONG PAUSE] OF FICERI: What do you know? BAGGER: [ANXIOUS, BREATHING HEAVILY] Look my job was to go up with him to the apartment and take care of the look- out while John got the money from Tommy [BRIEF PAUSE]. A million dollars. . .a bribe... to keep some pictures from his past under- wraps. And for just that I’d get $10,000. John V said it’d be simple but. . .. [OFFICERZ SHOVES HIM IN THE CHEST] John told him, Tommy, that he wanted a million for the pictures, but Tommy refused. SO he bound him up. And, then, um, John started stabbing at him and [IMITATING QUICK STABBING MOTION] and I started tellin’ him, John let’s go. We’ve already got his ATM card, lets go! But, John kept stabbing at him and Tommy just wouldn’t give him the money [STABBING MOTION AGAIN]. SO, so John just kept stabbing at him and just, just stabbed him until he was dead. [OFFICERS 1 & 2 START WALKING OUT] Hey, I ain’t had nothin’ to do with it. I just wanted the extra cash. Man, I had nothin’ to do with it. OFF ICER]: Shut up! [DISGUSTED] [BOTH OFFICERS EXIT] 75 FADE IN Interrogation room, John is sitting at the table. Officer] sits across table. Officer2 leans against the wall. (39:03:01 ). John Officer2 John Officer] John Officer2 [OFFICERS HAVE INFORMED JOHN THAT THE BAGGER HAS IDENTIFIED HIM AS THE MURDERER] JOHN: Jesus! Jesus! [YELLING LOUDLY, SLAMMING FISTS ON TABLE]. You try to help somebody with their success curve and this is how they do you! OFF ICER2: Don’t expect any gratitude in this. JOHN: You think I went up there wanting this to happen to Tommy? [ATTEMPTS TO STAND-UP, OF FICER2 PUSHES HIM BACK DOWN IN HIS SEAT]. OFFICER]: Something obviously went wrong. . .. JOHN: [INTERRUPTING OFF ICERl and gesturing wildly with his arms] Look , I told him. . .Get me that million, I know you can and then I’m outta here — ‘Cause a million dollars to Tommy is like, [SHRUGGING] 50 cents to us! And, that’s what I’m trying to drive home to him [AGITATED & YELLING]. OFFICER2: Is that when you started stabbing him? 76 John Officer] John Officer] John Officer] John ZOOM, John shaking head, continuing tO babble. DISSOLVE End Scene, over city JOHN: How many times do I gotta stab you before you get me the money! [CLENCHING HIS TEETH] OFFICER]: And, when you were stabbing him [STABBING GESTURE WITH HAND], These were superficial little stabs, huh? JOHN: [LEANING FORWARD IN CHAIR] I’m trying to persuade him, man! OFFICER]: One or two little stabs and I’d give“ you the money [CONDESCENDING]. JOHN: Thank you! That’s what I’m talkin’ about. [JOHN UNAWARE OF THE SARCASM OF THE COMMENT] All I wanted was the money that he don’t miss and that I need [YELLING AND HITTING FIST ON THE TABLE]. He gives me the money and none of us are here. OFFICER]: Ya, well he didn’t give you the money. JOHN: Then you can see why I kept stabbin’ him. Why I had to keep stabbin’ him. (MUSIC: SHIFT TO FINALE) (MUSIC: UP AND OUT) 77 Appendix D W Note; All changes in script begin below. 7 Bagger Officer2 Bagger Officer] Bagger Officer] BAGGER: What do you keep bringing John’s name up for? OFF ICER2: [COMES UP BEHIND BAGGER, LEANS OVER HIM, FORCEFULLY YELLING] Why do you think, moron! You and John are who we’re looking at for killing Tommy. BAGGER: Look , all I know is. . ..[LONG PAUSE] OFFICER]: What do you know? BAGGER: [ANXIOUS, BREATHING HEAVILY] Look my job was to go up with him to the apartment and take care of the look- out while John got the money from Tommy [BRIEF PAUSE]. A million dollars. . .a bribe... to keep some pictures from his past under- wraps. And for just that I’d get $10,000. John said it’d be simple but. . ..[OFFICERZ SHOVES HIM IN THE CHEST] John told him, Tommy, that he wanted a million for the pictures, but Tommy refused. SO he bound him up. And, then, um, John started stabbing at him and [IMITATING QUICK STABBING MOTION] and I started tellin’ him, John let’s go. We’ve already got his ATM card, lets go! But, John kept stabbing at him and Tommy just wouldn’t give him the money [STABBING MOTION AGAIN]. So, so John just kept stabbing at him and just, just stabbed him until he was dead.[OFFICERS ] & 2 START WALKING OUT] Hey, I ain’t had nothin’ to do with it. I just wanted the extra cash. Man, I had nothin’ to do with it. OFFICER]: Shut up! [DISGUSTED] [BOTH OFFICERS EXIT] 78 FADE IN Interrogation room, John is sitting at the table. Officer] sits across table. Officer2 leans against the wall. (39:03:01). John Officer2 John Officer] John Officer2 [OFFICERS HAVE INFORMED JOHN THAT THE BAGGER HAS IDENTIFIED HIM AS THE MURDERER] JOHN: Jesus! Jesus! [YELLING LOUDLY, SLAMMING FISTS ON TABLE]. That’s not the way it happened at all. Man, you try to help somebody with their success curve and this is how they do you! OFFICER2: Don’t expect any gratitude in this. JOHN: You think I went up there wanting this to happen to Tommy? It wasn’t me! I’m not the one who went nuts and stabbed him to death! You’ve got it backwards. I can’t believe you’re takin’ his word on this. Man, Tommy and I went way back together. I just needed the cash. [ATTEMPTS TO STAND-UP, OF FICER2 PUSHES HIM BACK DOWN IN HIS SEAT]. OFFICER]: Well something Obviously went wrong. . .. JOHN: [INTERRUPTING OFFICER] AND GESTURING WILDLY WITH HIS ARMS] Look , I told him. . .Get me that million, I know you can and then we’re outta here — ‘Cause a million dollars to Tommy is like, [SHRUGGING] 50 cents to us! And, that’s what I was trying to drive home to him, but... [AGITATED & YELLING]. OFFICER2: Is that when you started stabbing him? 79 John Officer] John Officer] John ZOOM, JOhn shaking head. CUT TO: Officers 1 & 2 DISSOLVE End Scene, over city JOHN: How many times do I gotta tell you it wasn’t me. I didn’t stab Tommy! [CLENCHING HIS TEETH] OFF ICER] : And when your buddy was stabbing him [STABBING GESTURE WITH HAND], You just did nothing, huh? JOHN: [LEANING FORWARD IN CHAIR] I tried to persuade him to stop! “One or two little stabs and he will give us the money.” That’s what he kept saying as he was stabbing Tommy. All I wanted was the money that he don’t miss and that I need [YELLING AND HITTING FIST ON THE TABLE]. He gives us the money and none of us are here. OFFICER]: Ya, well he didn’t give you the money. JOHN: But you can see that I didn’t stab him. You can see that? [OFFICERS ]& 2 LEAVE THE ROOM AND ENTER THE HALL] OFFICER] V0: [TO OFFICER2] What the hell do we do now? [OFFICER2 SHRUGS WITH UNCERTAINTY] (MUSIC: SHIFT TO FINALE) (MUSIC: UP AND OUT) 80 Appendix E WWII) Note; All changes in script begin in section seven which appears below. Other scripting to this point is identical across conditions. 