THE SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE AND MEDIA INFLUENCE ON THE RACIAL ATTITUDES OF CHILDREN: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SHERRIE LEE MAZINGO 1975 '\Ir a D - «new tn... 1,.5’ 5.3.”. ‘ .h . . The Symbolic Interactionist Perspective and I 'wh- .ufisheOf—u 4 .~ . 3 . Media Influenco on the Racial Attitudes of Children: An EXploratory Study presented by Sherrie Lee -Mazingo has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. . degree in Communication .1 .... .;‘ V . qupx, professor q I Date" November 14I 1975 ‘5' IIII IIIII9III9I I III IIIIIIII III III IIII III III III III IIII IIIII 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 011315 10/13 K IProflAccfl-PrelelRC/DateDueFormsjm3‘Indd - p91 \S‘K \3». ‘3 K ‘\ \ ~\ D \ \‘ ABSTRACT QTHE SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE AND MEDIA INFLUENCE ON THE RACIAL ATTITUDES OF CHILDREN: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY By Sherrie Lee Mazingo The purpose of this study was to examine mass media influ- ence, specifically television influence, on the racial attitudes of majority and minority children. This study drew from the symbolic interactionist perspective in development of a theoretical frame- work whose basic propositions were that (l) the determination of media effects is enbedded in a processual environment; (2) for any given set of effects, the attitudes and actions of specific others affect the attitudes and actions of the individual; (3) those indi- viduals who affect the attitudes and actions of the individual are subject to the same kinds of influences as the individual; (4) the central behavioral term of self or self-concept primarily stems from interaction with others; (5) self or self-concept undergoes an interpretative process which mediates the influence of specific others and the media; (6) the cognitive processes of reasoning, thinking, and intelligence influence the interpretive process; (7) different attitudes are held toward different representations of the same class of objects; (8) these different attitudes recip— rocally influence one another, and (9) as influences in the Sherrie Lee Mazingo environment of the individual change, attitudes held by the indi- vidual also change. On the basis of the theoretic rationale and other considera- tions relevant to media influence, a causal model encompassing six exogenous variables and eight endogenous variables was developed. The six exogenous variables were (l) frequency of exposure to tele- vision portrayals; (2) perceived treatment of minority and majority individuals by other media; (3) perceived significant others' atti- tudes toward television portrayals; (4) perceived significant others' attitudes toward mental ability; (5) number of minority and majority individuals known well; and (6) socioeconomic status. The eight endogenous variables were (l) knowledge of television portrayals; (2) self-interaction; (3) perceived mental ability; (4) self-concept; (5) media perception; (6) generalized reality; (7) attitude toward television portrayals, and (8) attitude toward ethnic groups apart from television portrayals. Two variations of the general model were examined: one for the influ- ence of black portrayals, and the other for the influence of white portrayals. It was hypothesized that influence would be exerted by frequency of exposure to the portrayals on knowledge of the por- trayals, and self-interaction; perceived media treatment on atti- tude toward the ethnic group; socioeconomic status on self-concept; and number of minority and majority individuals known well on self- interaction. As number of minority and majority individuals known well increased, it was hypothesized to negatively influence the level of generalized reality. Sherrie Lee Mazingo Reciprocal influences were posited between perceived sig- nificant others' attitudes toward mental ability and perceived mental ability; self-concept and attitude toward the ethnic group; perceived significant others' attitudes toward television portrayals and the attitude toward television portrayals; attitude toward tele- vision portrayals and attitude toward the ethnic group. The sample consisted of 24l third and fifth grade children in the Lansing and Ingham Intermediate school districts. The children from the Lansing district were enrolled in racially inte- grated schools while the children from the Ingham district were enrolled in a racially nonintegrated school. In all, there were 142 white children, 68 black children, 25 Chicano children, 4 Native American children, and 2 children of other races. The final survey questionnaire was administered by trained interviewers in March and May, 1975, and pretested by trained interviewers in February, l975. The final questionnaire which consisted of stimulus pictures of black and white television characters, and open-ended and closed- ended questions, took about one hour to complete. The statistical design initially proposed a nonrecursive path analytic model to represent the hypothesized reciprocal influ- ences. Preliminary data examinations, however, did not support a test of the nonrecursive model on the given data set. A revised model was estimated by weighted multiple regression techniques for evidence of covariation in specifying a more correct model. Given the misspecification of the model caution was sug- gested in the interpretation of the path coefficients. Overall, Sherrie Lee Mazingo results of the model for black portrayals generally yielded higher explained variance and more significant relationships than results for white portrayals across the entire sample. The path coefficients consistently explaining the most variation in the endogenous vari- ables for both black and white portrayals were the hypothesized relationships between (a) perceived significant others' attitudes toward the television portrayals and the respondent's attitude toward these portrayals; (b) perceived significant others' attitudes toward mental ability and self-concept; and (c) perceived signifi- cant others' attitudes toward mental ability and the respondent's perceived mental ability. Those variables which generally explained no or slight variation in the endogenous variables were the relationships between (a) socioeconomic status and self-concept; (b) mental ability and media perception, and (c) knowledge of the portrayals and self-interaction. Discussion of the research findings focused on reconcep— tualization and remeasurement of the variables as cast in a reciprocal influence model. THE SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE AND MEDIA INFLUENCE ON THE RACIAL ATTITUDES OF CHILDREN: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY By Sherrie Lee Mazingo A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1975 © Copyright by SHERRIE LEE MAZINGO 1975 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Communication, College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State Univer- sity, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. WBWI Direztor of Theéi; Guidance Committee: To My Parents 1'1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The conduct of a study whether for a dissertation or for some other purpose is a learning experience. The research process itself has inherent heuristic value, but perhaps just as importantly, one may also discover a gratifying awareness of the contributions of those associated with the research in both academic and personal roles. Appreciation goes to members of the guidance committee: Dr. Joseph Hoelfel, chairman, for academic counsel and for an enduring belief in me; Dr. Erwin Bettinghaus, Communication depart- ment chairman, for several kindnesses extended during my academic career at Michigan State University; Dr. Ruth Hamilton, for pro- viding rare perception and insight to the research and for being a strong and constant source of support and encouragement; and Dr. John Schweitzer, for generously stepping in at the eleventh hour and actively assuming the role of committee member. Several close friends and associates deserve recognition fbr various kinds of assistance. Space unfortunately allows men- tioning but a few: Dr. Richard Hasbany, Dr. Myrtle Yoshinaga, Dr. Katrina Simmons; and fellow students, Ruth Harris, Raymond Laurin, Mary Lewis, Nancy and Doug Richardson, and Evelyn Spears. A special thank you to Mitzi Bond, my good friend and confidante, whose assistance and devotion to this task was unparalleled and who was always there for moral support when needed. I would also like to thank the numerous undergraduates with whom knowledge was shared as teacher and students and who gave unstintingly of their time to several phases of this research. I extend gratitude also to Dr. Mary L. Ellis, a dear friend and mentor who relentlessly encouraged me to pursue a doctorate and who supported me in every possible way. Finally, the deepest gratitude to the mentor of mentors and the closest and dearest of friends, my mother Mrs. Anthony V. Mazingo who I trust will forgive me for not grasping the words to thank her enough. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . Purpose . Assumptions of Symbolic Interactionism Concepts Within Symbolic Interactionism . . A Conceptual Framework for Mass Media Effects Summary . II. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM General Considerations . . The Study Focus and Rationale The Variables . . . . . The Statistical Model III. RESEARCH METHODS Questionnaire Development and Pretesting . Survey Sites and Respondents . . Questionnaire Administration . Measurement of the Variables . Reliability Estimates IV. RESULTS Attitude Toward Black Persons . Attitude Toward Television Portrayals of Black Persons . . . . . . Self—Concept . Mental Ability . . Knowledge of Black Television Portrayals . Self-Interaction About Black Portrayals Media Perception of Black Portrayals Generalized Reality of Black Portrayals V Page vii ix Chapter V. DISCUSSION Objectives of the Research General Findings . . . . Limitations of the Research Directions for Future Research BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES vi TABLE 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Frequency Distribution of Sample Characteristics: School by Grade, Age, Sex and Race Frequency Distribution by Grade and Race: Allen Street School (N = 79) Frequency Distribution by Grade and Race: Willow School (N = ll4) Frequency Distribution by Grade and Race: Steele Street School (N = 48) Socioeconomic Status (SES) by School and Race Correlation Coefficients, Beta Coefficients and Significant Levels of Endogenous Variables and Influencing Variables Mean Scores for Attitude Toward Black Persons Across All Respondents . Intercorrelations for Media Perception of Black Portrayals Index (MEDIAPRB) . . . Intercorrelations for Media Perception of White Portrayals Index (MEDIAPRW) . . . Intercorrelations for Significant Others' Attitudes Toward Black Television Portrayals Index (SIGOTVPB) . Intercorrelations for Significant Others' Attitudes Toward White Television Portrayals Index (SIGOTVPW) . Frequency of Significant Other (Attitude) Mentions by Character . . . . All Sample Respondents (Black Portrayals), Beta Coefficients in Figure 3 (N= 24l) . All Sample Respondents (White Portrayals), Beta Coefficients in Figure 4 (N= 24l) . . vii Page 49 50 50 50 51 72 97 218 219 221 222 231 239 240 Table IS. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. All White Respondents (Black Portrayals), Beta Coefficients in Figure 5 (N= 142) . . All White Respondents (White Portrayals), Beta Coefficients in Figure 6 (N= 142) . . White Respondents, Integrated Schools (Black ?ortrayals), Beta Coefficients in Figure 7 N . . . . . . . . White Respondents, Integrated Schools (White 9ortrayals), Beta Coefficients in Figure 8 N . . . . . . . . . White Respondents in the Nonintegrated School (Black Portrayals), Beta Coefficients in Figure 9 (N = . White Respondents in the Nonintegrated School (White Portrayals), Beta Coefficients in Figure 10 (N = 48) . . . . All Black Respondents (Black Portrayals), Beta Coefficients in Figure ll (N= 68) . . All Black Respondents (White Portrayals), Beta Coefficients in Figure 12 (N= . . viii Page 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 Figure womb-com 10. 11. 12. LIST OF FIGURES Conceptual Model of Influence Process General Path Model of Television Influence All Sample Respondents (Black Portrayals) (N 241) 241) All Sample Respondents (White Portrayals) (N All White Respondents (Black Portrayals) (N All White Respondents (White Portrayals) (N White Respondents, Integrated Schools .(Black Portrayals) (N= 94) . . . . White Respondents, Integrated Schools (White Portrayals) (N= 94) . . . . White Respondents, Nonintegrated. School (Black Portrayals) (N= 48) . . . . White Respondents, Nonintegrated. School (White Portrayals) (N= 48) . . . 68) 68) All Black Respondents (Black Portrayals) (N All Black Respondents (White Portrayals) (N ix 142) . 142) . Page 23 41 74 8O 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 Appendix A Appendix 8 Appendix C LIST OF APPENDICES Page 122 Pretest Questionnaire Instructions to Interviewers Instructions to Respondents Final Questionnaire 180 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlation Matrices for Indices and Single Measures Intercorrelations for Media Perception Index Intercorrelations for Significant Others' Attitudes Toward Television Portrayals Index Reliability Estimates for Indices Across Sample Groups Frequency of Significant Other Mentions by Character 232 Structural and Estimating Equations Beta Coefficients, Multiple Correlations, R Square, F Tests, Significance Levels, and Degrees of Freedom Across Sample Groups CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The formulation of the symbolic interactionist perspective began in America in the early 19005 through the publications of Charles H. Cooley, John Dewey, W. I. Thomas, and others. The most complete delineation of the perspective appears in the volume Ming, Self, and Society (1934), based on the writings and lectures of George Herbert Mead. The perspective which posits the individual and society as symbolic-action units arose from early philosophic positions of pragmatism. As the basis of these positions, individual action was regarded as the mode to test the accuracy of any hypothesis, and thus as the locus of reality. This action orientation was devel- oped and represented by William James in his formulation of a prag- matic test of truth, Dewey in his theory of instrumentalism, and Mead in his philosophy of action. Although action could be easily related to the individual within this view, it did not apply as readily to societal responses and the individual. Societal responses result from deliberation and discussion by its members who choose. courses of action affecting in turn, its members. This consensus, then, regarding the means and ends of action in society lent a dynamic character to interaction (Weinberg, 1962:403). This consideration led to a more complete formulation of action between the individual and 500'th giving rise to symbolic interactionism. A concern of this writer has been the possible application of this base to mass media research. One of the best known students and interpreters of symbolic interactionism. Herbert Blumer (1969: 191), also has suggested such an application: What seems to be needed is a different scheme of analysis --one that will respect the central features of the mass communicative process as it exists in the world of real happening . . . . The features of this process seem to be: the variant and changing character of the presentations of the media, the variant and changing character of the sen- sitivities of pe0ple touched by the media, the process of interpretation that intervenes between the presentation and its effect . . . and the incorporation of media, pre- sentations, and people in a world of moving events that imparts an evolving character to each of them. Purpose The purpose of this chapter then is to examine the symbolic interactionist perspective for useful concepts to be applied to the study of mass media effects. As an underlying goal this examination will be directed toward impact of the media on the racial attitudes of majority and minority children. Based on this purpose, two ques- tions arise: (1) Why examine the symbolic interactionist perspec- tive for the study of media effects? and (2) Why single out concepts within that perspective? For the first question it is relevant to briefly consider. two major and interrelated aspects of the interactionist perspective. The first aspect emphasizes the study of socialization of the child and is considered social-psychological in focus. The second aspect emphasizes the study of social organizations and social processes and is considered sociological in focus (Rose, l962:viii). These two aSpects directly relate to the study of mass media - effects on children. Such effects may be both general and specific. The general effects are concerned with the social and psychological aspects faced by a child in a society where the media are an impor- tant and pervasive influence. The specific effects are concerned with the direct exposure of a child to various media content (Bailyn, 1959zl). These media effects then,_encompass the social- psychological focus of the perspective. In addition, media effects on children may be direct or indirect (Bailyn, l959:l). Direct effects are closely related to specific effects. Based on media exposure, direct effects are con- cerned with aspects of media content that interact with characteris- tics within the child. This position is also social-psychological in focus. Indirect effects, however, are concerned with the influence of the media on others whose behavior in turn affects the child. These effects are within the sociological focus of the per- spective if the structured nature Of the influence of others is considered. A final point should be made concerning the choice of the interactionist perspective for the study of media effects on chil- dren. Another characteristic of this perspective is that objects,-1 selves, situations, and definitions for objects, selves and situ- ations are constantly in flux within human behavior. They are constantly being defined, interpreted, negotiated, acted, and acted upon to yield new meanings (see, Mead, 1934; Rose, 1962; Denizin, 1968; Blumer, 1972). This emphasis on the processual nature of human activity distinguishes the thought and direction of inter- actionists from most adherents of "functional" theory in sociology (Rose, 1962:ix). Functional or mechanistic theory has been described by Zigler and Child (1969) as concerned with the investigation of functional relationships between discrete response and stimulus events. The major aspects considered to be important in determining the functional relationship between a stimulus and a response are past reinfbrcement in regard to the stimulus and the relative sati- ation concerning the reinforcement. Gordon (1974:4) has further characterized this approach as external orientation by the indi- vidual exclusive of internal orientation, and an emphasis on the antecedent-consequent approach where cause-effect or stimulus response relations condition behavior. The functional approach has characterized most media research (Gordon, 1974:14-15). This emphasis is apparent in any review of media functions and effects. Such schemes usually posit functions and effects of the media as arousal, activation, rein- forcement, and pacification. By examining and categorizing such functions, media researchers have given tacit, if not explicit consent to the functional approach. But media stimuli and the response of individuals to these stimuli are not meaningfully described as discrete. Media content and individuals who are exposed to this content are undergoing continuous change. Studies of media effects then, must rely on a framework that considers this processual nature rather than a frame- work that is functional, mechanistic, or static in nature. With the rationale presented for the appropriateness of the symbolic interactionist perspective for the study of media effects, let us briefly consider the second question of why concepts are selected for focussed study. 9,/‘ ‘“’Many researchers have suggested that symbolc interactionism .715 not a general theory of human behavior in that it does not include all the variables thought to be important in explaining human I F‘s- I. /\, I behavior. These researchers maintain, rather, that symbolic inter- 9 actionism is a perspective or an orientation (Stryker, 1967; L. Rose, ) 1972). This position is subscribed to here because it allows a // more viable framework in which alternative formulations may be enriched by incorporating concepts of the symbolic interactionist \ perspective. \L./ In addition to this feature of flexibility lies a practical concern in that the perspective cannot be tested in its entirety. Stryker (1962:42) has observed that: No single study can test all the implications of a theory as complex as Mead's; one must Eake much of it for granted, test1ng only spec1f1ed aspects. With this overview then, this chapter will (1) discuss major assumptions and state basic propositions of the perspective; (2) examine concepts from this perspective deemed relevant to the study of media effects, and (3) develop a conceptual framework for the study of media effects based on this perspective. Assumptions of Symbolic Interactionism The bases from which the assumptions stem have been pre- sented in the purpose statement. These bases are the social— psychological and sociological emphases within the perspective. The distinction between these social-psychological and sociological emphases has not always been accurate or well-defined. Cooley and», 9Mead, however, suggested that such a distinction is not entirely dFInecessary since the socialized individual and the society are really two facets of the same gestalt (Rose, l962:viii). /\ w These assumptions are drawn from several published inter- actionists, and an attempt is made to place these assumptions in logical order. However, some overlap may be noted which is due to the present writer's view of symbolic interactionism as a highly integrated orientation and not heedless redundancy. Only those assumptions considered relevant to the scape of this paper will be presented. 9//sx*/The{first assumption is that the child entering life, the ,9)/h;wborn, is neither social nor anti-social, but asbcialuwithfthe potentialities for social development (Stryker, 1967:373). \“’/ The;:§§§fid‘assumption is that individuals live in a symbolic EEXIEQDEEDI ES U911-659?,phyéjcel_environment, and can be stimulated to act by symbols as well as by physical stimuli. Symbols are ple, a chair is not only a collection of visual, aural, and tactile stimuli, but it "means" an object on which people sit; if a person sits on a chair it will "respond" by holding the person; it has a "value" for that purpose. A meaning is equivalent to a "true" dic- tionary definition, referring to the way in which people actually 99/use a term in their behavior. A value is the learned attraction or Lrepulsion they feel toward the meaning (Rose, l962:5). The third assumption is that through symbols, individuals have the capacity to stimulate others in ways other than those in which they themselves are stimulated. Here Rose suggests the notion of intent; that is, an individual communicates to another to evoke meanings and values intended to be evoked. Rose notes the over- simplification of this assumption including (1) that the meaning evoked is seldom, if ever, completely identical for two persons; (2) that the meaning evoked is not necessarily the one intended; and (3) that the meaning may be only partial and anticipatory of communication of other meanings (l962:7). ThegfourEHVassumption is that the most fruitful approach to human social behavior isfithrough an analysis_of:§§§jety. The symbolic interactionist perspective begins its analysis with the gsocigl'actffi The basic unit of observation is an interaction; from interaction both society and the individual emerge. This formula- tion permits an articulation between social psychology and sociology which alternative frameworks can forge. The study of social psy- chology and sociology begin with the same "building bricks": social actions. Social psychology builds in one direction to the behaviOr of individuals. Sociology builds in another direction to the behavior of collectivities (Stryker, 1967:373). 1 The next two assumptions have already been presented in the purpose statement. They are (1) that human behaviorfand Egg gééjata mm... M.»—v..~ _ _ ”iEfiVTronmefii)arefcontinual1y aggfigffig; and (2) that behaviors, influ- ences, and objects are assigned meaning and given intepretation by individuals (Mead, 1934:79, 93, 404; Mead, l938:xlv, lii). Comment- ing on these assumptions, Blumer (1969:61) said of Mead: He reversed the traditional assumptions underlying philo- saphical, psychological, and sociological thought to the effect that human beings possess minds and consciousness as original 'givens,‘ that they live in worlds of pre- existing and selfconstituted objects, that their behavior consists of responses to such objects, and that group life consists of the association of such reacting human organisms: ,“ if The seventh assumption is that the meaning of éEiégtsiis derived from or arises out of the social interaction that one has with others (Blumer, 1972:401). A The eighth assumption is that an individual defines or has a meaning for<§eif as well as other objects, actions, and charac- teristics. The definition of self as a specific role-player in a given relationship is what Mead calls a "me." William James observed that each of us has as many selves as there are groups to which we belong. In Mead's terms this would be a defined "me" corresponding to each of our roles. This perception of self as_a9whole, Mead called theIfIP or "self-conceptionri Mead distinguished the "I“ and "me" as follows: The TITMIQWEHE reSponse of the individual to the attitudes of others; the "me" is the organized set of attitudes of others which one assumes. The attitudes of others constitute the sum; the individual has parts of self which are reflections of relationships with others (Rose, 1962:11). Another way of saying this is that only in communication can one get outside of self, take the atti- tude of another, and achieve a reflected view of the self as object from these other standpoints (Stone and Farberman, 1970: 370). (The ninth assumption is that an individual receives views of_ 9, self from certain or spec1f1c other 1ndiv1duals These other indi- ._._.- _ viduals are referred to as reference groups. Mead used the term "other," although he is often credited with using the term “sig- nificant other" or "significant others" for these groups. As Haller, Woelfel and Fink (1968:14) note, the term "significant other(s)“ is accurately attributed to Harry Stack Sullivan. This section has presented nine of the major assumptions of the symbolic interactionist perspective. In the next section con- cepts intrinsic to the perspective and derived from these assumptions will be discussed. Concepts Within Symbolic Interactionism The concepts of act, action, social acts, and social inter- action are often used interchangeably by many symbolic interaction- ists. L. Rose (1972:16) offers this description of social acts: Acts are social to the extent that they involve other human beings or other objects in the environment as defined by the group. This suggests that objects are consensually defined as maintained by Sullivan (1953). All acts are not social. As the foundation of the perspective, the concept(s) of act, social act, or social interaction, is, in the opinion of the 1O writer, the most richly developed aspect of that perspective. As Blumer (1972:406) states, George Herbert Mead offers "the most penetrating analysis" of the social act. Based on Mead, Blumer suggests that social interaction is critically important and significant in its own right. Blumer (1972:405-6) contrasts the treatment of social interaction in most functionalist frameworks with that of symbolic interactionism: [TJypical sociological and psychological schemes treat social interaction as merely a medium through . . . which the determinants of behavior pass to produce such factors as status position, cultural prescriptions, norms, values, sanctions, role demands, and social-system requirements; explanation in terms of such factors suffices without pay- ing attention to the social interaction that their play necessarily presupposes. Similarly, in the typical psycho- logical scheme such factors as motives, attitudes, hidden complexes, elements of psychological organization, and psychological processes are used to account for behavior. . . . Symbolic interactionism does not merely give a ceremonious nod to social interaction, It recognizes social interaction as being of vital importance in its own right. This impor— tance lies in the fact that social interaction is a process that forms human conduct instead of being merely a means or a setting for the expression or release of human conduct. Put simply, human beings, in interacting with one another, have to take account of what the other is doing or is about to do; they are forced to direct their own conduct or handle their situations in terms of what they take into account . . in the face of the actions of others one may abandon an intention or purpose, revise it, check or suspend it, intensify it, or replace it. This section has been quoted at length because it concisely summarizes the more protracted explanation of Mead on social inter- action. (The reader is specifically referred to Mead, 1934:7-8, 23-24, ll8n, 210-11, 3ll-l7). ar‘ _,.e f‘"‘" H A _f__onn of_(§oc1:9a91teract1on31s,the use of "ijicant 0-. \._____..-»"' m‘qw symbols“ or “symbolic 1nteraction3" Mead clarifies the meaning 11 of significant symbols or symbolic interaction in several signifi- cant passages: There is a whole series of possible responses. There are certain types of these responses which are in all of us, and there are others which vary with the individuals . . . (1934:71). It is, of course, the relationship of this symbol, this vocal gesture, to such a set of responses in the indi- vidual himself as well as in the other, that makes of that vocal gesture what I call a significant symbol. A symbol does tend to call out in the individual a group of reac- tions such as it calls out in the other . . . (1934:71). Now, if that response can be given in terms of an atti- tude utilized for the further control of action, then the relation of that stimulus and attitude is what we mean by a significant symbol (1934:181). Our_thinking.thatignescon, as we say; insidgmofius,,is a lflEfiLfifliiflflNEIL§L%¥_th9 abBVewsense.”'Through gestures responses are ca edTout in dUr own attitudes, and as soon as they are called out they evoke, in turn, other atti- tudes. WhnL.was hegaeanW becomes symbo 1111ch has an her 11mm! aning has itse f ecome a st1mu1us to another response (1934:181). The significant symbol is nothing but that part of the act which serves as a gesture to call out the other part of the process, the response of the other, in the experience of the form that makes the gesture (1934:268). As the wellspring of symbolic interactionism, so§1a1_inter- actlgflflglyesirise119Ma9ser1es of h1ghly 1nterrelated, but d1st1n- guishable concepts. These concepts are: 9mg§fijfi93 cggegoriesl s.i_g9nifica9_nt,.other$, orrefe rence Sit-9911}. 's'eTTFa Is'ei f-iiim9fl13n _4.___.~* (selfgindication, self-reflexive activity, reasoning; interpreta- ./' - N\ — ,’ ’ I tioni, andrattitudes. Perhaps the most difficult concept to define within symbolic . . . . /L ”T‘T“\\ . . . 1nteract1on1sm (or 1n general)(1s mean1ng. The one def1n1t1on that 12 / .a I 91gwstatementiof- ' ,wififjthéfiat‘ufébrithg 'gfiiest. 1553 . ." (1934:91 ). could be found in the writings of Mead is ". . Although later interactionists have stressed the importance of the concept "meaning," and devoted considerable space in describ- ing the concept,9Mé§d“1s9the only one who seems to offer a direct 4L...__.- . y..-,‘ definition. Withinhjs definition and description of meaning, Mead stresses social interaction and communication. Dewey says that meaning arises through communication. It is to the content to which the social process gives rise that this statement refers; not to bare ideas or printed words as such, but to the social process which has been so largely responsible for the objects constituting the daily environment in which we live: a process in which communi- cation plays the main part (1934:79). Communication gives to us those elements of response which can be held in the mental field. We do not carry them out, but they are there constituting the meanings of these objects which we indicate. 9tanguage'is a processflof indi- _9§gtjng~certain.stimulitand c anging the response to them in the1§ystem_ofgbehayioit Language as a social process ~na§*made it possible for us to pick out responses and hold them . . . so that they are there in relation to that which we indicate (1934:97). Garretson (1967:337) sums up the position of the perspective in regard to this concept: [SJymbolic interactionism . . . is focussed upon the impor- tance of language as an instrument of definition and commu- nication. People are seen as responding not directly to a resistant outer reality but to meanings of objects which are defined within a cultural system and social organiza- tion. Language is a system of significant symbols arising in the process of social interaction. By inference, then, language is a system of shared meanings and shared behavior. As such, language or symbols are used to organize behavior toward objects. When symbols 13 are organized to indicate generalizations of behavior toward objects, or classifications of objects, these symbolizations are known as categories. Stryker (1967:375) sunmarizes: To categorize is to apply a class term to a number of objects, to signify that a number of different things are, for certain purposes, to be treated as the same kind of thing. Classification or categorization is essential to activity, for life would be impossible if one were forced to respond to every object in the world as unique. Class terms, or categories, are of course, symbols. They have meaning, they are cues to behavior, and they organize behavior. Humans respond to a classified world, one whose salient features are named and placed into categories indicating their significance for behavior. In short. humans do not respond to the environment as physically given, but to an environment as it is mediated through symbols--to a sym- bolic environment. A category frequently discussed by symbolic interactionists is "status" or "position." While category appears to be a more generic term for objects (e.g., men, women, children, chairs, houses, jewelry). status or position refers to more specifically defined subsets of categories. For example, the status or position terms for the general categories of men and women, could include: mother, professor, drill instructor, playboy, intellectual, black sheep, nurse, and so forth. There are two senses in which status or position are dis- cussed within symbolic interactionism: (l) the organization of behavior toward individuals in a different status or position; and (2) the status or position of self (and/or the reference group identified with self) relative to individuals in a different status or position. 14 When individuals are placed in categories the result is a set of expectations regarding the behavior of those individuals. Behavior toward those individuals then, is organized based on these expectations. Shibutani suggests that many of the expectations regarding the behavior of others are learned serendipitously or as side issues. As an example, Shibutani refers to ways in which children learn their social position. He also cites a study by Quinn (1954) of how white children learn ethnic distinctions (Shibutani,l96l:482,484): Quinn found that direct instruction is relatively infre- quent. It occurs only after some incident in which a child has violated the 'color line'--inviting a Negro friend to a birthday party and eating side by side at the same table or referring to a Negro woman as a "lady." Justifications are not always given in ethnic terms; often the children are asked simply to trust their elders. Indirect techniques of training are sometimes used; chil- dren are permitted to eavesdrOp on adult conversations about the immoral conduct of some Negro . . . . Once the appropriate orientations are established, they are repeatedly reinforced in social interaction. The reaffirma- tion of ethnic categories provides a good example. The mistaken belief that Negroes are inferior objects is inad- vertently strengthened in jokes . . . . The stereotype of the penurious Jew is reinforced in the same manner . . . . In considering the role of self relative to others, one must begin with the role of reference groups or significant others. Earlier in this paper it was noted that some symbolic interaction- ists use the term "reference groups" or "reference relationships" (Shibutani, 1955; Kuhn, 1964; Rose, 1962); others prefer the term "significant others" (Sullivan, 1947; Stryker, 1967; L. Rose, 1972; Refky, 1973), and still others use the terms interchangeably 15 (Brooks, 1967). While writers have used both terms, or argued for the use of one term or the other, only one group of writers, Haller, Woelfel and Fink (1968:16-17),appear to have drawn a clear con- ceptual history and relationship between the two concepts. Summa- rizing their discussion, they report: Generally, significant others and reference groups are seen to perform the same function and to use the same processes to do so. Probably the only basic difference between the two is that the term reference group tends to call one's attention to clusters of persons while significant other has a singular connotation . . . . [I]n many areas of life a person may be more likely to be influenced by Specific other persons (e.g., my father, my best friend, my teacher, Mr. X, . . .) than by groups. Reference groups can be recaptured from clusters of significant others; but . . . significant others are lost in reference groups. It is this position which is subscribed to here. Reference groups are seen as a broader class or grouping of pepple, while significant others are seen as a more specific subset of that class or group. The attitudes of significant others impinge on the indi- vidual, shaping and directing the behavior of that individual. An individual internalizes the roles of significant others. The identity of an individual is a composite of roles, identities, and attitudes which significant others exhibit vis-a-vis the indi- vidual. Self, then, arises directly from the interaction process with these significant others (Mead, 1934; Blumer, 1966; L. Rose, 1972; Shibutani, 1961, 1966; Refky, 1973; Couch, 1967). Refky (1973:53) emphasizes the processual relationship between signifi- cant others and self: It is not useful to conceive of socialization as a process that ends at some point in the biography of the individual. Thus, a change in significant others leads toacorresponding 16 change in identity: a child interacts with new significant others and, therefore, makes additions to the sediment of . . the self-system or identity . . . (of the child). For an individual to maintain a stable identity, the pres- ence of significant others must be continuous. It has been necessary to discuss the role of significant others before proceeding to a discussion of the perceived status of self vis-a-vis others of a different status or position. That rela- tionship will be considered now. Shibutani (1961) asserts that status is a social process. Status is ascribed only in relation to others who recognize this status and approach the individual accordingly. The significance of status is that it allows the individual to have a sense of superiority over others. This sense of superiority and its rela- tionship to significant others and self is pointedly discussed by Mead. Mead (1934:205, 207-8) states there is a continuous demand to regard oneself as in some way superior to others. This feeling of superiority is intensified when: . It belongs to a self that identifies itself with the group . . . . We all believe that the group we are in is superior to other groups . . . on the whole we depend upon a common recognition that other people are not quite as good as we are . . . . We have to distinguish ourselves from other people and this is accomplished by doing some- thing which other people cannot do, or cannot do as well. The preceding discussion has focussed on the organization of behavior toward others and the status of self vis-a-vis others. But there are many other categories besides status in which an individual nay place himself or herself. When an individual applies categories to classify and define who he or she is (in the same way that the 17 individual applies categories to others), the individual is said to have a "self" or "self-conception." Mead (1934:138 ff; 1938:445) notes that the self is that which is an object to itself. That is, the notion of self arises from the sustained frequency with which the individual is responded to by others, and the ability of the individual to respond to him— self or herself in the same way that the individual perceives others respond to the individual. The conception of self then, is basically a reflection of attributes of the individual "as they are mirrored in the reactions imputed to other people" (Shibutani, 1961:239). It is what Cooley (1902) meant by the "looking glass self." Mead (1934:135-178) describes this ability to assume alter- nate roles as the extent to which an individual develops a "general- ized other" in the formation of self-concept. The notion of self suggests interaction, emergence, reflec- tion, renewal, activity, process. Appropriately, this process has been variously referred to by symbolic interactionists as self- interaction, self-indication, self-interpretation, self reflexive activity, and self activity. These ”self acts" are the dynamic reorganization of all situational elements that define and affect self and the relationship of self to others. This reorganization is a merging of these elemental parts into a unity or totality within the Lebenswelt of the individual. The foundation for these "self acts" stems from the processes implicated by reasoning, interpretation, thinking, or intelligence. 