7 Bagger Officer2 Bagger Officer] Bagger Officer] BAGGER: What do you keep bringing John’s name up for? OFFICER2: [COMES UP BEHIND BAGGER, LEAN S OVER HIM, FORCEFULLY YELLING] Why do you think, moron! You and John are who we’re looking at for killing Tommy. BAGGER: Look , all I know is. . ..[LONG PAUSE] OF FICER]: What do you know? BAGGER: [ANXIOUS, BREATHING HEAVILY] Look my job was to go up with him to the apartment and take care of the look- out while John got the money from Tommy [BRIEF PAUSE]. A million dollars. . .a bribe... to keep some pictures from his past under- wraps. It was supposed to be simple, but. . .. [OFFICER2 SHOVES HIM IN THE CHEST] John told him, Tommy, that he wanted a million for the pictures, but Tommy refused. So we bound him up. And, then, um, John started stabbing at him and [IMITATING QUICK STABBING MOTION] and I started tellin’ him, John let’s go. We’ve already got his ATM card, lets go! But, John kept stabbing at him and Tommy just wouldn’t give him the money [STABBING MOTION AGAIN]. So, so John just kept stabbing at him and just, just stabbed him until he was dead. [OFFICERS 1 & 2 START WALKING OUT] Hey, I ain’t had nothin’ to do with it. I just wanted the extra cash. Man, I had nothin’ to do with it. OFFICER]: SO you just stood there while your buddy stabbed him to death? [DISGUSTED] [SILENCE . .BOTH OFFICERS EXIT] 81 FADE IN Interrogation room, John is sitting at the table. Officer] sits across table. Officer2 leans against the wall. (39:03:01). John Officer2 John Officer] John Officer2 [OFFICERS HAVE INFORMED JOHN THAT THE BAGGER HAS IDENTIFIED HIM AS THE MURDERER] JOHN: Jesus! Jesus! [YELLING LOUDLY, SLAMMING FISTS ON TABLE]. That’s not the way it happened at all. OFFICER2: You tell us what happened then? JOHN: You think I went up there wanting this to happen to Tommy? It wasn’t me! I’m not the one who went nuts and stabbed him to death! You’ve got it backwards. I can’t believe you’re takin’ his word on this. Man, Tommy and I went way back together. I just needed the cash. [ATTEMPTS TO STAND-UP, OFFICER2 PUSHES HIM BACK DOWN IN HIS SEAT]. OFFICER]: Well something obviously went wrong. . .. JOHN: [INT ERRUPTING OFFICER] AND GESTURING WILDLY WITH HIS ARMS] Look, I told him. . .Get me that million, I know you can and then we’re outta here — ‘Cause a million dollars to Tommy is like, [SHRUGGING] 50 cents to us! And, that’s what I was trying to drive home to him, but... [AGITATED & YELLING]. OF FICER2: Is that when you started stabbing him? 82 John Officer] John Officer] John ZOOM, Officers 1 & 2 and John in an alley. Cars parked on both sides of the narrow alley. John pointing to a dumpster where he says his buddy tossed the knife. Officer] pulling knife out of dumpster. DISSOLVE JOHN: How many times do I gotta tell you it wasn’t me. I didn’t stab Tommy! I was used. . .he used me to get to Tommy. [CLENCHING HIS TEETH] OFFICER]: And when your buddy was stabbing him [STABBING GESTURE WITH HAND], You just did nothing, huh? JOHN: [LEANING FORWARD IN CHAIR] I tried to persuade him to stop! “One or two little stabs and he will give us the money.” That’s what he kept saying as he was stabbin’ Tommy. He just stabbed him and stabbed him. . .dead. All I wanted was the money that he don’t miss and that I need [YELLING AND HITTING FIST ON THE TABLE]. He gives us the money and none Of us are here. But I didn’t kill ‘im. Damn it man, I didn’t even get his wallet or nothin’ I just wanted outta there. OFFICER]: Ya... JOHN: [PLEADING] You can see that I didn’t stab him. You can see that? [PAUSE & THINKING] I can prove it. . .I know where he dumped the knife, man. It’ll have his fingerprints all over it. (BACKGROUND: UP, CAR/TRAFFIC) (BACKGROUND: UP AND OUT) *3]!!! 83 FADE IN: Police Crime Lab. Officers 1 & 2 standing with lab technician who has examined the knife for fingerprints and tissue remains. Technician Officer] End Scene, WIDE, over lab. TECHNICIAN: There is little doubt that this knife was the murder weapon. The blood sample is consistent with that of the victim. What's more, the fingerprints and additional hair fragments on the knife match those Of the bagger you currently have in custody. OFFICER]: [TO OFFICER2] Damn, John really didn’t do it. MUSIC: UP & OUT *** 84 Appendix F 1. The storyline was easy to follow. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 2. I could easily understand the plot. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 3. The storyline was interesting. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 4. l was bored with the storyline. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 5. The storyline was believable. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 6. This is a realistic storyline. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 7. The script is well-written. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 8. The script has been well-crafted. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 9. The dialogue in this script kept my attention. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 10. I can see this program in the prime time line-up. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 1 1. This is the type of program that would be on prime time. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 85 12. The characters in this script were realistic. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 13. The characters in this script were believable. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 14. I would characterize this type of program as a: Comedy Drama Sci Fi Western 15. John is guilty ofthe crime. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 16. How confident are you that John is guilty? Completely confident Not at all confident 5 4 3 2 1 17. There is no way to determine John’s guilt. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 18. I believe John is innocent of the crime. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 19. How confident are you that John is innocent? Completely confident Not at all confident 5 4 3 2 1 20. There is not enough information to determine guilt. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 2]. I can’t make a decision either way about John’s guilt or innocence. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 86 Appendix G E inltinentrit:r-u FADE 1N (MUSIC: FADE IN INTRO THEME, UNDER) WIDE, high school classroom, overcrowded (16:00:44 or 03:29, freeze; or 18:02:30, freeze) FADE ON Present Title, supered: THE SUBSTITUTE SCENARIO: High school. Loud, English classroom setting. It is only the second week back to school after the summer break and the students are still slightly restless. The class is all seniors. It is before the bell. Papers are being thrown across the room. Music is playing loudly. Students are standing around desks; some dancing to music. The substitute teacher walks in as the bell rings. He sits up on his desk [students begin tO calm down]. WIDE, entire class is looking curiously at the substitute. The sub pulls a pack of gum out of his jacket pocket and gestures to the class, Offering them a piece. The students look curious. STUDENT 1: SO, why are you here? You the 501C161“ 1 new substitute? 87 NARROW, on substitute (05:00:49) Substitute SUBSTITUTE: Good question [RUNS FINGERS THROUGH HIAR OVER SIDE OF HEAD]. Why AM I here? [WALKING TO SIDE OF CLASS]. Yes, I am the new substitute. . .I’m here, quite simply, to get paid. [LAUGHTER FROM THE STUDENTS]. Assuming that you can all read and write, I don’t perceive any emergency situations [FACING/PAUSE]. So, that’s all. . .continue wasting your lives. [GRABS NEWSPAPER FROM BACKPACK, SITS ON DESK, BEGINS TO READ]. 88 Rolling to speaker (18:06:52 or r47). Student 2 Substitute Student 2 Substitute Juan Substitute Rolling. Juan gets up pushing his desk out Of the way and struts over to the door (23:02:55). STUDENT 2: Um, are we like ...dismissed? [STUDENTS LOOKING AROUND CURIOUSLY] . SUBSTITUTE: DO you want to be dismissed? [CLASS RUMBLING] STUDENT 2: No, urn, you just said that’s all you have to say... so. . ..well. . .I wasjust wondering if. . .. [STUDENTS STILL LOOKING AROUND CONFUSED, ONE STUDENT, JUAN RODRIGUEZ, LIFTS HIS HEAD OFF THE DESK WHERE IT WAS RESTING] SUBSTITUTE: I will be here for the next 43 minutes. Whether or not you will be here for that time is your decision. [LOOKS BACK DOWN AT PAPER] JUAN: What’s the catch, huh? SUBSTITUTE: NO catch; You don’t want to be here. . .60. I’m not going to stop you. [STUDENTS RUMBLING AND FIDGETING AROUND] 89 FREEZE (26:01:41 or other) Substitute Juan Substitute Student 1 Substitute Student 1 Substitute SUBSTITUTE: Well, you know there is just one catch. [TOSSES NEWSPAPER TO THE SIDE]. We will be discussing you in your absence. [CLASS SNICKERS]. But, If you don’t mind that... JUAN: Ya, right, man. [SHRUGGING AND CONTINUING TO WALK]. SUBSTITUTE: It’s no joke. Trashing you in your absence will help pass the time. [MORE STUDENT LAUGHTER]. It could possibly be educational too. [JUAN WALKS SLOWLY AND SUSPICIOUSLY BACK TO HIS DESK, PAUSES AND SITS DOWN] STUDENT 1: SO, what are we supposed to do? [STUDENTS LOOKING AROUND CONFUSED AND AMUSED] SUBSTITUTE: I’ve known you for all of five minutes and you want me to tell you what you’re supposed to do. . .[RUNS FINGERS THROUGH HAIR. SHRUGS THOUGHTFULLY]. Fine. Follow your hearts and stay clear of heroin. [CLASS LAUGHTER]. STUDENT 1: No, I mean in the next 43 minutes. [SMILING CURIOUSLY. REF LECTING ON THE PECULIAR NATURE OF THE SUBSTITUTE]. SUBSTITUTE: I know what you meant. That was sarcasm. [REACHES INTO COAT POCKET. PULLS OUT ANOTHER PIECE OF GUM. EXCHANGES THE ONE IN HIS MOUTH FOR A NEW PIECE]. Um, Gum? [OFFERING THE PACK OT THE CLASS AGAIN WITH HIS ARM OUTSTRETCHED]. [STUDENTS TALKING UNDER BREATH] 90 Wide: over class (51:08:29) Student 2 NARROW: over class (51:33:54) Student 2 Substitute DISSOLVE STUDENT 2: Um, one of the, um, things we were supposed to do this year was [PAUSE], um, the literary magazine. We each wrote something, and, like Mrs. Madolin, that was our teacher, she never approved the writing or whatever, because, she just quit. SO we, um, never did. . .start. . .the magazine. [STUDENTS SHUSHING STUDENT 2] SUBSTITUTE: That’s a heartbreaking tale? [LAUGHTER] STUDENT 2: What I meant was, the poems we wrote are in there [POINTING TO THE CABINET]. So, could you at least, like, read them so we can get credit for them. SUBSTITUTE: Why not. [IN ENTHUSIASTIC TONE. WALKS OVER TO THE CABINET. LOOKS OVER THE SHELVES GRABBING A STACK OF PAPERS]. All right then. [BELL SOUNDS. STUDENTS FILE-OUT IN FAST AND DISORGANIZED MANNER] MUSIC: UP 91 3' _ Substitute leaning back in his chair. Feet on desk. Student papers in his lap. Students are all in their seats. (5 l :36:48) Substitute Juan fidgeting in chair (51:34:03) Juan Substitute MUSIC: UNDER & OUT BELL SOUNDS SUBSTITUTE: Well now, I have had the privilege of reading your entries for the Literary Magazine [SMIRKING]. And, how should I describe them...[LOOKING AROUND WITH THOUGHT]. Lets see...[LOOKING AT CEILING]. . .Boring, the word boring comes to mind. Fake, false, synthetic, bogus... [STUDENTS TALKING UNDER BREATH]. . ..Now, What do you think these words have in common. [STANDS UP IN FRONT OF THE CLASS]. You. . ..[POINTING TO JUAN]. JUAN: [WITH BLANK LOOK] Me? SUBSTITUTE: Yes, what do these words have in common? 92 Substitute Juan Substitute Student 1 Substitute DISSOLVE SUBSTITUTE: Yes, yes, I know what you are going to say [JUAN LOOKING AROUND CONFUSED]... that these words are synonyms. And, that is true. . .but what else are they? How else would you classify them? JUAN: [LOOKING AROUND EMBARRASSED]. I dunno SUBSTITUTE: Yes! You! Do! [IN STERN TONE]. Think I’m an idiot? If I tell you the class poems were [WALKING] safe, banal, homogenized, cutsie. . .all Of which is true by the way. . .what kinds Of words am I using? [SITS ON JUAN’S DESK. LOOKING INTENTLY AT HIM]. Tell me [LEANS OVER VERY CLOSE. LOOKING INTO JUAN’S FACE]. Don’t give me that blank lOOk. [JUAN LOOKS AWAY]. [PAUSE]. You know this, come on.[STARTS PACING AROUND JUAN’S DESK]. Tell me. Not nouns, not verbs, but. . .[PAUSE AS JUAN LOOKS AROUND IN A PANIC] STUDENT 1: Adjective. [YELLING FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROOM]. SUBSTITUTE: Yes, o.k. [SUBSTITUTE DISTRACTED FROM JUAN NOW WALKS OVER TO THE WINDOW WITH THE STUDENT POEMS IN HIS HAND]. Now, how do I put this. . .This [RAISING POEMS INTO THE AIR] is the most wretched crap I have ever read. [TOSSES POEMS OUT THE WINDOW LITTERING THE FRONT LAWN. STUDENTS IN CLASS RUMBLING] BELL SOUNDS MUSIC: UP & UNDER 93 End of another class period (04:07:35-12z25) Substitute Juan Substitute DISSOLVE MUSIC: UNDER & OUT BELL RINGING [AS STUDENTS EXITING SUBSTITUTE ADDRESSES JUAN]. SUBSTITUTE: Juan [JUAN TURNS AROUND HALF-WAY OUT THE DOOR]. That’s your name right? Juan Rodriguez? [JUAN NODS]. Look, I appreciate that you don’t want to monopolize the class discussion [HUMOROUS TONE], but come on... I need you to talk more [TONE TURNS SERIOUS]. You’re not going to pass this class if I can’t see that you understand the material. That means you will not graduate. JUAN: OK. OK. SUBSTITUTE: And be prepared in class tomorrow. MUSIC: UP 94 Students are walking into class. Everyone