18 It is posited that the clarity of self activity is based on these cognitive processes of the individual (Waller, 1967; Stone and Farberman, 1967; Blumer, 1972; Woelfel, 1967; Mead, 1934, 1938; Kelly, 1955; Warshay, 1962; MacKay, 1973; Swanson, 1974). Within symbolic interactionism such concepts are considered indispensable to an interactionist approach. In fact, one symbolic interaction- ist has interpreted this part of the perSpective to mean that "any scheme which rules out such concepts distorts the facts of human experience" (Stryker, 1967:377). While it may appear that a concept such as "thinking" could not easily undergo scientific scrutiny, such terms are defined behavioristically within symbolic interaction for scientific analy- sis. Therefore, "thinking is defined as the internalized manipula- tion of symbols" (Stryker, 1967:377). The final concept to be considered within this section is attitude. There are two senses in which the concept attitude is used in the sociological and psychological literature: (1) as a substitute for an act (Dewey, 1902, defined attitude in this sense, referring to it as a truncated act); and (2) a prior mental organiza- tion (or imitation) of an act that represents or determines a later response to the object of the attitude (Mead, 1934). In this sense, attitude actually represents an "incipient act" (Burke, 1945: 235 ff), as the beginning of an act toward an object. Stone (1962:100) states these two uses of attitude are ambiguous. These uses are not viewed here as ambiguous, but rather 19 as distinct uses of the concept that represent different perspectives. Where Dewey viewed attitude as a complete replacement of behavior toward an object, Mead viewed attitude as the mental beginning of that behavior: There is an organization . . . which represents not only that which is immediately taking place, but also the later stages that are to take place . . . . The later stages of the act are present in the early stages . . . in the sense that they serve to control the process itself. They determine how we are going to approach the object . . (1934:11). We have, then, in the behavioristic statement, a place for that which is supposed to be the peculiar content of mind, that is, the meaning of things. I have referred to these factors as attitudes (1934:126-27). The Meadian use of attitude invokes the notion of a continuous and reciprocal influence. We are continually affecting others by our attitudes. As previously noted, we can reflect the attitudes of others toward ourselves, respond internally, and react. Through that response and reaction, we affect the attitudes of others. As Mead states, we are continually "exerting ourselves, bringing forward our own opinion, criticizing the attitudes of others, and approving or disapproving" (1934:180). Because the modern use of attitude is not static, that use will be subscribed to here. This use appears more representative of what actually occurs in day-to-day affairs. An attitude is con- stantly subject to agreement, challenge, interpretation, and change. This section has examined concepts deriving from relevant assumptions of the symbolic interactionist perspective. In the next 20 section, these concepts will be integrated into a framework for exam- ining mass media effects on minority and majority children. It is important to note that not every concept discussed here will be included in the framework. For every concept included, it is assumed that underlying concepts (e.g., social acts, gen- eralized others) give rise to the more concrete concepts under investigation. Based on actual research, however, it should not be difficult to arrive at relationships between and among these con- cepts, or draw inferences concerning these and other concepts. A Conceptual Framework for Mass Media Effects From the_preceding investigation of the symbolic interaction- ist perspective, nine theoretical propositions may be deduced for the study of mass media effects: 1. That the determination of media effects is embedded in a processual environment. 2. That for any given set of effects, the attitudes and actions of specific others affect the attitudes and actions of the individual. 3. That those individuals who affect the attitudes and actions of the individual are subject to the same kinds of influ- ences as the individual. These influences include the reciprocal influence of the individual on those other individuals. 4. That the central behavioral term of self or self-concept primarily stems from interaction with others (it also may be argued 21 that notions of self derive from the mass media), and serves to mediate the influence of specific others and the media. 5. That self or self-concept undergoes an interpretive process by the individual that further mediates the influence of specific others and of the media. 6. That the cognitive processes of reasoning, thinking, and intelligence influence the interpretive process of the individual. 7. That an individual has different attitudes toward different representations of the same class of objects. 8. That these different attitudes toward representations of the same class of objects reciprocally influence one another. 9. That as influences in the environment of the indi- vidual change, attitudes held by the individual also change. A model that incorporates these propositions follows. In the model, television content has been singled out as the specific influence under study. The model proposes that an individual is exposed to infor- mation from several sources: television content, Specific or significant others, real life or direct experience with the object of the television content (here, members of minority groups), and other media (newspapers, magazines, books, and radio). The specific or significant others for the individual are also exposed to television content, specific or significant others, real life or direct experience with the object of the television 22 content, and other media. Specific or significant others are also influenced by the individual. As information from differing sources impacts on the indi- vidual, it is evaluated in relationship to the self-concept of the individual. Self-concept primarily stems from interaction with others and exposure to the behaviors of others. Self-concept is also influenced by an interpretive process of the individual toward self and toward the object of television content. Underlying this interpretive process or self activity of the individual are cognitive abilities such as reasoning and thinking. All of these factors coalesce to yield an attitude or atti- tudes toward an object. In this case, there are two attitudes from the same category of objects under consideration: an attitude toward televised portrayals of minorities, and an attitude toward minorities as perceived to exist apart from televised portrayals. This process is continuous throughout the life of the indi- vidual. As changes occur in media content, significant others, and direct experience with the object, concomitant changes occur in self-concept, the interpretive process, and subsequent attitude(s). Such changes may activate, reinforce, or convert the previous atti- tude. In the reciprocal relationship that the individual has with others, changes in the attitude(s) of the individual will also affect others within the environment of the individual. The model as discussed is presented in Figure 1. 23 .mmmuoca mucmszcH eo _mno: pmzuamucooII.F mczmwd we?“ cm>o m—mzmcucoa ummw>m—mp soc» ucmam pmwxm awn» : mew» cm>o mmwpwcocws we : me mmwpwcocwa vcezou mvauwppm u pm<...mpm< mpmxmcpcoa umm_>mpmu ucezou muaumuue u up<...Fup¢e : ..._ cpm< Fp~apae rlnlllll , muonhHhF< ll X I X I X ll q: 5: other media attitudes toward white persons (OTMEDIAW) — significant others' atti- tudes toward white portrayals (SIGOTVPW) = socioeconomic status (SES) = significant others' atti- tudes toward mental ability (SIGOTHMA) - frequency of exposure to white portrayals (FREQEXPW) direct experience with white persons (KNWHTWL) t . . . z = residual terms Figure 10.--White Respondents, Nonintegrated School (White Portrayals) (N = 48 . .05 **p < .01 *** .94 z .96 .92 w -95 v .86 .85 where: X1 = attitude toward black persons (ATTBLACK) X2 = attitude toward TV por- trayals of black persons (ATTTVPB) X3 = self-concept (SELFCPT) X4 = mental ability (YOUSMART) X5 = knowledge of black TV por- trayals (KNOWBTVP) X6 = self-interaction about black portrayals (SELFINTB) X7 = media perception of black portrayals (MEDIAPRB) X8 = generalized reality of black portrayals (GENREALB) 10 11 12 X13 X14 q, s, t . . . z = -91 s -79 q other media attitudes toward black persons (OTMEDIAB) — significant others' atti- tudes toward black ' portrayals (SIGOTVPB) - socioeconomic status (SES) significant others' atti- tudes toward mental ability (SIGOTHMA) - frequency of exposure to black portrayals (FREQEXPB) - direct experience with black persons (KNBLKWL) residual terms Figure ll.--All Black Respondents (Black Portrayals) (N = 68). .05 **p < .01 *** = «i _ R2 *** .96, .89 , .96 ., .95 v .89 u .32 , .90 q where: X = attitude toward white X9 other media attitudes persons (ATTWHITE) toward white persons (OTMEDIAW) X2 = attitude toward TV por- trayals of white persons X10 - significant others' atti- (ATTTVPW) tudes toward white portrayals (SIGOTVPW) X3 = self-concept (SELFCPT) X11 = socioeconomic status (SES) X4 = mentaT ability (YOUSMART) X12 = significant others' atti- X5 = knowledge of white TV tudes toward mental portrayals (KNOWHTVP) ability (SIGOTHMA) X6 = self-interaction about X13 = frequency of exposure to white portrayals (SELFINTW) white portrayals (FREQEXPW) X7 = media perception of white X14 = direct experience with portrayals (MEDIAPRW) white persons (KNWHTWL) X8 = generalized reality of q, s, t . . . z = residual terms white portrayals (GENREALW) Figure 12.--?11 Blaok Respondents (White Portrayals) N = 68 . *p < .05 **p < .01 *** = /1 - R2 89 The net result of the correlational evidence when examined across all sample groups is that these correlations are generally small or negligible, an initial indication that substantially more variation exists in the system than could have been initially pre- dicted by the theory. Even though the zero-order correlation coefficients are weak overall, the most important result deriving from examination of these coefficients is the cross sample variability. As indi- cated, some features or parameters of the model should exhibit stability across applications. The cross sample variability is additional evidence that the ordinary least squares regression equations will not fit the model as postulated for this data set. As examples of this cross sample variability: 1. For all white respondents in the integrated schools (N = 94): a. attitude toward black persons (ATTBLACK) and other media attitudes (OTMEDIAB) correlate .44 compared to correlations of .29 and below for all other sample groups; b. media perception of black portrayals and gen- eralized reality of black portrayals correlate .43 compared to a correlation of -.10 for all other sample groups. 2. For white respondents in the nonintegrated school: a. self-concept and significant others' attitudes toward mental ability correlate .53 compared to correlations of .27 and below fer all other sample groups; b. media perception of white portrayals and gen- eralized reality of white portrayals correlate .55 compared to correlations of .14 and below for all other sample groups; 90 c. knowledge of white portrayals and self- interaction about those portrayals correlate .43 compared to correlations of .27 and below for all other sample groups. This chapter has focused on examination of the eight endog- enous variables in the model representing the influence of black portrayals across all sample reSpondents, and presented models representing the influence of black and white portrayals across groups within the larger sample. Correlational evidence undergird- ing these results was also discussed. It was emphasized that caution is necessary in interpreting the beta coefficients since the coefficients are biased to unknown extent as a result of the misspecification of the model. A summary of the main findings from the examination in this chapter is as follows: 1. Evidence from several sources--the regression coeffi- cients, the ordinary least squares regression equations, the coefficient of alienation, the zero-order correlations, and the intercorrelations among the indices (discussed in Chapter II)-- shows that the largest portion of variance is not accounted for by the variables in the model. For all equations across all of the sample groups, the coefficient of alienation indicates a less than satisfactory fit of the influencing variables to the dependent or endogenous variable. 2. Results of the path model for black portrayals across all of the sample groups generally show more explained variance and more significant relationships than the results for white portrayals across all of the sample groups. 91 3. While the beta coefficients for the same equations vary in path diagrams across all of the sample groups, the most consistent statistics of the model, and the paths also explaining the most variation in the endogenous variables across both black and white portrayals, are the hypothesized relationships between: a. significant others' attitudes toward the tele- vision portrayals and the respondent's attitude toward those portrayals; b. significant others' attitudes toward mental ability and self-concept; c. significant others' attitudes toward mental ability and the respondent's perceived mental ability. 4. Those paths or relationships which generally show no or little explained variation in the endogenous variables across both black and white portrayals are: a. socioeconomic status and self—concept; b. mental ability and media perception of portrayals; c. knowledge of the portrayals and self-interaction. The import of these findings for continued research in the area of mass media and children's racial attitudes will be discussed in Chapter V. CHAPTER IV: FOOTNOTES 1Several persons at Michigan State University knowledgeable in the area of causal modeling systems support the position taken in this study to terminate further analysis based on the preliminary data evidence. These persons include Dr. Santa F. Camilleri, specialist in formal mathematical theory and professor of Sociology; Dr. Robert Rasche, professor of Economics; Dr. John Schweitzer, director of the Office of Research Consultation for the College of Education and associate professor of Urban and Metropolitan Studies; and Dr. Joseph Woelfel, research methodologist and associate profes- sor of Communication. Both Dr. Camilleri and Dr. Rasche suggest that the error of specification within the system will exist regardless of the technique of estimation used. According to Dr. Rasche, if the preliminary system of variables fails to hold in estimation by ordinary least squres regression, the system will not improve by turning to "fancier techniques." 92 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION The purpose of this chapter is to review and discuss (l) objectives of the research; (2) general findings; (3) limita- tions of the research; and (4) directions for future research. Objectives of the Research This research proposed a highly exploratory approach to the study of mass media influence on the racial attitudes of minority and majority children. First, the research was conceptually cast into a dynamic framework removing it from traditional media research that relies on discrete stimulus and response events in the explanation of media effects. This dynamic framework evolved from investigation of the symbolic interactionist perspective which emphasizes a symbolic environment that is constantly undergoing definition and interpre- tation by individuals within that environment. Second, this research incorporated central concepts from the symbolic interactionist perspective deemed highly relevant to the symbolistic effects provided by the media. These concepts include the influence of self-concept, status awareness, and 93 94 self-interaction, and the roles of specific or significant others who interpret, shape, and direct behavior. Third, the conceptual framework posited reciprocal influence between some of the conceptual variables in the model. These hypothesized influences were between (1) perceived mental ability and significant others' attitudes toward mental ability; (2) self- concept and attitude toward the ethnic group; (3) perceived signifi- cant others' attitudes toward television portrayals and the respondent's attitude toward television portrayals; and (4) the respondent's attitude toward television portrayals, and the atti- tude toward the ethnic group. General Findings In initial stages of data analyais, preliminary evidence indicated that testing the complete statistical model was not justi- fied. This evidence included negligible or low zero-order correla- tions between some of the hypothesized relationships, high levels of cross sample variability in the several correlation matrices, low intercorrelations among the indices, and generally low reliability estimates for these indices. In total, strong initial evidence was provided that for the given data base, the data would not fit the model as hypothesized. While the data did not fit the overall theoretical model posited, it was possible to examine specific patterns of covariation among the variables as a basis for further modeling; and this was the strategy employed. 95 This study began with the questions: Do children perceive behavioral differences between minority and majority individuals in television role portrayals? And if so, what effect do these dif- ferences have on the racial attitudes of minority and majority children? Insofar as the results can be evaluated, for most of the sample respondents, equations measuring the influence of black portrayals show more impact in the general path model than equations measuring the influence of white portrayals. Further, when influ- ences upon attitude toward black persons (ATTBLACK) are examined, attitude toward television portrayals of black persons (ATTTVPB) does influence the respondent's attitude toward black persons. Although attitude toward television portrayals of white persons (ATTTVPW) also contributes to attitudes toward white persons (ATTWHITE), the influence of the respondent's attitude toward television portrayals of black persons on attitude toward black persons, overall yields a slightly greater influence for both majority and minority children. Considering the total variance explained by the equations and the resulting significant relationships, the cumulative influence in the model for black portrayals is generally greater than white por- trayals for four of the five sample groups: (1) all sample respond- ents (N = 241); (2) all white respondents (N = 142); (3) all white respondents in the integrated schools (N = 94); and (4) all black respondents (N = 68). 96 For children in the nonintegrated school (N = 48), equa- tions measuring the influence of white portrayals show a greater overall influence for these portrayals than for black portrayals. Given the overall status of the model, an explanation of why the influence of black portrayals does not prevail for respondents in the nonintegrated school is advanced with extreme caution. In general it may be suggested that in an environment which lacks con- tinuing daily exposure to and contact with black persons, areas or issues concerning black persons may become less salient. In con- trast, for white children in the integrated school setting, there is moreinteraction with and concerning black persons (and it may be surmised, about black television portrayals) than in the noninte- grated school setting. Further, it may be suggested that this inter- action within the integrated environment may extend to increased interactions concerning black persons (and black television por- trayals) with parents, peers, and others, outside of the integrated school environment. Another result is worth examination in regard to the above discussion. When the means for the variable, attitude toward black persons (ATTBLACK) are examined, respondents in the nonintegrated school have a higher mean on this variable than other sample groups, with the exception of black respondents (see Table 7). Yet as noted, the cumulative influence of black portrayals was less for respondents in the nonintegrated school than for other sample groups. 97 TABLE 7.--Mean Scores for Attitude Toward Black Persons Across All Respondents. All White All Resp. Black A11 Sample A1] White Resp. Int. Nonint. Resp. Resp. Schools School Resp. 3.94 3.59 3.25 4.31 4.86 Mean Scores (N=24l) (N=142) (N=94) (N=48) (N=68) To some interpreters these results could suggest that more favorable racial attitudes develop when children are not placed in racially integrated environments. But a more in-depth and more intriguing consideration is the role that television portrayals with black persons may play in racial attitude development. If televi- sion predominantly projects a unidimensional image of black persons as clowns, buffoons, and in general as objects of humor as some critics suggest, this may also serve as the predominant dimension upon which black persons are evaluated by children who lack actual contact with black persons. It is suggested then that for these children this one-sided comedic image of black persons is an all- inclusive image and a favorable one. For network television program- mers this would seem to suggest that black characterizations ought to convey a broader and more realistic range of behaviors: Other general results deriving from examination of the sub- relationships are: 89 The net result of the correlational evidence when examined across all sample groups is that these correlations are generally small or negligible, an initial indication that substantially more variation exists in the system than could have been initially pre- dicted by the theory. Even though the zero-order correlation coefficients are weak overall, the most important result deriving from examination of these coefficients is the cross sample variability. As indi- cated, some features or parameters of the model should exhibit stability across applications. The cross sample variability is additional evidence that the ordinary least squares regression equations will not fit the model as postulated for this data set. As examples of this cross sample variability: 1. For all white respondents in the integrated schools (N = 94): a. attitude toward black persons (ATTBLACK) and other media attitudes (OTMEDIAB) correlate .44 compared to correlations of .29 and below for all other sample groups; b. media perception of black portrayals and gen- eralized reality of black portrayals correlate .43 compared to a correlation of -.10 for all other sample groups. 2. For white respondents in the nonintegrated school: a. self-concept and significant others' attitudes toward mental ability correlate .53 compared to correlations of .27 and below fer all other sample groups; b. media perception of white portrayals and gen- eralized reality of white portrayals correlate .55 compared to correlations of .14 and below for all other sample groups; 90 c. knowledge of white portrayals and self- interaction about those portrayals correlate .43 compared to correlations of .27 and below for all other sample groups. This chapter has focused on examination of the eight endog- enous variables in the model representing the influence of black portrayals across all sample reSpondents, and presented models representing the influence of black and white portrayals across groups within the larger sample. Correlational evidence undergird- ing these results was also discussed. It was emphasized that caution is necessary in interpreting the beta coefficients since the coefficients are biased to unknown extent as a result of the misspecification of the model. A summary of the main findings from the examination in this chapter is as follows: 1. Evidence from several sources--the regression coeffi- cients, the ordinary least squares regression equations, the coefficient of alienation, the zero-order correlations, and the intercorrelations among the indices (discussed in Chapter II)-- shows that the largest portion of variance is not accounted for by the variables in the model. For all equations across all of the sample groups, the coefficient of alienation indicates a less than satisfactory fit of the influencing variables to the dependent or endogenous variable. 2. Results of the path model for black portrayals across all of the sample groups generally show more explained variance and more significant relationships than the results for white portrayals across all of the sample groups. 91 3. While the beta coefficients for the same equations vary in path diagrams across all of the sample groups, the most consistent statistics of the model, and the paths also explaining the most variation in the endogenous variables across both black and white portrayals, are the hypothesized relationships between: a. significant others' attitudes toward the tele- vision portrayals and the respondent's attitude toward those portrayals; b. significant others' attitudes toward mental ability and self-concept; c. significant others' attitudes toward mental ability and the respondent's perceived mental ability. 4. Those paths or relationships which generally show no or little explained variation in the endogenous variables across both black and white portrayals are: a. socioeconomic status and self-concept; b. mental ability and media perception of portrayals; c. knowledge of the portrayals and self-interaction. The import of these findings for continued research in the area of mass media and children's racial attitudes will be discussed in Chapter V. CHAPTER IV: FOOTNOTES 1Several persons at Michigan State University knowledgeable in the area of causal modeling systems support the position taken in this study to terminate further analysis based on the preliminary data evidence. These persons include Dr. Santo F. Camilleri, specialist in formal mathematical theory and professor of Sociology; Dr. Robert Rasche, professor of Economics; Dr. John Schweitzer, director of the Office of Research Consultation for the College of Education and associate professor of Urban and Metropolitan Studies; and Dr. Joseph Woelfel, research methodologist and associate profes- sor of Communication. Both Dr. Camilleri and Dr. Rasche suggest that the error of specification within the system will exist regardless of the technique of estimation used. According to Dr. Rasche, if the preliminary system of variables fails to hold in estimation by ordinary least squres regression, the system will not improve by turning to "fancier techniques." 92 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION The purpose of this chapter is to review and discuss (l) objectives of the research; (2) general findings; (3) limita- tions of the research; and (4) directions for future research. Objectives of the Research This research proposed a highly exploratory approach to the study of mass media influence on the racial attitudes of minority and majority children. First, the research was conceptually cast into a dynamic framework removing it from traditional media research that relies on discrete stimulus and response events in the explanation of media effects. This dynamic framework evolved from investigation of the symbolic interactionist perspective which emphasizes a symbolic environment that is constantly undergoing definition and interpre- tation by individuals within that environment. Second, this research incorporated central concepts from the symbolic interactionist perSpective deemed highly relevant to the symbolistic effects provided by the media. These concepts include the influence of self-concept, status awareness, and 93 94 self-interaction, and the roles of specific or significant others who interpret, shape, and direct behavior. Third, the conceptual framework posited reciprocal influence between some of the conceptual variables in the model. These hypothesized influences were between (1) perceived mental ability and significant others' attitudes toward mental ability; (2) self- concept and attitude toward the ethnic group; (3) perceived signifi- cant others' attitudes toward television portrayals and the respondent's attitude toward television portrayals; and (4) the respondent's attitude toward television portrayals, and the atti- tude toward the ethnic group. General Findings In initial stages of data analyais, preliminary evidence indicated that testing the complete statistical model was not justi- fied. This evidence included negligible or low zero-order correla- tions between some of the hypothesized relationships, high levels of cross sample variability in the several correlation matrices, low intercorrelations among the indices, and generally low reliability estimates for these indices. In total, strong initial evidence was provided that for the given data base, the data would not fit the model as hypothesized. While the data did not fit the overall theoretical model posited, it was possible to examine specific patterns of covariation among the variables as a basis for further modeling; and this was the strategy employed. 95 This study began with the questions: Do children perceive behavioral differences between minority and majority individuals in television role portrayals? And if so, what effect do these dif- ferences have on the racial attitudes of minority and majority children? Insofar as the results can be evaluated, for most of the sample respondents, equations measuring the influence of black portrayals show more impact in the general path model than equations measuring the influence of white portrayals. Further, when influ- ences upon attitude toward black persons (ATTBLACK) are examined, attitude toward television portrayals of black persons (ATTTVPB) does influence the respondent's attitude toward black persons. Although attitude toward television portrayals of white persons (ATTTVPW) also contributes to attitudes toward white persons (ATTWHITE), the influence of the respondent's attitude toward television portrayals of black persons on attitude toward black persons, overall yields a slightly greater influence for both majority and minority children. Considering the total variance explained by the equations and the resulting significant relationships, the cumulative influence in the model for black portrayals is generally greater than white por- trayals for four of the five sample groups: (1) all sample respond- ents (N = 241); (2) all white respondents (N = 142); (3) all white respondents in the integrated schools (N = 94); and (4) all black respondents (N = 68). 96 For children in the nonintegrated school (N = 48), equa- tions measuring the influence of white portrayals show a greater overall influence for these portrayals than for black portrayals. Given the overall status of the model, an explanation of why the influence of black portrayals does not prevail for reSpondents in the nonintegrated school is advanced with extreme caution. In general it may be suggested that in an environment which lacks con- tinuing daily exposure to and contact with black persons, areas or issues concerning black persons may become less salient. In con- trast, for white children in the integrated school setting, there is more interaction with and concerning black persons (and it may be surmised, about black television portrayals) than in the noninte- grated school setting. Further, it may be suggested that this inter- action within the integrated environment may extend to increased interactions concerning black persons (and black television por- trayals) with parents, peers, and others, outside of the integrated school environment. Another result is worth examination in regard to the above discussion. When the means for the variable, attitude toward black persons (ATTBLACK) are examined, respondents in the nonintegrated school have a higher mean on this variable than other sample groups, with the exception of black respondents (see Table 7). Yet as noted, the cumulative influence of black portrayals was less for respondents in the nonintegrated school than for other sample groups. 97 TABLE 7.--Mean Scores for Attitude Toward Black Persons Across All Respondents. A11 White A11 Resp. B1ack A11 Sample A1] White Resp. Int. Nonint. Resp. RESP” Schools School Resp. 3.94 3.59 3.25 4.31 4.86 Mean Scores (N=24l) (N=142) (N=94) (N=48) (N=68) To some interpreters these results could suggest that more favorable racial attitudes develOp when children are not placed in racially integrated environments. But a more in-depth and more intriguing consideration is the role that television portrayals with black persons may play in racial attitude development. If televi- sion predominantly projects a unidimensional image of black persons as clowns, buffoons, and in general as objects of humor as some critics suggest, this may also serve as the predominant dimension upon which black persons are evaluated by children who lack actual contact with black persons. It is suggested then that for these children this one-sided comedic image of black persons is an all- inclusive image and a favorable one. For network television program- mers this would seem to suggest that black characterizations ought to convey a broader and more realistic range of behaviors: Other general results deriving from examination of the sub- relationships are: 98 l. The exogenous and other endogenous variables which con- sistently explain the most variation in the endogenous variables across both black and white portrayals are the hypothesized rela- tionships between (a) significant others' attitudes toward the television portrayals and the respondent's attitude toward those portrayals, (b) significant others' attitudes toward mental ability and self-concept, and (c) significant others' attitudes toward mental ability and the respondent's perceived mental ability. 2. The exogenous and other endogenous variables which generally explain no or slight variation in the endogenous vari- ables across both black and white portrayals are the hypothesized relationships between (a) socioeconomic status and self-concept, (b) mental ability and media perception of portrayals, and (c) knowledge of the portrayals and self-interaction. Limitations of the Research Several limitations affected this research, the most impor- tant of which is the highly exploratory nature of the research. As noted, this research initially suggested reciprocal influ- ence between (1) perceived mental ability and significant others' attitude toward mental ability; (2) self-concept and attitude toward the ethnic group; (3) significant others' attitudes toward tele- vision portrayals and the respondent's attitude toward television portrayals; and (4) the respondent's attitude toward television portrayals and the attitude toward the ethnic group. Preliminary evidence from the correlation matrices and the high levels of unexplained variance from application of the ordinary least squares 99 regression equations did not warrant construction of a model with reciprocal influence. Deleting these reciprocal influences changed the nature of the model to an unknown extent. A thorough search of the literature provides neither a media effects model incorporating reciprocal influence nor research incorporating symbolic interac- tionism as a framework for examining media effects. The exploratory character of the research also resulted in measurement problems. The effort to accurately reflect concepts within symbolic interactionism and improve on measures previously used in media research on children's racial attitudes resulted in use of ordinal and nominal measures. These less powerful measures violated an assumption of path analysis that variables be measured at least at the interval level. Further, even with the inclusion of these simpler measures some children had difficulty comprehending the questions. Overall, reliability estimates (using coefficient alpha) for measures used hithe indices fell below the accepted criterion of .80. Clearly, the measures need further refinement. A final limitation to be mentioned here also resulted from the exploratory context of the research: the restricted number of stimulus character pictures presented given the amount of informa- tion sought for each character. The presentation of such pictures in television research on children is not usual. Yet as the dis- cussion under knowledge of portrayals later in this chapter indicates, the pictures serve a highly valid and useful function in determining the extent of character knowledge. 100 Directions for Future Research As discussed in Chapter II, several theoretically appealing models could be derived from an examination of the symbolic inter- actionist perspective. Of these several possible models, those which would be theoretically complete would include reciprocal influence considerations. Further, to totally capture the dynamic framework suggested by symbolic interactionism the model would require application over time with concomitant consideration given to the changing nature of the television portrayals. A model inclusive of reciprocal influence within a research design that includes testing the model over time would appear to be necessary starting points then for future research considerations. Such a task is a formidable one as it was at the outset of this study. The task is complicated by (l) the lack of a complete theory offered by symbolic interactionism and, therefore, the several interpretations that may be lent; and (2) the inability to estab- lish a priori certain conditions of conceptualization and measure- ment with no previous research to guide the planning. While initial statistical evidence did not fully support the model selected for this study, results of the study provide a preliminary basis for further exploration. Such an exploration appears more fruitfully pursued by retrospectively examining the conceptualization and measurement of the variables. Attitude Toward the Ethnic Group A theoretical assumption made in tapping attitude toward the ethnic group was that a correspondence exists between the respondent's 101 attitude and significant others' attitudes toward the ethnic group, therefore, only the respondent's attitude was measured. Clearly, the predictive power of the model would be increased by either directly measuring significant others' attitudes toward the ethnic group or measuring the perceived attitudes of significant others as reported by the respondent. Further, hypothesizing a reciprocal influence between the respondent's attitude and signifi- cant others' attitudes would more precisely conform to the Meadian use of attitude in symbolic interactionism. That use of attitude posits that an individual reflects the attitudes of others, responds internally and reacts; in the process the attitudes of others are affected (see pp. 18-19, Chapter I). The theoretical notion of attitude toward the ethnic group and therefore the measurement of this attitude needs further refine- ment. This attitude was conceptually defined as the extent of liking for a given ethnic group as a whole. Perhaps this treatment of attitude is too simplistic, especially for any set of attitudes as complex as racial attitudes. Several different dimensions affect attitude as a concept (e.g., good-bad; friendly-unfriendly; nice- not nice; smart-not smart). Further study may need to explore some of these dimensions for appropriate applicability. Also, these dimensions of attitude may need to be explored in relationship to the respondent as well as to others. For example, attitude toward black persons has more theoretical import if it is known to what degree a white respondent regards black persons in general along these dimensions compared to self and compared to other white persons in general. 