is talking about the new substitute. His ‘strange’ behavior, his non-traditional methods, the gum chewing. He is younger than most of the other teachers at the school and is much cooler. He challenges the students and they like it. As the months go by the students enjoy him more and more. Substitute Student 2 Student 1 Substitute Fast cuts: students thinking, writing, working. DISSOLVE MUSIC: UNDER & OUT BELL RINGING SUBSTITUTE: [AS THE STUDENTS ARE ENTERING] Pull out your notebooks. [STUDENTS RUMBLING]. I want everyone to start-over on their poems. . .from the beginning. . .right now. STUDENT 2: What? [UPSET] [GRUMBLING IN CLASS] STUDENT 1: I didn’t bring a notebook. . .and I worked hard on the last poem. The Pine tree poem. . .that was mine! SUBSTITUTE: [SITTING ON HIS DESK] Well, this time don’t give me anything quaint. I don’t want to read about greenery or domesticated animals. . .I want the real-deal! [NOW PACING] I want honesty, anger. . .what you’re feeling. . .what you never told anyone..what you never told yourself! [SMILING]. Yes, and so no one is exposed... Don’t put your names on them. These will be completely anonymous. [STUDENTS GRUMBLING. PULL OUT NOTEBOOKS AND START WORKING] 95 FADE: (04:12:00; 04:13:24) In & Out. Many class periods over several months. As the year continues the Substitute continues to become more and more popular with the students. Student enthusiasm is clearly growing. Attendance has increased. Participation has increased. DISSOLVE FADE IN, (17:14:01) near the end Of another class period. WIDE, Substitute reading last few lines of a poem aloud. Sitting on his desk. Substitute Juan Substitute Substitute DISSOLVE MUSIC: IN MUSIC: OUT SUBSTITUTE VO: ...1 think it clever Of the turtle in a fix yet so fertile. SUBSTITUTE: O.K. is this poem by Peter Erge a real Haiku? [LOOKING AROUND ROOM] What do you think? [PAUSE] Anyone? [PAUSE] Juan? JUAN: [FIDGETING IN SEAT. LOOKING AROUND]. I dunno. SUBSTITUTE: Ya, well find out [JUMPS UP. GRABS CLASS TEXT FROM DESK]. Look it up! [HANDS BOOK TO JUAN]. Now! [JUAN LOOKING AROUND NERVOUSLY. BELL RINGS SPARING HIM ANY FURTHER EMBARRASSMENT. CLASS EXITS. JUAN HALF WAY OUT THE DOORHJ SUBSTITUTE: Juan! Come here. [JUAN PAUSES AND TURNS AROUND]. You and l aren’t finished yet. [SUBSTITUTE AND JUAN WALK OVER TO STUDENT DESKS AND SIT DOWN]. You have only turned in a few Of your assignments, you rarely participate in class. What are we going to do about this? 96 FADE IN Juan and Substitute are sitting in the student desks after school. Juan has a book in front of him. He is frustrated examining the text. (38:07:55 or 38:08:23) Substitute Juan Substitute Juan Substitute Substitute DISSOLVE SUBSTITUTE: What’s that word? [STARING INTENTLY AT JUAN. JUAN LOOKS OUT THE WINDOW]. Don’t look out the window! What’s the word! [STERNLY] JUAN: Um [LONG PAUSE]. SUBSTITUTE: What’s the sound? [PAUSE]. [DISAPPOINTED] O.K. finish this chapter and the next ten poems tonight. JUAN: What? Are you crazy? [PUSHES HIMSELF BACK IN HIS DESK] SUBSTITUTE: Look [LEANIN G TOWARD JUAN]. This is Haiku poetry. Haiku poetry contains only 17 syllables per poem. That’s not a lot of syllables. [TONE RAISING]. Don’t skip any. [LOUDER]. Get out of here! [JUAN STORMS OUT OF THE CLASS, PUSHING THE DESKS IN HIS WAY] [SUBSTITUTE SIGHS HEAVILY LOOKING DOWN, CLEARLY UPSET. STANDS UP. PUSHES DESK BEGINS TALKING ALOUD {TO HIMSELF}] SUBSTITUTE: It just pisses me off. . .how that kid could make it this far..with no one ever bothering to notice that he can hardly read or write! [GRABS A PIECE OF GUM FROM HIS POCKET] MUSIC: UP 97 NARROW, scenes in and out Of MUSIC: IN class periods across several more months. Juan is coming tO class less and less. The substitute waits for him after class and Juan never shows-up. As the segment continues, it becomes clear that Juan is not going to stick with it. It is a slow process throughout the school year and Juan seems tO have lost his motivation. On the rare occasion that he does come ] to class he doesn’t bother to lift his head from the desk. [CUT: FADE IN/OUT] (39:00:28) MU SIC :OUT DISSOLVE ZOOM: Juan is standing in the hall with a group Of his classmates. It is the day of graduation. Everyone is in a cap and gown, except for Juan. Juan and the substitute see one another and walk towards each other. JUAN: I, uh, don’t know what to say. . .. Juan SUbStitute SUBSTITUTE: You could have written it down for me if.... [THERE IS A LONG PAUSE. JUAN WALKS AWAY] (MUSIC: SHIFT TO FINALE) Fast cuts of students walking, standing-around, talking (Early Aft 2, 09:00+-+; 11:10; 13:50; 18:02). DISSOLVE 98 End Scene, over school. Graduation. Juan is not present. (MUSIC: UP AND OUT) 99 Appendix H . A . . . , N912; All changes In script begin In section eight which appears belOw. Other Scripting to this point is identical across conditions. 8 NARROW, scenes in and out Of MUSIC: IN class periods across several more months. Juan’s attendance is unpredictable. The substitute waits for him afier school and Juan occasionally shows-up tO these meetings. As the segment continues, it is unclear whether or not Juan is going to stick with it. It is a slow process throughout the school year and Juan’s motivation seems to come and go. He can be seen participating in class at times, and other times he doesn’t bother to lift his head from the desk. [CUT: FADE MUSICzOUT IN/OUT] (39:00:28) DISSOLVE 100 ZOOM: Juan is standing in the hall with a group of his classmates. It is the day of graduation. Juan and the substitute see one another and walk towards each other. Juan Substitute Fast cuts of students walking, standing-around, talking (Early Afi 2, 09:00++; 11:10; 13:50; 1 8 :02). DISSOLVE End Scene, over school graduation. JUAN: I, uh, don’t know what to say. . .. SUBSTITUTE: Can you write it down for me then... [SUBSTITUTE REACHES OUT TO SHAKE JUAN’S HAND. JUAN SHAKES HIS HAND AND WALKS AWAY] (MUSIC: SHIFT TO FINALE) (MUSIC: UP AND OUT) 10] Appendix I ck ' tai ' ' Note; All changes in script begin in section eight which appears below. Other scripting to this point is identical across conditions. 