102 Attitude Toward Television Portrayals For this attitude, the corresponding attitudes of significant others (as perceived by the respondent) were measured. A reciprocal path between these attitudes (and attitudes toward the ethnic group) was originally hypothesized. In future model construction and research this reciprocal influence should be maintained in conformity to the overall theoretical framework. As measured, significant others' attitudes toward television portrayals yielded a strong contribution to the reSpondent's attitude toward these portrayals. For the sample as a whole, the zero-order correlation between significant others' attitudes toward the portrayals and the respondents' attitudes was .41 for black portrayals and .61 for white portrayals. As with attitude toward the ethnic group, the conceptualiza- tion and measurement of attitude toward television portrayals may require rethinking. For any identified dimensions that may affect attitude toward the ethnic group, parallel dimensions should be measured for attitude toward television portrayals and significant other attitudes toward television portrayals. The measurement of these dimensions should again include their application to the respondent and to television portrayals featuring other ethnic group members. Self-Concept The dimension of self-concept tapped in this study is self- esteem or the estimation of self worth and self-liking. Symbolic interactionism posits that self-concept subsumes and is an 103 organization of all the attributes and qualities derived about self from interaction with others. This suggests a hypothesized reciprocal influence between the respondent's notion of self and significant others' notion of the respondent's self. Again, this significant other influence may be directly tapped or based on perceived sig- nificant other influence as reported by the respondent. The scaling of self-concept also requires additional work. The two scale items measuring self-concept had an intercorrelation of .39 which may reflect a change in the structure of the multiple choice responses between the two items. The internal consistency of the scale would likely improve if the multiple choice responses were the same. Further, self-concept might better adhere to the overall framework if self-concept were evaluated along the same dimensions as used in gauging attitude toward the ethnic group and attitude toward television portrayals. This treatment of self-concept was alluded to in the discussions under attitude toward the ethnic group and attitude toward television portrayals in this section. Mental Ability In this study, mental ability was defined as the respond- ent's perceived level of smartness or intelligence, and as theoretically underlying the self-interaction process as well as being a dimension of self-concept. As a predictor of self- interaction, mental ability, based on the respondent's perceived Inental ability, is not objective (that is, may be biased) in the contribution that it makes to self-interaction and therefore may be unsatisfactory. The measurement problem here is, would any measure 104 of mental ability be unbiased? Traditional intelligence scales face a valid criticism of being culturally bound. Relying on a teacher's evaluation of a respondent's mental ability may face the same criticism if not being subject to other criticisms of objec- tivity. Future research is confronted with either theoretically ruling out mental ability or accepting a measure of mental ability which is a priori known to be less than completely satisfactory. Self-Interaction As cast in the system, self-interaction, defined as the amount of thinking about the stimulus television portrayal, emerged as a weak variable contributing little to media perception of the portrayals. Symbolic interactionists argue that informational inputs to attitudes constantly undergo cognitive interpretation and organization leading to attitudinal changes. This would suggest that within a given system, self-interaction needs to be measured directly in regard to attitudes toward the ethnic group and attitudes toward television portrayals. Further, as symbolic interactionism suggests, self-interaction should be reciprocally related to both attitudes. The broadened conceptualization of self-interaction would include the amount of thinking not only about the television portrayals but about the ethnic group under consideration. In this study, self-interaction is operationalized as: "When this person is not on TV, how much do you think about him (her)?" The response choices are "a lot," "sometimes," "never." In the pretest questionnaire, self-interaction was originally con- ceptualized as attitudinal concepts that underlie the attitude 105 toward a given stimulus television portrayal. The operationalization of self-interaction in the pretest yielded more than 200 attributes for the television characters. The frequency with which each attribute or concept was mentioned was either too even or too scattered to reduce to individually salient items. The alterna- tives were to isolate by fiat some attributes upon which the tele- vision characters could be evaluated, or turn to a grosser, yet perhaps more straightforward and unbiased indicator of self- interaction which still conformed to the formulation of self— interaction within symbolic interactionism. While the form of the self-interaction question in the final instrument appears appropriate within a broadened conceptu- alization, extending the reSponse choices to an interval or higher level of measurement is desirable. Knowledge of Television Portrayals The knowledge variable and index includes two dimensions: identification of the name and race of the stimulus television character. The measurement of knowledge was exploratory in this research and as such the impact of knowledge as a variable may have been weakened. In the pretest,name and race identification ques- tions were open-ended. Respondents had difficulty with the terms "race" and "color" in the race identification question, however, and in the final instrument response choices were provided for this question. The name identification question remained open-ended. The open-ended and response choice questions were combined as knowledge indices for parsimony in the model. 106 For black portrayals the intercorrelation for name identifi- cation was .25 and for race identification, .28. These intercorre- lations were appreciably higher for white portrayals: .60 for the name identification questions and .41 for the race identification questions. The higher intercorrelation for white portrayals may be partly explained, however, by the fact that two characters from the same program were used. Ability to identify the name and/or race of one character would suggest the ability to identify the name and/or race of the other. The intent of the original open-ended questions was to overcome two frequent assumptions in research on media effects and children's racial attitudes (discussed in Chapter III). These assumptions are (1) that the child is familiar with the television characters under examination, and (2) that the child is aware of differences in race among those characters. Frequency distributions across the questions indicate that assumptions of character and race knowledge may not be totally valid. Of 241 respondents, 34 did not know Florida Evans and five respond- ents did not know her race; 29 did not know Redd Foxx and nine did not know his race. Twenty-six respondents misidentified Archie Bunker;'11did not know his race. For Edith Bunker, 37 failed to correctly identify her and 12 failed to identify her race. While these figures may in part indicate lack of familiarity with the name and race of the characters, they also raise the possibility that the number of blank or "I don't know" responses could likely increase if response categories were not provided. With these 107 response categories, some respondents likely determine the correct choice by chance. If character and race as dimensions of knowledge are to be truly explanatory then it appears necessary to determine the respondent's true ability to make these identifications. A solution to partly overcoming assumptions of the respond- ent's level of knowledge and use of open-ended questions is to treat character identification and race identification as separate predictors and provide numerous response choices to decrease the probability of determining the right answer by chance. The preceding discussion raises issues in regard to use of the stimulus television pictures. While by necessity the number of pictures was limited, future research should consider enlarging the sample of stimulus pictures as a stronger indication of systematic effect and for increasing reliability of responses. Given the temporal nature of these portrayals, over time variation in these portrayals should be included as a consideration in over time appli- cation of the model. Media Perception Symbolic interactionism asserts that because an object may be represented variously (as in the case of minority group members as television characters and minority group members encountered in person) an individual may hold separate attitudes toward each of these representations. The object of the media perception variable (defined as the extent to which television characters are perceived as having an existence or lifestyle apart from their television 108 roles) was to provide a basis for this assertion by first determin- ing if the respondent distinguished between a television role and a set of independent behaviors and attributes not associated with that role. When another variable in the model is considered, generalized reality, the inclusion of the media perception variable appears superfluous. Generalized reality is defined as the extent to which the respondent perceives behaviors of television characters to be applicable to a given ethnic group as a whole. The measure- ment of generalized reality then, determines the association the respondent makes between behaviors and attributes in a television role and behaviors and attributes apart from that role. While the measurement of media perception was exploratory and presented scale items that appeared to accurately tap the role versus individual distinction (scale reliabilities are .72 and .65 for black and white portrayals), generalized reality appears to be the more direct concept. Clearly, however, the scale item wording of gen- eralized reality should be reduced to make the item less cumbersome. The above discussion would suggest a hypothesized inter- action effect between generalized reality and attitude toward television portrayals and the resulting effect on attitude toward the ethnic group. Specifically, respondents who have a positive attitude toward the portrayals and generalize highly to the ethnic group will have a positive or favorable attitude toward the ethnic group; if attitude toward the portrayals is negative and generalized reality is high, attitude toward the ethnic group will be negative. 109 No direction for attitude toward the ethnic group would be hypothe- sized if attitude toward the portrayals was positive or negative and generalized reality was low or negative. Other Media Attitudes Television exposure as well as exposure to other media pro- vides a symbolic environment influencing the development of an attitude. Other media attitudes is the perceived media treatment of minority and majority groups derived from book reading and radio listening. The measurement of other media attitudes needs improvement. The intercorrelation for other media attitudes toward black persons is a low .10 and the intercorrelation for media attitudes toward white persons is .23. Five response choices for the media treat— ment items range from "very good" to ”very bad." The sixth response choice is "I don't know." These response choices are subject to different interpretations. Some black respondents, for example, interpreted "very bad" and "bad" to mean "very good" and "good" which is a common and current slang usage among black persons. For other respondents who chose "very good” or "good" these responses meant that books and radio are biased toward the ethnic group. Using response categories ranging from "very fair" to "very unfair" may substantially reduce these various interpretations. As a final point, other media in addition to books and radio need to be examined. Newspapers and magazines, for example, were not considered. One reason for this was the low readership of 110 these media indicated in the pretest sample of third grade children. Older children may attend to newspapers and magazines to a greater extent than younger children. Significant Others' Attitudes Toward Television Portrayals Symbolic interaction posits that individuals are predisposed to certain individuals and groups of individuals who in the roles of significant others exert direct and indirect influence on the individual's roles and attitudes. Based on the zero-order correla- tions across all groups in the sample, the contribution of signifi- cant other attitudes toward television portrayals is strongly supported in the model. It was suggested in the discussion under attitude toward television portrayals (and attitude toward the ethnic group) that other dimensions may be more salient in attitudes than "liking," the dimension measured in this study. New dimensions that may be explored for the respondent's attitude necessitates exploration of these dimensions for significant others. As also discussed under attitude toward television portrayals, future model building should consider the reciprocal relationship between attitude toward television portrayals and significant others' attitudes toward television portrayals, in conformity to the sym- bolic interactionist framework. A variable not included in the model but which has implica- tions for significant others' attitudes toward television portrayals 1'5 the viewing context (persons reported by the respondent who view the stimulus programs with the respondent). As shown in the 111 frequency table of significant other mentions for attitude toward the portrayals (Appendix B), the most frequently mentioned sig- nificant others are friends (459), mothers (365), brothers (331), fathers (307), and sisters (285). When these frequencies are compared to frequency of mention for persons in the viewing context, family members as expected take precedence. The frequencies are mothers (615), brothers (536), sisters (532), fathers (487), and friends (192). These frequencies indicate that while significant others' attitudes toward television portrayals often stem from the immedi- ate family and viewing situation itself, considerable interaction occurs outside of the viewing situation, with friends. Significant Other Attitudes Toward Mental Ability The conceptualization and measurement of mental ability was based on the respondent's perceived mental ability and as such the parallel influence of perceived significant others' attitudes toward mental ability was also measured. However, as discussed, mental ability is subject to deletion from the framework on the- oretical grounds. If a more straightforward measure of mental ability is used this would appear to negate the need for a parallel measure of significant other influence. As measured, significant others' attitudes toward mental ability yielded a strong influence. on the respondent's mental ability. If perceived mental ability is retained in future model building, the formulation of symbolic 112 interactionism would suggest reciprocal influence between the two variables. Socioeconomic Status Awareness of social and economic status serves as a refer- ence point for the comparison of self to others, according to interactionists. Socioeconomic status then was theorized to be an important part of self-concept. As measured, socioeconomic status overall wielded negligible influence on self-concept. Several issues are raised in regard to future considerations of this variable: 1. Despite assertions by Shibutani (1961) and others that children at an early age develop status identifies based on social and economic considerations, doubt persists that a majority of children are really aware of these considerations and their meaning. Pretest questions sought to determine this awareness by measuring the reSpondent's perception of the economic status of the stimulus television characters (and by association, the two ethnic groups) in relation to the respondent. These measures were confounded, however, by confusion with the economic status of the television role itself, the actor or actress portraying the role, and the carryover of either of these factors to the ethnic group in gen- eral. As part of the necessity to shorten questionnaire length, these measures were dropped from the final instrument. Future research may involve reinstating the determinations and salience of this awareness with more precise measures. 113 2. The previous discussion suggests that socioeconomic status may not be a salient dimension of self-concept as theorized. Theoretical interpretation, however, would also suggest examining the direct influence of socioeconomic status on attitude toward the ethnic group, although this study provides no empirical support for this relationship. 3. As discussed in Chapter III, parent's occupations were obtained by self-report of the respondent. The occupations were then scored based on the NORC scale of occupational prestige (1951; and as reported in Reiss et a1., 1961). Socioeconomic status determina- tions as measured by these scales tend to be deceptive, especially in light of the several changes in occupational classifications, salaries, and prestige levels that have occurred over the last decade. A more valid indication of socioeconomic status in future research may be to base socioeconomic status on income and educa- tional levels, obtained directly from parents and/or school records. Frequency of Exposure As conceptualized, the frequency with which children are exposed to consistent and systematic television portrayals provides a basis for a consistent and systematic impact. Frequency of exposure for each stimulus character was measured on a five-point interval scale. While no measurement problems per se were encoun- . tered, measurement and explanatory precision could be improved by a ratio scale of time spent viewing each set of programs over the total number of hours viewed per week. 114 Direct Experience Conceptually, direct experience is the extent to which respondents perceive they know minority and majority individuals. The basis of direct experience in symbolic interactionism is that interpretation of the behaviors of others often arises from direct interaction; these interpretations become vehicles for categorizing and evaluating other individuals in relationship to self. Direct experience was measured in an open-ended question by the respond- ent's self-report of the number of black and white persons known well. More precise measurement should include frequency of contact in seeing and talking to black and white persons, nature of contact (e.g., number of black and white persons considered as friends), and quality of contact (e.g., amount of enjoyment, liking, or prefer- ence) in talking to or having black and white persons as friends. The discussion in this chapter has suggested that future modeling include reciprocal influences and the additional considera- tions of reconceptualization and remeasurement of the several variables in the overall system. These proposed changes more completely embody the thrust of symbolic interactionism as inter- preted in this study, and the implications arising from this inter- pretation for mass media research on racial attitudes. Revised frameworks based on these considerations provide a new class and scheme of variables whose processual emphasis offers improved direction for investigation of media effects. BIBLIOGRAPHY 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bailyn, Lotte. "Mass Media and Children: A Study of Exposure Habits and Cognitive Effects." Psychological Monographs, 1951, 73:1—48. Bernstein, Martin E. and Francis J. DiVesta. "The Formation and Reversal of An Attitude as Functions of Assumed Self- Concept, Race, and Socioeconomic Class." Child Development, 1971, 42:1417-1431. Blumer, Herbert. "Sociological Implications of the Thought of George Herbert Mead." American Journal of Sociology, 1966, 71:534-548. . Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969. . "Symbolic Interaction: An Approach to Human Communica- tion." In Richard Budd and Brent D. Ruben (eds.), Approaches to Human Communication, pp. 401-419. New York: Spartan Books, 1972. Brooks, Richard 5. "Reference Group Influence on Political Party Preference." In Jerome G. Manis and Bernard N. Meltzer (eds.), pp. 472-480. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1967. Burgess, Ernest W. "Social Problems and Social Pressures." In Arnold M. Rose (ed.), Human Behavior and Social Processes, pp. 381-400. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1945. Clark, Cedric. "Television and Social Control: Some Observations on the Portrayal of Ethnic Minorities." Television Quar- terly, 1969, 8:18-22. Clark, Kenneth B. Prejudice and Your Child. Boston: Beacon Press, 1955. Clark, Kenneth B. and Mamie 8. Clark. "Racial Identification and Preference11111891”O Children." In Eleanor Maccoby, Theodore Newcomb and Eugene Hartley (eds.), Readings in Social Psy- chology, pp. 602-611. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958. 116 117 Cooley, Charles H. Human Nature and The Social Order. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1902. Couch, Carl J. "Family Role Specialization and Self-Attitudes in Children." In Jerome G. Manis and Bernard N. Meltzer (eds.), Symbolic Interaction: A Reading in Social Psychology, pp. 260-266. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1967. Crano, William D. and Marilynn B. Brewer. Principles of Research in Social Psychology. New York: McGraw- Hill BookT Co. , 1973. Denzin, Norman K. "Symbolic Interactionism and Ethnomethodology: A Convergence of Perspective?" Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1968. Dewey, John. Human Nature and Conduct. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1922. Duncan, Otis Dudley. Introduction to Structural Equation Models. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Garretson, Wynona Smutz. "The Consensual Definition of Social Objects." In Jerome G. Manis and Bernard N. Meltzer (eds. 3F Symbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social Psychology, pp. 337-342. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1967. Gerbner, George. "Violence in Television Drama: Trends and Symbolic Functions." In George Comstock and Eli Ruben- stein (eds.), Television and Social Behavior, Vol. I, 1972, pp. 28-187. Goodman, Mary Ellen. Race Awareness in YoungChildren. New York: Collier Books, 1964. Gordon, Thomas F. "Mass Media and Socialization: Theoretic Approaches." Paper presented to the International Communi- cation Association Convention, April 1974, New Orleans, La. Greenberg, Bradley. "Children's Reactions to TV Blacks." Journalism Quarterly, 1972, 1:5-14. Greenberg, Bradley and Brenda Dervin. Use of The Mass Media By The Urban Poor. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1972. Greenberg, Bradley and Joseph Dominick. ”Three Seasons of Blacks on Television." Journal of Advertising Research, 1970, 10:21-37. 118 Greenberg, Bradley and Sherrie Mazingo. "Racial Issues in Mass Media Institutions." In Phyllis Katz (ed.), Towards The Elimination of Racism. Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon Press (in press). Gregor, James A. and D. Angus McPherson. "Racial Attitudes Among White and Negro Children In A Deep South Standard Metro- politan Area." The Journal of Social Psychology, 1966, 68:95-106. Haller, Archibald O. and Joseph Woelfel with Edward L. Fink. The Wisconsin Si nificant Other Battery, U.S. Office of Education Final eport. Madison: Department of Rural Sociology, University of Wisconsin, 1968. Horowitz, Ruth. "Racial Aspects of Self-Identification in Nursery School Children." Journal of Psychology, 1973, 7:91-99. James, William. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Think- jpg, New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1907. Katzman, Natan. "Television Viewing in The United States." Unpublished manuscript, Corporation for Public Broadcast- ing, Washington, D.C., 1974. Kelly, George A. The Psychology of Personal Constructs: A Theory of Personality, Volume I. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1955. Kerlinger, Fred N. and Elazar J. Pedhazur. Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. Kinch, John. "A Formalized Theory of The Self-Conce t." In Jerome G. Manis and Bernard N. Meltzer (eds.), S mbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social Psychology, pp. 232-240. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1967. Kuhn, Manford. "Self-Attitudes By Age, Sex, and Professional Train- ing." Sociologicalearterly, 1960, 1:39-55. . "The Reference Group Reconsidered." Sociological Quar- terly, 1964, 5:6-21. MacKay, Robert. "Conceptions of Children and Models of Socializa-. tion." In Hans Peter Dreitzel (ed.), Recent Sociology No. 5 (Childhood Socializatiop), pp. 27-43. New York: Macmillan, 1973. Maloney, Martin. "Black is The Color of Our New TV." In Barry Cole (ed.), Television, pp. 255-258. New York: The Free Press, 1970. 119 Manis, Jerome G. and Bernard M. Meltzer (eds.). Symbolic Inter- action: A Reader in Social Psychology. Boston: Allyn and Baconfi71967. McPartland, Thomas S. and John H. Cumming. "Self-Conception, Social Class, and Mental Health.“ Human Organization, 1958, 17:24-29. Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self, and Society, Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1934. . The Philosophy of The Act. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938. Morland, Kenneth. "Comparison of Racial Awareness in Northern and Southern Children." American Journal of Orthepsyehiatry, 1966, 22-32. Poinsett, Alex. "Blacks and The Mass Media." Speech delivered at the Second National Conference on Counseling Minorities, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, October 28, 1974. Refky, David M. "Phenomenology and Socialization: Some Comments on The Assumptions Underlying Socialization Theory." In Hans Peter Dreitzel (ed.), Recent Sociology No. 5 (Child- hood Socialization), pp. 44-64. New York: Macmillan, 1973. Reiss, Albert J., Jr. with Otis Dudley Duncan, Paul K. Hatt and Cecil C. North. Occupations and Social Status. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Rose, Arnold M. (ed.). Human Behavior and Social Processes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Rose, La Frances Rodgers. “Some Theoretical and Methodological Thoughts on Black Social Psychology." Unpublished manu- script, Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1972. Schramm, Wilbur, Jack Lyle and Edwin B. Parker. Television In The Lives of Our Children. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1961. Shibutani, Tamotsu. "Reference Groups as Perspectives." American Journal of Sociology, 1955, 60:563-569. . Society and Personalijy, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961. Stone, Gregory P. and Harvey A. Farberman (eds.). Social Psy- chology Through Symbolic Interaction. Walthim, Mass.: Xerox College Publishing, 1970. 120 Stryker, Sheldon. "Conditions of Accurate Role-Taking: A Test of Mead's Theory." In Arnold M. Rose (ed.), Human Behavior and Social Processes, pp. 41-62. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. . "Symbolic Interaction As An Approach to Family Research." In Jerome G. Manis and Bernard N. Meltzer (eds.), S mbolic Interaction: A Reader in Social Psychology, pp. 3 -383. Boston: AlTyn and Bacon, 1967. Sullivan, Harry Stack. Conceptions of Modern Psychiatry. Washing- ton, D.C.: W. A. White Psychiatric Foundation, 1940. Swanson, Guy E. "Family Structure and The Reflective Intelligence of Children." Sociometgy, 1974, 37:459-490. Thomas, William I. The Unadjusted Girl. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1931. Waller, Willard. "The Definition of The Situation.“ In Gregory Stone and Harvey A. Farberman (eds.), Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interaction, pp. 162-174. Waltham, Mass.: Xerox College Publishing, 1970. Warshay, Leon H. "Breadth of Perspective." In Arnold M. Rose (ed.), Human Behavior and Social Processes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962, 148-176. Weinberg, S. Kirson. "Social Action Systems and Social Problems. In Arnold M. Rose (ed.), Human Behavior and Social Proc- esses, pp. 401-424. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Woelfel, Joseph. "Social Structure, Personality, and Behavior." Unpublished manuscript, Department of Sociology, Univer- sity of Wisconsin, Madison, 1968. Woelfel, Joseph and Archibald O. Haller. ~"Research Findings From The Educational and Occupational Process in Support of a Recent Theory of Attitude Formation." Unpublished manu- script, Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1971. Wonnacott, Ronald J. and Thomas J. Wonnacott. Econometrics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1970. Zigler, Edward and Irvin L. Child. "Socialization." In Gardner Lindzey and Elliott Aronson (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. III, pp. 450-589. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1969. APPENDICES 121 APPENDIX A PRETEST QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTIONS TO INTERVIEWERS INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENTS FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE 122 PRETEST QUESTIONNAIRE "Television and You" 123 TELEVISION and YOU Who is this person? (10) What TV program is this person on? (11) . What race or color is the person in this picture? (12) How often do you watch this TV program? (13) ___almost once every week ___about once every two weeks ___about once a month ___about once every two to three months almost never . When this person is on TV, do you think this is the person's real life, or is the person just playing a part or pretending? it's the person's real life 9 just playing a part or pretending (IN) don't know 6. How much money do you think the family of the person in the picture makes, compared to how much your family makes? (15) ___they make more than my family 1 ___they make about the same as my family they make less than my family 7. How much money do you think your family makes? (16) a lot of money some money not very much money 8. Who usually watches this program with you? ( 1? ___l'usually watch it by myself (18) ___mother ___father ___sister(s) How many sisters do you usually watch with? _F_brother(s) How many brothers do you usually watch with? ___friends How many friends do you usually watch with? ___aunt(s) How many aunts do you usually watch with? ___uncle(s) How many uncles do you usually watch with? ___cousin(s) How many cousins do you usually watch with? ___grandmother ___grandfather ___neighbor(s) How many neighbors do you usually watch with? ___babysitter 9. What do you think of the person in the picture? What pipe of person do you think he or she is? Please put down all the words you can think of that tell about the person. (19) 10. 11. 12. Now of all the things that you think about this person, how Person you have talked to true do you think those things are for people of this race who are not on TV? (20) I ! true for most i true for some I true for a few ) ___not true of any I How much do you like the person in the picture? (21) : (put a check in the space for your answer) 1 ' i very some neither dislike don't like I much like nor some at all I dislike ‘ Please list all the people you can think of who you have (22) I ever talked to about the person in the picture. If you have ( talked to no one about the person in the picture, check the ‘ space here , and go to question 13. ( For each person you list, check how much you think they like : the person in the picture. ' How much do they like the person' in the picture? 1 (23‘ very some neither dislike don't much like nor- some like dislike, at all 1 _______ ______y _ (2L very some neither dislike don't much like nor some like dislike at all i (25“ very some neither dislike don't much like nor some like dislike at all "~fl‘ EITMJH you have talked to How much do they like the person in the picture? (26) very * some neither dislike don't much like nor some like dislike at all . _____ _..______. __ __ —__— (27) very some neither dislike don't much like nor some like dislike at all _— —— __.___ _,__?_ .___.__. (28) very some neither dislike don't much like nor some like dislike at all If you listed anyone by his or her name for the above question, please go back and under the name of the person, write whether the person is your mother, father, brother, sister, friend, cousin, grandmother, grandfather, neighbor, teacher, or whoever the person is. 13. Of all the things you have heard others say about the person in the picture, how true do you think those things are for people of this race who are not on TV? (29) true for most true for some true for a few ___not true of any >_, J! ' 5 / 1. Who is this person? (30) 2. What TV program is this person on? (31) 3. What race or color is the person in this picture? (32) 4. How often do you watch this TV program? (33) ___almost once every week ___about once every two weeks ___about once a month ___about once every two to three months almost never 5. When this person is on TV, do you think this is the person's real life, or is the person just playing a part or pretending? ___it's the person's real life ___just playing a part or pretending ( 3m don't know How much money do you think the family of the person in the picture makes, compared to how much your family makes? (‘33 they make more than my family they make about the same as my family they make less than my family . How much money do you think your family makes? (36) a lot of money some money not very much money . Who usually watches this program with you? (37) ___Iusually watch it by myself (38) ___mother ____father sister(s) How many sisters do you usually watch with? brother(s) How many brothers do you usually watch with? friends How many friends do you usually watch with? aunt(s) How many aunts do you usually watch with? . uncle(s) How many uncles do you usually watch with? ___cousin(s) How many cousins do you usually watch with? ___grandmother ___grandfather ___neighbor(s) How many neighbors do you usually watch with? ___babysitter What do you think of the person in the picture? What kind of person do you think he or she is? Please put down all the words you can think of that tell about the person. (39) Personyyou have talked to 10. 11. 12. ”A. Now of all the things that you think about this person, how true do you think those things are for people of this race who are not on TV? (40 \4" true for most true for some true for a few ___not true of any How much do you like the person in the picture? ( 4D (put a check in the space for your answer) very some neither dislike don't like much like nor some at all dislike Please list all the people you can think of who you have (“2) ever talked to about the person in the picture. If you have talked to no one about the person in the picture, check the space here , and go to question 13. For each person you list, check how much you think they like .the person in the picture. How much do they like the person' in the picture? much like nor- some like dislike at all ________ ._______ ._______ ______. (b vary some neither dislike don't much like nor some like dislike at all ”w”?— much like nor some like f I | l l ( l l l l (L1 very some neither dislike don‘t l 1 l ( ( dislike at all 1 l Person you have talked to How much do they like the person in the picture? __ (1+6) very some neither dislike don't much like nor some like dislike at all __ ____ (47) very some neither dislike don't much like nor some like dislike at all ____ __ ___,____ __ __ (1+8) very some neither dislike don't much like nor some like dislike at all If you listed anyone by his or her name for the above question, please go back and under the name of the person, write whether the person is your mother, father, brother, sister, friend, cousin, grandmother, grandfather, neighbor, teacher, or whoever the person is. 13. Of all the things you have heard others say about the person in the picture, how true do you think those things are for people of this race who are not on TV? ( 4§ true for most true for some true for a few ___not true of any 4: Who is this person? (50) What TV program is this person on? ( 51) . What race or color is the person in this picture? (.53 How often do you watch this TV program? ( 53 ___almost once every week ___about once every two weeks ___about once a month ___about once every two to three months almost never When this person is on TV, do you think this is the person's real life, or is the person just playing a part or pretending? ___it's the person's real life I___just playing a part or pretending ( 5Q don't know 6. How much money do you think the family of the person in the picture makes, compared to how much your family makes? (55) ___they make more than my family .___they make about the same as my family they make less than my family 7. How much money do you think your family makes? (56) a lot of money some money not very much money 8. Who usually watches this program with you? (57) ___I usually watch it by myself (58) ___mother .___father ___sister(s) How many sisters do you usually watch with? ____brother(s) How many brothers do you usually watch with? ___friends How many friends do you usually watch with? ‘___aunt(s) How many aunts do you usually watch with? ‘___uncle(s) How many uncles do you usually watch with? ‘___cousin(s) How many cousins do you usually watch with? ___grandmother ___grandfather ___neighbor(s) How many neighbors do you usually watch with? ___babysitter 9. What do you think of the person in the picture? What kind of person do you think he or she is? Please put down all the words you can think of that tell about the person. ' (59) Person you have talked to 10. 11. 12. Now of all the things that you think about this person, how true do you think those things are for people of this race who are no: on TV? (60) ___true for most .___true for sgme ___true for a few ___not true of any _~4—-,__.-—dr"‘_"- _‘h— How much do you like the person in the picture? (61) (put a check in the space for your answer) l. I very some neither dislike don't like 1 much like nor some at all { dislike 1 Please list all the people you can think of who you have (62)1 ever talked to about the person in the picture. If you have ( 'talked to no one about the person-in the picture, check the 1 space here , and go to question 13. 1 For each person you list, check how much you think they like 1 .the person in the picture. 1 How much do theylike the person‘ in the picture? I I very some neither dislike don't much like nor some like dislike at all 1 l ___— —-——— —--,-———-- --.'—--.-" ———f- (6”! very some neither dislike don t 1 much like nor some like dislike at all 1 ________ _______ ._______ .____l_ _____ (63! vecv some neither dislike don't much like nor some like dislike at all ( f I Person you have talked to How much do they like the person in the picture? dislike some dislike some dislike some very some neither much like nor dislike very some neither much like nor dislike very some neither much like nor dislike If you listed anyone by his or her name for the above question, please go back and under the name of the person, write whether the person is your mother, father, brother, sister, friend, cousin, grandmother, grandfather, neighbor, teacher, or whoever the person is. 13. Of all the things you have heard others say about the person in the picture, how true do you think those things are for people of this race who are not on TV? true for most true for some true for a few ___not true of any (66 (6? (6E (69) 1. Who is this person? 