8 NARROW, scenes in and out of MUSIC: IN class periods across several more months. Juan is consistently coming to class and regularly attends his after-school meetings with the substitute teacher. As the segment continues, Juan appears to be participating more and more in class. He is seen raising his hand and contributing to class discussions. He is, slowly but surely, making his way. [CUT: FADE IN/OUT] (39:00:28) DISSOLVE MUSICzOUT 102 ZOOM: Juan is standing in the hall with a group of his classmates. It is the day of graduation. All are in caps and gowns. Juan and the substitute see one another and walk towards each other. Both are smiling. JUAN: I, uh, don’t know what tO say. . .. Juan Substitute SUBSTITUTE: Write it down for me then. [SUBSTITUTE REACHES OUT TO SHAKE JUAN’S HAND. JUAN SHAKES HIS HAND AND HUGS THE SUBSTITUTE] (MUSIC: SHIFT TO FINALE) Fast cuts of students walking, standing-around, talking (Early Alt 2, 09:00++; 11:10; 13:50; 18:02). DISSOLVE End Scene, over school graduation (MUSIC: UP AND OUT) 103 ZOOM: Juan is standing in the hall with a group of his classmates. It is the day Of graduation. All are in caps and gowns. Juan and the substitute see one another and walk towards each other. Both are smiling. JUAN: I, uh, don’t know what tO say.... Juan Substitute SUBSTITUTE: Write it down for me then. [SUBSTITUTE REACHES OUT TO SHAKE JUAN’S HAND. JUAN SHAKES HIS HAND AND HUGS THE SUBSTITUTE] (MUSIC: SHIFT TO FINALE) Fast cuts of students walking, standing-around, talking (Early Aft 2, 09:00++; 11:10; 13:50; 18:02). DISSOLVE End Scene, over school graduation (MUSIC: UP AND OUT) 103 Appendix J E ' 'tPr n l. The storyline was easy to follow. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 2. I could easily understand the plot. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 3. The storyline was interesting. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 4. I was bored with the storyline. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 5. The storyline was believable. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 6. This is a realistic storyline. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 7. The script is well-written. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 8. The script has been well-crafted. Strongly agree Agree N eutra] Disagree 9. The dialogue in this script kept my attention. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 10. I can see this program in the prime time line-up. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 1]. This is the type Of program that would be on prime time. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 104 Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree 12. The characters in this script were realistic. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 13. The characters in this script were believable. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 14. I would characterize this type Of program as a: Comedy Drama Sci F i Western 15. Clearly, John graduated. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 16. How confident are you that John graduated? Completely confident Not at all confident 5 4 3 2 1 17. There is no way to determine if John graduated. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 18. I believe that John dropped-out. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 19. How confident are you that John dropped-out? Completely confident Not at all confident 5 4 3 2 l 20. There is not enough information to determine if John graduated. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 2]. I can’t make a decision either way about whether John graduated. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 105 Appendix K E . 1 S _ 2 . . l. :1 l :1 ; Please answer the following questions about the script you just read. 1. How confident are you that John is guilty Of the murder? Completely confident Not at all confident 5 4 3 2 1 2. There is no way to determine John’s guilt. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 3. How confident are you that John is innocent? Completely confident Not at all confident 5 4 3 2 1 4. There is nO way to determine John’s innocence Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 5. There is not enough evidence to determine John’s guilt. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 6. The script shows that John is innocent of the murder. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 7. Considering the circumstances, John’s crime was justified. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 8. In the same circumstances I would behave the same way. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree ' Strongly disagree 9. John’s behavior is rare. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 10. John is like me. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 106 11. I don’t know anyone like John. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 12. I have friends like John. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 13. There is no excuse for the crime John committed. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 14. This type Of crime is neverjustified. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 15. In instances such as this, sometimes crimes have to be committed. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 16. These conditions make John’s actions more acceptable. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 17. Because of the circumstances, I cannot support John’s actions. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree In this section, please circle your opinion about the following statements: 18. I am a person of worth, at least on an equal basis with others. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 19. I feel that I have a number Of good qualities. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 20. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 2]. I am able to do things as well as most other people. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 107 22. I feel I d_0_nqt have much to be proud Of. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 23. I take a positive attitude toward myself. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 24. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Please continue to honestly and thoughtfully answer the following questions: 25. I wish I could have more respect for myself. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 26. I certainly feel useless at times. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 27. At times I think I am no good at all. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Please read each question carefully and circle your responses on the numeric scale provided. 28. Compared to the other characteristics which define you, how much do you value your race/ethnicity? Very much Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 29. How strong a sense of belonging do you have with your race/ethnicity? Very strong Not at all strong 1 2 3 4 5 30. How much do you like being defined by your race/ethnicity? Very much Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 3 1. How closely knit are you with others of your race/ethnicity? Very close Not at all close 1 2 3 4 5 108 32. How much pride do you take in your race/ethnicity? Very much pride Not proud at all 1 2 3 4 5 33. I d_o_n9_t enjoy being categorized by my race/ethnicity. Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 34. I fee] included by others Of my race/ethnicity. Very included Not at all included 1 2 3 4 5 Please continue to circle your responses to the following statements: 35. I dong feel involved with others of my race/ethnicity. Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 36. Some Of my best friends are of my race/ethnicity. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 4 5 37. The typical person of my race/ethnicity is hard working. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 4 5 38. The typical person of my race/ethnicity is inaLtjgleate. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 4 5 39. The typical person of my race/ethnicity is intellectual. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 4 5 40. The typical person of my race/ethnicity is politically aware. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 4 5 41. The typical person of my race/ethnicity is easy going. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 4 5 109 42. The typical person Of my race/ethnicity is practically minded. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 4 5 43. The typical person Of my race/ethnicity is an underachiever. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 4 5 Because demographics are an important part of program appeal, we would like to ask you a few questions about yourself 1. What is your age: 2. What is your sex (circle)? Male Female 3. What is your race/ethnicity (please check / or X your answer)? _African American/Black _Asian American _Caucasian/White _Latino/Hispanic _Native American _Pacific Islander Other (please specify): 110 Appendix L Please answer the following questions about the script you just read. 1. How confident are you that Juan graduated from high school? Completely confident Not at all confident 5 4 3 2 l 2. There is no way to determine if Juan graduated. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 3. How confident are you that Juan dropped-out of high school? Completely confident Not at all confident 5 4 3 2 1 4. There is no way to determine whether or not Juan dropped-out Of high school. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 5. Considering the circumstances, Juan’s situation was justified. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 6. Under the same circumstances, I would be in the same situation as Juan. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 7. Juan’s situation is rare. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 8. Juan is like me. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 9. I don’t know anyone like Juan. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 10. I have friends like Juan. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 1]] 11. There is no excuse for not graduating from high school. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 12. The circumstances make Juan’s situation more acceptable. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Please continue to circle your responses to the following statements: 13. Juan is n_o_t to blame for this situation. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 14. Everyone should graduate from high school. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 15. Because of the circumstances, Juan imp; to blame. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 16. There is no excuse for Juan’s situation. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 17. Juan should take all responsibility for the situation. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree In this section, please circle your opinion about the following statements: 18. I am a person Of worth, at least on an equal basis with others. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 19. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 20. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 2]. I am able to do things as well as most other people. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree 112 Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree Strongly disagree 22. I feel I £19.20]; have much to be proud of. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 23. I take a positive attitude toward myself. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 24. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Please continue to honestly and thoughtfully answer the following questions: 25. I wish I could have more respect for myself. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 26. I certainly feel useless at times. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree 27. At times I think I am no good at all. Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree Please read each question carefully and circle your responses on the numeric scale provided. 28. Compared to the other characteristics which define you, how much do you value your race/ethnicity? Very much Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 29. How strong a sense of belonging do you have with your race/ethnicity? Very strong Not at all strong 1 2 3 4 5 30. How much do you like being defined by your race/ethnicity? Very much Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 3 1. How closely knit are you with others of your race/ethnicity? Very close Not at all close 1 2 3 4 5 113 32. How much pride do you take in your race/ethnicity? Very much pride Not proud at all 1 2 3 4 5 33. I dong; enjoy being categorized by my race/ethnicity. Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly 1 2 3 4 S 34. I fee] included by others of my race/ethnicity. Very included Not at all included 1 2 3 4 5 Please continue to circle your responses to the following statements: 35. I 0.0.11.0! feel involved with others of my race/ethnicity. Agree Strongly Disagree Strongly 1 2 3 4 5 36. Some of my best fiiends are of my race/ethnicity. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly l 2 3 4 S 37. The typical person of my race/ethnicity is hard working. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 4 5 38. The typical person of my race/ethnicity is inanjgflate. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 4 5 39. The typical person of my race/ethnicity is intellectual. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 4 S 40. The typical person of my race/ethnicity is politically aware. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly l 2 3 4 5 41. The typical person of my race/ethnicity is easy going. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly l 2 3 4 5 114 42. The typical person Of my race/ethnicity is practically minded. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 4 5 43. The typical person Of my race/ethnicity is an underachiever. Agree Strongly Disagree strongly 1 2 3 4 5 Because demographics are an important part of program appeal, we would like to ask you a few questions about yourself: 1. What is your age: 2. What is your sex (circle)? Male Female 3. What is your race/ethnicity (please check \/ or X your answer)? __African American/Black ___Asian American _Caucasian/White ___Latino/Hispanic ___Native American _Pacific Islander Other (please specify): 115 REFERENCES 116 REFERENCES Abrams, D. (1999). Social identity, social cognition, and the self: The flexibility and stability of self-categorization. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds), SocialeenfigLam Socialflggnjtjgn (pp. 141-163). Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers. Abrams, D. & Hogg, M. (1990). An introduction to the social identity approach. In D- Abrams & M- Hogg (EdS-), WWW Adyanees (pp. 1-9). Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Banaji, M. & Hardin, C. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. W Z, 136-141. Barerra, A. & Close, F. (1992). Minority role models: Hispanics. In M. Schwarts (Ed), WW (pp. 88-95). Reading, Mass: Addison- Wesley. Berg, C. (1990). Stereotyping in films in general and of the Hispanic in particular. 11W, 337-349. Billig, M. (1976). W. London, UK: Academic Press. Billig, M. & Taj fel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior. W, 27-52. . Blascovich, J ., Wyer, N., Swart, L., Kibler, J. (1997). Racism and racial categorization. W, 1364-1372. Bodenhausen, G. & Wyer, Jr, R. (1985). Effects of stereotyping on decision making and information processing strategies. W Psychology, 48, 267-282. 117 Bohon, L. Singer, R., & Santos, S. (1993). The effects Of real-world status and manipulated status on the self-esteem and social competition Of Anglo-americans and Mexican -Americans. HispanieleumalnsthaxicraLSsimceaii 63-79. Brewer, M. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. Srull and R. Wyer, Jr. (Eds), WW (pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brewer, M. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. WW, 475-482. Brewer, M. & Harasty, A. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In R. Sorrentino & E. Higgins (Eds). Handhqugfmgfiyaflgundmgniflm MW (pp. 347-370). New York, NY: Guilford. Burgoon, J., Burgoon, M., Carvalho, R., Greenberg, B., & Korzenny, F. (1983). Mass media use, preferences, and attitudes among adults. In B.Greenberg, M. Burgoon, J. Burgoon, & F. Korzenny (Eds), WW (pp. 79-146). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Condor, S. (1990). Social stereotypes and social identity. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (EdS-), SDflaUdenfiQLIheemfionstmfixeandfldficalAdxanses (PP- 230-249)- Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Coover, G. & Murphy, S. (2000). The communicated self: Exploring the interaction between self and social context. W, 125- 147. Diehl, M. (1988). Social identity and minimal groups: The effects of interpersonal and intergroup attitudinal similarity on intergroup discrimination. Britishioumajfi W22, 289-300. 118 Doise, W. Csepeli, G., Dann, H., Gouge, G, Larsen, D., & Ostell, A. (1972). An experimental investigation into the formation of intergroup representationsm Watchdogs}, 202-204. Eiser, J. & Stroebe, W. (1972). Warrants, London, UK: Academic Press. Espinoza, J. & Garza, R. (1985). Social group salience and interethnic cooperation. mummmsmalfiwhglmll, 380-392. Faber, R., O’Guinn, T., & Meyer, T. (1987). Televised portrayals of Hispanics: A comparison of ethnic perceptions. WW4], 155-169. F amham, S., Greenwald, A., & Banaji, M. (1999). Implicit self-esteem. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds), WWW (pp. 141-163). Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers. Ferguson, C. & Kelley, H. (1964). Significant factors in overevaluation of own group’s product. WWW, 223-228. F iske, S. & Neuberg, S. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. Zanna (Ed), WM Psychology (pp. 1-74). New York, NY: Academic Press. Grant, P. (1992). Ethnocentrism between groups of unequal power in response to perceived threat to social identity and valued resources. Canadjmlgumalfiflehayjmal Scienceszi, 348-370. 119 Grant, P. (1993). Ethnocentrism in response to a threat tO social identity. Journal Of i v' nali , 143-154. Greenberg, B. & Baptista—Femandez, P. (1980). Hispanic-Americans — The new minority on television. In B. Greenberg (Ed.). W [2.3. [V Drama (pp. 3-12). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Greenberg, B. & Brand, J. (1994). Minorities and the mass media: 19705 to 1990s In J. Bryant and D. Zillrnann (Eds), MW Research (pp. 273-314). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Greenberg, B., Burgoon, M., Burgoon,J., & Korzenny, F. (1983). Mexim AmencansandiheMassMega. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Hamilton, D. & Sherman, J. (1994). Stereotypes. In R. Wyer, Jr. & T. Srull (Eds), W119]; (pp. 3-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hogg, M- (1992)-IheS_chal_BsYcthaguf_GLoL1rLC9119smenessLEmm W. Washington Square, NY: New York University Press. Hogg, M- & Abrams, D. (1988). WWW littergLQurLRelathnsandflLQunProsssses New York, NY: Rouflcdge- Hogg, M. & Abrams, D. (1999). Social identity and social cognition: Historical background and current trends. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds), MW Socialfiggrmion (pp. 1-25). Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers. Hogg, M. & McGarty, C. (1990). Self-categorization and social identity. In D. Abrams & M- Hogg (Eds), WW (pp. 10-27). Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf. 120 Hogg, M., Terry, D., & White, K. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory._Sg_Qi_aLEs)Lch_nggy_Quart_erly, L8, 255-269. Huang, R. & Tamborini, R. (1999). Heuristic application in jury decision-making: The role of egalitarian constraint and information load. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. Jackson, L., Sullivan, L., Hamish, R., & Hodge, C. (1996). Achieving positive social identity: Social mobility, social creativity, and permeability of group boundaries. WWW 241-254. Johnston, L. & Hewstsone, M. (1990). Intergroup contact: Social identity and social cognition. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds), MW andflrjficaLAdxances (pp. 185-210). Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Weatsheaf. Kelly, C. (1990). Social identity and intergroup perceptions in minority-majority contexts. Humanfielatignsfi, 583-599. Lepore, L. & Brown, R. (1999). Exploring automatic stereotype activation: A challenge to inevitability of prejudice. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds), My anngcianggnitm (pp. 141-163). Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers. Locke, V. & Walker, I. (1999). Stereotyping, processing goals, and social identity: Inveterate and fugacious characteristics of stereotypes. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds), SacraLIdennnaamSacIaLCogmtmn (pp. 164-182). Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers. 121 Marques, J. (1990). The black-sheep effect: Out-group homogeneity in social comparison settings. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds), W W (pp. 185-210). Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Weatsheaf. Masson, C. & Verkuyten, M. (1993). Prejudice, ethnic identity, contact and ethnic group preferences among Dutch young adolescents. lgumalgfiAppljeiSQcial W, 156-168. Mastro, D. & Greenberg, B. (in press). The portrayal of racial minorities on prime time television. WM. Mastro, D. & Robinson, A. (in press). Cops and crooks: Images of minorities on primetime television. WWW. NCLR. (1994). W. Washington, DC: Center for Media and Public Affairs, National Council of La Raza. NCLR- (1996). W Washington, DC: Center for Media and Public Affairs, National Council of La Raza. Perez, J. & Mugny, G. (1990). Minority influence, manifest discrimination and latent influence. WWW (pp. 152- 168). Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Platlow, M., Harley, K., Hunter, J ., Hanning, P., Shave, R., & O’Connell (1997). Interpreting in-group-favoring allocations in the minimal group paradigm. _Britishloumal MW 107-117- 122 Rabbie, J., Schot, J ., & Visser, L. (1989). Social identity theory: A conceptual and empirical critique from the perspective of a behavioral interaction model. Emopoan Joumal of Sooigl Psychology, [2, 171-202. Reicher, S. & Levine, M. (1994). Deindividuation, power relations between groups, and the expression of social identity: The effects of visibility to the out-group. MshlaumaLQLSOciaLflmhclqufi. 145-163. Rosenberg, M. (1991). The self-esteem scale. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds), Measures Of Personality and Social Psychological Attitides (pp. 121). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ryan, C. & Bogart, L. (1997). Development of new group members’ ingroup and outgroup stereotypes: Changes in perceived group variability and ethnocentristorerj W 719-737-- Santos, S., Garza, R., & Bohon, L. (1990). Perceptions of intergroup relations: A comparison of Anglo-Arnerican and Mexican American university students. In S. Chang (Ed.), "r- ‘r 01-... '. orr‘ a]... a. '5‘ 'r ‘ -31. “r [r ‘ 1-... urns _A_morioans (pp. 283-302). Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen. Santos, S., Garza, R., & Bohon, L. (1994). Status differentials, status stability and interethnic social competition in Anglo-Americans and Mexican Americans. Hispanio ImmalnfflehaxicraLSciencesJfi. 438-458. Secord, P. (1959). Stereotyping and favourableness in the perception of negro faces. LaumalanhnennaLaniSnciaLPsychclogLifl. 309-315. Secord, P., Bevan, W. & Katz, B. (1956). The negro stereotype and perceptual accentuation. MW 73:83- 123 Sherif, M. & Hovland, C. (1961).S&ia1_ludgern_ent;_Assrleatlon_and_C9ntLast Efleotsruflommumoanonfliamuuloflhongo. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Smith, E. (1993). Social identity and social emotions: Toward new conceptualizations of prejudice. In D. Mackie & D. Hamilton (Eds), Alfoot, Cognition, and Storootyping; lntoructivo Erooossos in Group Borooption (pp. 279-315). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Smith, E. (1999). Affective and cognitive implication of a group becoming part of the self: New models of prejudice and of the self-concept. In D. Abrams & M. Hogg (Eds), WWW (pp. 183-196). Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers. Spears, R. & Manstead, A. (1989). The social context of stereotyping and differentiation. Europoau Journal of Sooiul Psychology, 19, 101-121. Subervi-Velez, F. & Necochea, J. (1990). Television viewing and self-concept among Hispanic American children — A pilot studyuflommumalomommunioamm, 2315-329. Tajfel, H- (1969) Won In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. Tajfel, H- (1978). 121W RsyohologLoflmorgroupRolauons. London, UK: Academic Press. Tajfel. H. (1981). Hmmsmmmammsmmm Bsyolrology, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H. (1981b). Social stereotypes and social groups. In J. Turner and H. Giles (Eds), WMQp. 146-147). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 124 Tajfel, H. & Billig, M. (1974). Familiarity and categorization in intergroup - behavior. JaumalDLEmmemflfincraLthnlnngfl 159-170. Taj fel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. WWW, 149-177. Taj fel, H. & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory Of intergoup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds), WM (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Taj fel, H. & Wilkes, A. (1963). Classification and quantitative judgements. British Journal of Esyohology, 54, 101-114. Turner, J. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behavior. WWW, 5-34. Turner, J. (1981). The experimental social psychology Of intergroup behavior. In J. turner & H. Giles (Eds), IntorgrounBohayiormp. 5-34). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Turner, J. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Taj fel (Ed.), Wong (pp. 15-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Turner, J. (1985). Social categorization and the self concept: a social cognitive theory Of group behavior. In E. Lawler (Ed.),_Ady_ano_os_in_Gro_up_Pro_c_e§§_es;_Iheom_and Rosearolupp. 77-122). Greenwhich, CT: JAI. t’ Turner, J. (1991). Sooiuunfluonoe. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Turner, J. Hogg, M., Oakes, P., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Mmingflefisialfimflfielffiatmfizatmlhm Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 125 Tzeng, O. & Jackson, J. (1994). Effects of contact, conflict, and social identity on interethnic gTOUP hostilitieslrrtermtionalsbnmalnflntemulturamelationsfl, 259-276. 126