2. What TV program is this person on? What race or color is the person in this picture? \J 4:- How often do you watch this TV program? ___almost once every week ___about once every two weeks ___about once a month ___about once every two to three months almost never 5. When this person is on TV, do you think this is the person's (7o) (71) ( 72) real life, or is the person just playing a part or pretending? it's the person's real life just playing a part or pretending don't know (74 ) How much money do you think the family of the person in the picture makes, compared to how much your family makes? (75) ___they make more than my family ___they make about the same as my family they make less than my family . How much money do you think your family makes? ( 7Q a lot of money some money not very much money Who usually watches this program with you? (77) ___I usually watch it by myself (78) ___mother ___father .___sister(s) How many sisters do you usually watch with? .___brother(s) How many brothers do you usually watch with? ___friends How many friends do you usually watch with? ___aunt(s) How many aunts do you usually watch with? ___uncle(s) How many uncles do you usually watch with? ___cousin(s) How many cousins do you usually watch with? ___grandmother ___grandfather ___neighbor(s) How many neighbors do you usually watch with? babysitter . What do you think of the person in the picture? What kind of person do you think he or she is? Please put down all the words you can think of that tell about the person. ( 79 Person you have talked to 10. 11. 12. -the person in the picture. Now of all the things that you think about this person, how true do you think those things are for people of this race who are pg: on TV? (80) ___true for mgst ___true for §9m3_ ' 1 ___true for a few ___not true of any How much do you like the person in the picture? ( 1) (put a check in the space for your answer) very some neither dislike don't like dislike Please list all the people you can think of who you have (2 ) I I 1 l I much like nor some at all I I I ever talked to about the person in the picture. If you have talked to no one about the person in the picture, check the space here , and go to question 13. 5 For each person you list, check how much you think they like ' I | How much dothey like the person' 1 in the picture? I l very some neither dislike don't much like nor some like I dislike at all '1 ( __ __ ___._... ___v- (14 very some neither dislike don t much like nor some like ( dislike at all 1 f ________ ________ ________ _______ _____. (5% very some neither dislike don't much like nor some like ( dislike at all 1 I’ersongyou have talked to very very much very much much How much do they like the person in the picture? some some some neither like nor dislike neither like nor dislike .__,____ neither like nor dislike (6) dislike some dislike some dislike some grandfather, neighbor, teacher, or whoever the person is. don't like at all ‘7) don't like at all (8) don't like at all If you listed anyone by his or her name for the above question, please go back and under the name of the person, write whether the person is your mother, father, brother, sister, friend, cousin, grandmother, 13. Of all the things you have heard others say about the person in the picture, how true do you think those things are for people of this race who are not true for true for true for _ ___not true most on TV? (9) Who is this person? ( 1Q What TV program is this person on? ( 19 . What race or color is the person in this picture? ( 1% How often do you watch this TV program? ( 13 ___almost once every week ___about once every two weeks ___about once a month ___about once every two to three months almost never When this person is on TV, do you think this is the person's real life, or is the person just playing a part or pretending? ___it's the person's real life ___just playing a part or pretending (1”) don't know 6. How much money do you think the family of the person in the picture makes, compared to how much your family makes? (15) ___they make more than my family ___they make about the same as my family they make less than my family 7. How much money do you think your family makes? (‘16 a lot of money some money not very much money 8. Who usually watches this program with you? (17) ___l usually watch it by myself (18) ___mother ___father ___sister(s) How many sisters do you usually watch with? ___brother(s) How many brothers do you usually watch with? ___friends How many friends do you usually watch with? ___aunt(s) How many aunts do you usually watch with? ___uncle(s) How many uncles do you usually watch with? ___cousin(s) How many cousins do you usually watch with? ___grandmother ___grandfather ___neighbor(s) How many neighbors do you usually watch with? ___babysitter 9. What do you think of the person in the picture? What kipd of person do you think he or she is? Please put down all the words you can think of that tell about the person. (19) Person you have talked‘to 10. 11. 12. fl\ Now of all the things that you think about this person, how true do you think those things are for people of this race who are not on TV? (20)I true for most I true for some true for a few ) ___not true of any How much do you like the person in the picture? (21) (put a check in the space for your answer) very some neither dislike don't like much like nor some at all Please list all the people you can think of who you have 22.) ever talked to about the person in the picture. If you have I I I I I dislike I I I talked to no one about the person in the picture, check the 1 space here , and go to question 13. For each person you list, check how much you think they like the person in the picture. How‘much do they'like the person' in the picture? ._______ ._______ .______. ,' 2) very some neither dislike don't ( much like nor some like I dislike at all I I ._______ _______ .——————— .—F——r—— _ (24‘ very some neither dislike don't I much like nor some like 1 dislike at all I (21 veiv some neither dislike don't much like nor some like ( dislike at all rsonpyou have talked to How much do they like the person in the picture? V_______ (26) very some neither dislike don't much like nor some like dislike at all _______. _______. ________ _______ ._______ (27) very some neither dislike don't much like nor some like dislike at all __ __ _,___ __ __ (28) very some neither dislike don't much like nor some like dislike at all If you listed anyone by his or her name for the above question, please go back and under the name of the person, write whether the person is your mother, father, brother, sister, friend, cousin, grandmother, grandfather, neighbor, teacher, or whoever the person is. 13. Of all the things you have heard others say about the person in the picture, how true do you think those things are for people of this race who are not on TV? (29) true for most true for some true for a few .___not true of any Kn Who is this person? (30) What TV program is this person on? (31) What race or color is the person in this picture? (32) . How often do you watch this TV program? (33) almost once every week about once every two weeks about once a month about once every two to three months almost never When this person is on TV, do you think this is the person's real life, or is the person just playing a part or pretending? it's the person's real life just playing a part or pretending (3“) don't know 6. How much money do you think the family of the person in the picture makes, compared to how much your family makes?) (35) ___they make more than my family ___they make about the same as my family they make less than my family 7. How much money do you think your family makes? ( 36 a lot of money some money not very much money 8. Who usually watches this program with you? (37) ___1 usually watch it by myself (38) ___mother ___father ___sister(s) How many sisters do you usually watch with? ___brother(s) How many brothers do you usually watch with? ___friends ' How many friends do you usually watch with? ___aunt(s) How many aunts do you usually watch with? ___uncle(s) How many uncles do you usually watch with? ___cousin(s) How many cousins do you usually watch with? ____grandmother ___grandfather ___neighbor(s).How many neighbors do you usually watch with? ___babysitter 9. What do you think of the person in the picture? What kipd of person do you think he or she is? Please put down all the words you can think of that tell about the person. ( 39 Person you have talked to 10. 11. 12. Now of all the things that you think about this person, how true do you who are not true for true for true for think those things are for people of this race on TV? most same a few not true of any How much do you like the person in the picture? (put a check in the space for your answer) very much Please list all the people you can think of who you have ever talked to about the person in the picture. some neither like nor dislike dislike some don't like at all (am (4: If you have talked to no one about the person in the picture, check the space here , and go to question 13. For each person you list, check how much you think they like the person in the picture. very much in the picture? I I How much do they like the person' I I I some some neither like nor dislike neither like nor dislike dislike some dislike don't some d ' on t like at all ’1 I like I 4F ~—~ ”_- like nor dislike some Personpyou have talked to ‘ 4‘ How much do they like the person in the picture? some neither like nor dislike neither like nor dislike like nor dislike grandfather, neighbor, teacher, or whoever the person is. If you listed anyone by his or her name for the above question, please go back and under the name of the person, write whether the person is your mother, father, brother, sister, friend, cousin, grandmother, 13. Of all the things you have heard others say about the person in the picture, how true do you think those things are for people of this race who are not on TV? true for true for true for _ __.not true most (46) dislike don't some like at all (47) dislike don't some like at all dislike don't some like at all (49) 14. When you see family programs on TV like The Brady Bunch, All in The Family, Apple's Way, or Good TimesL do you think these are families in real life or are the people just playing a role or pretending? (50) ___these are real families ___they are juSt playing a part or pretending I don't know 15. How often do you see plapk people in real life (not on.TV)? .___less than once a week (51) ___about once a week __ytwo to three times a week ___four to five times a week everyday 16. How often do you get a chance to talk to black people? less thafi once a week ___ (52) about once a week two to three times a week four to five times a week everyday 17. How many black people would you say you know well? none at all seven to eight (53) one to two nine to ten three to four eleven to fifteen five to six sixteen to 20 20 or more 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. How many black friends do you have about your own age? . (54) none at all seven to eight one to two nine to ten three to four eleven to fifteen five to six sixteen to 20 20 or more How much do you like black people? (55) very much don't like or dislike somewhat don't like at all How different do you think black people and white people are in the way they think and act? (56) very different not very different not different at all On an average school day about how many programs do you (57) watch on TV? (Circle your answer) 0 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 10 How often do you see white people in real life (not on TV)? (58) less than once a week about once a week two to three times a week four to five times a week everyday How often do you get a chance to talk to white people? ' (59) less than once a week . . -——— four to five times a week about once a week ‘-— everyday two to three times a week 24. How many white people would you say you know well? none at all seven to eight one to two nine to ten three to four eleven to fifteen five to six sixteen to 20 20 or more 25. How many white friends do you have about your own age? ___none at all ___seven to eight ___one to two ___nine to ten ___three to four ___eleven to fifteen ___five to six ___sixteen to 20 ‘ 20 or more 26. How much do you like white people? very much don't like or dislike somewhat don't like at all 27. How often do you read newspapers? ___less than once a week ___about once a week ___two to three times a week ___four to five times a week ___everyday 28. When you read things in the newspapers about black peOple, how do you think the newspapers show black people as being? very good bad good very bad not good or bad don't know 29. How often do you read books? less than once a week about once a week two to three times a week four to five times a week everyday (60) (61) (62) (63) (64) (65) ._ __ #~—_~__—__ ._ ___-_P A—- 30. 31. 320 33- 343 35- When you read things in books about black people, how do you think the books show black people as being? (66) very good bad good very bad not good or bad don't know How often do you read magazines? (67) ___less than once a week (___about once a week ___two to three times a week ___four to five times a week ___everyday When you read things in magazines about black people, how do think the magazines shqw black people as being? (68) very good bad good very bad not good or bad don't know How often do you listen to the radio? (69) ___less than one hour a day ___one to two hours a day ___two to three hours a day '___three to four hours a day ___more than four hours a day When you hear things on the radio about black people, what would you say the people on the radio think about black people? (70) ___very good ___bad ___good ___very bad ‘__ynot good or bad ___don't know How often do you go to the movies? (71) ___about once a week ___once every two to three months once every two weeks almost never once a month once every two to three months almost never 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. When you see things in the movies about black people, how do (72) do you think the movies show black people as being? very good bad good very bad not good or bad don't know When you read things in the newspapers about white people, (73) how do you think the newspapers show white people as being? very good ___bad good very bad not good or bad ___don t know When you read things in books about white people, how do you think the books show white people as being? (74) very good bad good ' very bad not good or bad don't know When you read things in magazines about white peOple, how do you think the magazines show white people as being? (75) very good bad good very bad not good or bad don't know When you hear things on the radio about white people, what would you say the people on the radio think about whiterpeople? very good _bad (76) good very bad I not good or bad ___don t know When you see things in the movies about white people, how '7 do you think the movies show white people as being? (7') very good bad ___EOOd ___very bad not good or bad don't know .__ _____‘——_- h -5 -l _— ‘H_‘—‘.—-—n_~.—_ Each of us needs to know more about what we are like. The next few questions help us know more about you. Please be very truthful. l. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least equal to others. I feel this way: ____most of the time some of the time a: few times none of the time 2. I feel that there are many good things about me. I feel this way: ___most of the time ___some of the time ___a few times ___none of the time 3. I think there are many things that I do not do well. I feel this way: most of the time 'some of the time a few times none of the time 4. I am able to do things as well as most people my age. I feel this way: ___most of the time ___some of the time ___a few times ___none of the time 5. I wish I could like myself more. I feel this way: ___:most of the time ____some of the time .____a few times none of the time (78) (79) (80) ( 1) (2) . How smart does your mother think you are? very smart somewhat smart not very smart not smart at all How smart does your father think you are? very smart somewhat smart not very smart not smart at all . How smart does your teacher think you are? not smart at all not very smart somewhat smart very smart How smart do your friends think you are? ____not smart at all ___not very smart at all ____somewhat smart (____very smart How smart do you think you are? ___very smart ___somewhat smart ___not very smart ___not smart at all Does your father live at home? yes no (if no, please go to question 11” (3) (6) (7) If your father and mother usually work, but are not working now, please answer the questions about the work they did before. 7. Where does your father work? (9) 8. What is the name or title of his job? (10) 9. Does he work full or part time? (11) ____full time ____part time (12) 10. Does your mother have a job? yes no (if no, please go to question 14) 11 . Where does your mother work? (13) 12. What is the name or title of her job? (14) 13. Does she work full time or part time? (15) ___full time ____part time (16) 14. How far did your father go in school? ___only elementary school ____less than high school ___ygraduated from high school some college ____graduated from college ____don't know 15. How far did your mother go in school? (17) only elementary school less than high school ____graduated from high school some college graduated from college don't know Just a few more questions. . l. O\U\ PM.) American Indian (Native American Indian) Other (please tell us what ) Thank you very much. Are you a boy or a girl? (18) ____boy ____girl . How old are you? (19) . What grade are you in? (20) . What is the name of your teacher? What is the name of your school? . Are you: ____Black (23) __White ____Oriental ____Chicano (21) h A._ — ___.— ' I'll) I ll! ll ‘;{...l‘ . Ill! II All lllll INSTRUCTIONS TO INTERVIEWERS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENTS 158 INSTRUCTIONS TO INTERVIEWERS March l8-19, 1975 You will be in the classroom with at least one other person as interviewer(s). Classroom size will range from gg_to §§_pupils. An introduction which one of you will read to the pupils is attached. Read it exactl as written. Also read it loudly, slowly, and clearl . After the ntroduction has been read, ggg_of you will;pass out the booklets. At the end of 30 minutes, briefly remind the pupils that they are to raise their hands when theyThave finished. ***IMPORTANT*** As each pupil finishes, immediately check each booklet individually and carefully, to see that all questions) as applicable, are answered. This is extremely important. If there are unanswered questions that should be answered, this will foul up data analysis and interpretation. In checking and collecting each booklet, you must do this as rapidly and as efficiently as possible, so that each booklet is checked in a minimum amount of time. This will avoid long delays in getting around to each pupil. It will also avoid consuming more class time than necessary. If you are asked by one of the pupils, how long the test will take, just reply: "Not very long," or "a short time." The test should take 50 minutes or less. When you have §11_the booklets checked and collected, thank the children, and leave the classroom as Quickly as possible. Do not dawdle. We must be jg_and 9g§_of the classroom in less than an hour. Please read over these instructions carefully so that you fully understand them. l59 .llllllll III I.) [I I I." ll. Ullliull INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENTS INSTRUCTIONS TO BE READ TO PUPILS. PLEASE READ THEM EXACTLY AS WRITTEN. READ THEM LOUDLY, SLOWLY, AND CLEARLY. Hi. My name is . And this is (introduce other or others). We would like to know how boys and girls like you feel about television and some other things. So we would like to ask your help in answering a few questions for us. The questions that we have are in these booklets (hold up booklet). We will pass these out in just a minute. In the booklet, you will mark or write the answer that best tells how you feel about these things. Do not say the answers out loud, just put them down in your booklet. If you need any help, or have any questions while you are doing this, raise your hand and one of us will come and help you. Take as much time as you need and answer the questions carefully. This is not a test, you will not be graded on this . . . so please answer as truthfully as you can. You do not need to put your name on this either, because everything you say will be private. We just want to know how you feel about these things. When you have finished going through the questions, raise your hand so we will know you are finished. Are there any questions? (Pass out booklets.) 160 allll'ill I I'll 'lllIIl l' III II I'll. .ll FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE "You and Television" 161 1 ll lu ‘ .(l. . RE i I III I. I I‘ll | 1 l , . .{I' fa. Q _‘IW‘IIIIIII III-ll." I’ll-Ill I. (till I YOU and TElEl/ISION U) Who is this person 93 what TV program is this person on? (You may put down an name you know the person by, pp the name of the program). __I don't know the name of the person or the program. What is the race pp color of this person? Black . Oriental White Chicano I don't know How often do you watch this TV program? once every week once every two weeks once a month once every two to three months never When this person i§ pp TV, he works at a factory, and has a family and neighbors. When this person lg not pp TV, does he work atthat factory and have the same family and neighbors? yes no I don't know - When this person is not pp TV, how much do you think about him? I think about this person g lot I think about this person sometimes I never think about this person 10. 11. 12. 13. _______ 14. Think about this person for a minute, and think about what you have heard others say about the person. Now, Egg yppg do you think those things are for people pf this race pg color who are n93 pp TV? these things are true for mpst people of this race these things are true for ppmg people of this race these things are true for g Egg peOple of this race these things are p93 pppg for any people of this race How much do you like the person in the picture? (put a check in the space for your answer) very some don't like dislike don't like much or dislike some at all When this person is on TV, is this person just playing a part or pretending? yes no I don't know Who usually watches this program witheyou? I don't watch this program (please go to question 135) I usually watch it by myself (Check the spaces for all those people who usually watch this program with you) my mother usually watches it with me my father usually watches it with me my sister or sisters usually watch it with me How many sisters usually watch with you? my brother or brothers usually watch with me How many brothers usually watch with you? my friend or friends usually watch with me How many friends usually watch with you? (Please look at the picture as often as you need to, to answer the questions about the person) -2- 15. Have you ever :glkgg to anygng about the person in the picture? yes (if yes, please go on reading this page) ____no (if no, please go to page E) Please put down all the people you can think of who you have ever talked to about the person in the picture. Just put down whether the person is your mother, father, sister, brother, friend, teacher,or whoever the person is. Then next to each person, check how much you think they like the person in the picture. You may put down as many persons as you like. For example, you may have talked to three friends about the person in the picture. Then you would put down friends three I I times. Person You Have HOW’MUCh Do They Like The Person in the Pictug Talked To | 1' very some don't dislike don't much like or some like dislike at all 2 I very some don't dislike don't I much like or some like dislike at all 1 3' very some EOH'E dislike don't much like-or- some like I dislike at all l [4'- -———-—-——— "—"—'" ' ' ' ' 1 very some don't dislike don t much like or some like 11 dislike at al.| l 5. very some don't dislike don t I much like.or some like I dislike at all 1 I __ -3- 1 16. 17 18. 19. 20. Who is this person pp what TV program is this person on? (You may put down an name you know the person by, pp the name of the progpam). I don't know the name of the person or the program. What is the pppp pp color of this person? Black Oriental White Chicano I don't know How often do you watch this TV program? ____once every week once every two weeks once a month once every two to three months ____never When this person ip pp TV, she has a family and neighbors. When this person pp not pp TV, does she have the same family and neighbors? yes no I don't know When this person pp not pp TV, how much do you think about her? I think about this person p lot I think about this person sometimes I never think about this person _4_ 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Think about this person for a minute, and think about what you have heard others say about the person. Now, ppp pppp do you think those things are for people .pf this race pp color who are ppp pp TV? these things are true for pppt people of this race these things are true for pppp peOple of this race these things are true for p ipp people of this race these things are pp: pppp for any people of this race How much do you like the person in the picture? (put a check in the space for your answer) very some don't like dislike don't like much or dislike some at all When this person is on TV, is this person just playing a part or pretending? yes no I don't know Who usually watches this program with you? I don't watch this program (please go to question £35) I usually watch it by myself (Check the spaces for all those people who usually watch this program with you) my mother usually watches it with me my father usually watches it with me my sister or sisters usually watch it with me How many sisters usually watch with you? my brother or brothppp usually watch with me How many brothers usually watch with you? my friend or friends usually watch with me How many friends usually watch with you? (Please look at the picture as often as you need to, to answer the questions about the person) _K_ 30. Have you ever talked to anyone about the person in the picture? yes (if yes, please go on reading this page) no (if no, please go to page7h) Please put down all the people you can think of who you have ever talked to about the person in the picture. whether the person is your mother, father, sister, brother, friend, teacher,or whoever the person is. Then next to each Just put down person, check how much you think they like the person in the picture. For example, you may have talked to three friends about the person in the picture. times. Person You Have Talked To You may put down as many persons as you like. Then you would put down friends three HOW’MUCh Do They_Like The Person in the Pictui very much Vt” I‘y much very much very much very much some some some $3 omc some don't like or dislike don't like or dislike don E like or- dislike donrt like or dislike don't like or: dislike dislike don't some like at all dislike —don 5 some like at all dislike don't some like at all dileikc dori't some like at all dislike don't some like at all 31. 32. 33- 34. 35. I 3% Who is this person pp what TV program is this person on? (You may put down an name you know the person by, pp the name of the progpam). I don't know the name of the person or the program. What is the pppp pp color of this person? Black Oriental White Chicano I don't know How often do you watch this TV program? ____once every week once every two weeks once a month once every two to three months never When this person ip pp TV, she has a family and neighbors. When this person pp not pp TV, does she have the same family and neighbors? yes no I don't know When this person pp not pp TV, how much do you think about her? I think about this person p lot I think about this person sometimes I never think about this person -7- _ “Jag -.- _. ~ —,— 36. 32 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Think about this person for a minute, and think about what you have heard others say about the person. Now, ppp pppp do you think those things are for people ‘pf this race pp color who are pp: pp TV? these things are true for pppt people of this race these things are true for pppp people of this race these things are true for p fpp people of this race these things are ppp pppp for any people of this race How much do you like the person in the picture? (put a check in the space for your answer) very some don't like dislike don't like much or dislike some at all When this person is on TV, is this person just playing a part or pretending? ‘ yes no I don't know Who usually watches this program with you? I don't watch this program (please go toquestion 44/), I usually watch it by myself (Check the spaces for all those people who usually watch this program with you) my mother usually watches it with me my father usually watches it with me my sister or sisters usually watch it with me How many sisters usually watch with you? my brother or brothers usually watch with me How many brothers usually watch with you? my friend or friends usually watch with me How many friends usually watch with you? (Please look at the picture as often as you need to, to answer the questions about the person) § —8- lfll. Have you ever talked to anyone about the person in the picture? yes (if yes, please go on reading this page) no (if no, please go to page 1p) Please put down all the people you can think of who you have ever talked to about the person in the picture. Just put down whether the person is your mother, father, sister, brother, friend, teacher,or whoever the person is. Then next to each person, check how much you think they like the person in the picture. You may put down as many persons as you like. For example, you may have talked to three friends about the person in the picture. Then you would put down friends three times. ' Person You Have How'Much Do They Like The Person in the Pictur Talked To 1' very some don't dislike Adon't much like or some like dislike at all 2. ___— ——— "F m - very some don t dislike don't much like or some like (dislike at all 3' (very some EOH'T dislike don't much llke.or- some like dislike at all he -————— "" ‘ ' ' very some don't dislike don t much like or some like dislike at all 5. very some don't dislike don't much like.or some like dislike at all 1:5. 46 4? 48 49 . ‘3‘ -' -/ Who is this person pp what TV program is this person on? (You may put down an name you know the person by, pp the name of the program). I don't know the name of the person or the program. What is the race pp colop of this person? Black Oriental White Chicano I don't know How often do you watch this TV program? once every week once every two weeks once a month once every two to three months never When this person ip pp TV, he owns a junkyard and has a son and neighbors. When this person lg not pp TV, does he own a junkyard and have the same sonuand the same neighbors? es no I don't know I When this person lg not pp TV, how much do you think about him? H think about this person p lot H think about this person sometimes H never think about this person ——-'- »~. 50. 51. 52. 53- 54. 55- 56. 57. 58. Think about this person for a minute, and think about what you have heard others say about the person. Now, ppp pppp do you think those things are for people pf this race pp color who are pp: pp TV? these things are true for pppt people of this race these things are true for pppp people of this race these things are true for p fpp people of this race these things are ppp pppp for any people of this race How much do you like the person in the picture? (put a check in the space for your answer) very some don't like dislike don't like much or dislike some at all. When this person is on TV, is this person just playing a part or pretending? yes no I don't know Who usually watches this program witthou? _____I don't watch this program (please go to question 51K) I usually watch it by myself (Check the spaces for all those people who usually watch this program with you) my mother usually watches it with me my father usually watches it with me my sister or sisters usually watch it with me How many sisters usually watch with you? my brother or brothers usually watch with me How many brothers usually watch with you? my friend or friends usually watch with me How many friends usually watch with you? (Please look at the picture as often as you need to, to answer the questions about the person) -11- 59- ‘ Person You Have Have you ever talked to anyone about the person in the picture? yes (if yes, please go on reading this page) no (if no, please go to page 13) Please put down all the people you can think of who you have ever talked to about the person in the picture. Just put down whether the person is your mother, father, sister, brother, friend, teaCher,or whoever the person is. Then next to each person, check how much you think they like the person in the picture. You may put down as many persons as you like. IFor example, you may have talked to three friends about the person in the picture. Then you would put down friends three times. Talked To 1 I 1' very some don't dislike don't much like or some like I dislike at all1 2° -———-——- -——————- ———1——— -?——?—' —————- I very some ,don t dislike don't much like or some like I _dislike at all 1 I 3. very some den 5 dislike don't 1 much like or. some like dislike at all 1 I 4. '———T——’ ~ - . very some don t dislike don t much like or some like 3 diSlike at 81; I l 5' —-———-—- —-——— -—-——-- --.--.-"' ———f: I very some don't dislike don t 1 much like.or some like dislike at all 1 -12- How Much Do They Like The Person in the Pictur f 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. When you see black people on programs like Good Times, they have families and neighbors on the program. When these people are not pp TV, do they have the same families and neighbors? yes no I don't know When you see white pppple on programs like All in The Family, they have families and neighbors on the program. When these people are not on TV, do they have the same families and neighbors? yes no I don't know When you get home from school, about how many TV programs do you watch before going pp bed? (Circle your answer) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 When you see black people on programs like Good Times and other programs with black families, are the people just playing a part or pretending? yes .no I-dOnJm knOW- When you see white people on programs like All in The Family and other programs with white families, are the people just playing a part or pretending? yes no I don't know How many black peoplp would you say you know well? I don't know any black people well I know black people well (Please put in the number) How many white people would you say you know ppll? I don't know any white people well I know white peOple Well (Please put in the number) 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. How often do you read books? less than once a week about once a week two to three times a week four to five times a week everyday When you read things in books about black people, how do you do you think the books show black people as being? very good bad good very bad not good or bad I don't know When you read things in books about white people, how do you do you think the books show white people as being? very good — «mbad good very bad not good or bad I don't know How often do you listen to the radio? less than one hour a day one to two hours a day two to three hours a day three to four hours a day more than four hours a day When you hear things on the radio about black people, what would you say the people on the radio think about black people? they think black peOple are vepy good they think black peOple are good they think black people are neither good nor bad they think black peOple are bad they think black people are very bad -14- 72. 73- 74. 75- When you hear things on the radio about white peOple, what would you say the people on the radio think about ppite peOple? they think white people are vepy good they think white people are gppp they think white people are neither good nor bad they think white people are pap they think white peole are yppy’pgp I don't know Each of us needs to know more about what we are like. The next few questions will help us know more about you. Please be very truthful. I feel that there are many good things about me. I feel this way: most of the time some of the time a few times none of the time How much do you like yourself? very much somewhat not very much not at all How smart do your mother and your father think you are? very smart somewhat smart ____not very smart ____not smart at all -15- 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. How smart does your teacher think you are? very smart ” somewhat smart not very smart not smart at all How smart do your friends think you are? very smart somewhat smart not very smart not smart at all How smart do you think you are? ____very smart ___somewhat smart ___not very smart ___not smart at all Does your father live at home? yes no (if no, please go to question.§1) If your father usually works, but is not working now, please answer the question for the work he did before. What kind of work does your father do? Does your mother live at home? yes no (if no, please go to question 84) Does your mother have a job? ____yes no (if no, please go to question g3) -16- ‘.-_._. .__. ._, _ — ——-——‘ _. -~ ‘— _ —.———‘. _fl —_~.—_—— 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. If your mother usually works, but is not working now, please answer the question for the work she did before. What kind of work does your mother do? ' Other (please tell us what) Just a few more questions . Are you a boy or a girl? boy girl How old are you? What grade are you in? 3rd 5th What is the name of your school? Are you: ____Black ____White ____Oriental Chicano American Indian (Native American Indian) Thank you very much. -17- 1. How much do you like black people? very much somewhat ____don't like or dislike ____dislike somewhat don't like at all 2. How different do you think black people and white people are in the way they think and act? very different not very different not different at all 3. How much do you lips pp££p_people? very much (____somewhat ____don't like or dislike ____dislike somewhat don't like at all l79a ..-o -~ \I u o . I .r I sf c. nub . .- nu... ."-I\ APPENDIX B MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, CORRELATION MATRICES FOR INDICES AND SINGLE MEASURES INTERCORRELATIONS FOR MEDIA PERCEPTION INDEX INTERCORRELATIONS FOR SIGNIFICANT OTHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD TV PORTRAYALS INDEX RELIABILITY ESTIMATES FOR INDICES ACROSS SAMPLE GROUPS FREQUENCY OF SIGNIFICANT OTHER MENTIONS BY CHARACTER l80 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR INDEX AND SINGLE-ITEM VARIABLES: ACROSS THE ENTIRE SAMPLE AND EACH SUBSAMPLE lBl 182 «cu as~ «:N «:N «aw «aw «:~ «.~ «a~ dew «aw as~ «em as~ as~ “em as~ a¢~ as~ «JN dew dew «:N «am dew «su sew «:N Arem .«:~ _mme u zv e_e5em messes mes Lee me_eeeee> wwwgo<:memwpmw>mo.weeucewm pee mpemz; mmmqo ... I. \t . . . o e 0 e o o e z o H m m w a d w d m 4 a H h 4 D r osm~ou «has. nnmnod omas. Noam. mama.“ ounmo shaded” ..ahrmo ~s~n.~ m~¢m.« moms.~ «are.» msm«.o~ n:~o.a~ nemm.¢u sawe.mu e~m~.« osmn.~ omam.a somc.« om~m.« mama.“ ~o~a.n noao.~ ~n~«.~ coaa.n ocm~.« muse.“ >wn oydoz «zzeooum haouaum mquomreo sawcmzho Jahzxzx szsrzx m>pomam x>bocmm mo>hhwa za>hbhq madmazmo xqqmnzmu mbzuuamm :szqum maccwomx zaacuout maxmcwam :axwowau a>hmxozx a>bzxozx wqmqnaq> o o I e e o e o o r o n e o e o o e o o o o I want Ouanq: 183 A~e_ . zv.meeeeeeamea eels: FF< gee me_eeeee> -w_< mmoeu< mcmwuomxuazuemccmwm new meme: 0.. r o o o e o.e z o H m m u a usw a w 4 m,H » ms\o«\oo . ' ~:« ~:« Na“ ~¢u nan New ~:« ~:« Na“ ugu .N:« ~:« N:« ~:« New w:« .m:« New New ~:« New waa ~:«. wad New ~:« ~:« Nan mumqo : r ”can. mums. NNMMou 05mm. swan-u oaom. nmxm.o acne. mod~.N ommc.« vasceu macm.m :a»~.0~ comooua ooodomn cem:.¢« cm~s.a ms,«.~ ~one.a once.” mom~.« keno.“ nea¢.~ adm:.~ aos«.~ thud.» anew.“ ohms.“ >mn ouaozqem ono:.a mezzwhq cage.“ .:: :- pzumuuno waom.n guasmppq "cam.“ woqmu 33.0 I-I-I- wed ssm:.« xum e4«~.no mum amn~.n ...i w. heazmao> unam.w .. «:zhoonm mawm.o hnuuaum m-o.o .e:-u ;.oqaouz»o “no“.o zpcunm mm«a.a« x>pou~m :«u¢.o Tillii. ca>hbha m¢4~.s 3a>phpa sue~.m. maaupzue nooc.4 maemnzmu .naeo.a. cpzuuamm orbs.” . :hznuaum womc.:«- maoqnoux sneo.:u soon—om; anon.» maxmcmmu :om~.s .-. :axwomau m¢o¢.¢ e>hcxozx «men.o . a>pxzozx 24w: NdeHaa> OI...$....Q.0.0IIIIO'II . ms\cu\mo. I whco Zeubemmoa. ;wteepq so mon~.~ nmsm.~ gospels so once.“ soon.m assuazms so ~ooo.. osso.s assuazun so oss~.s ssos.s opzsusmm so ons«.« moss.» :pznusum so ~n~°.n s~s~usu amasssmr ss~m.~ okmo s. reassemx Asa u zv mpoonum uwumgmwucu ”w oson.~ cuss.” maxuomut .. . so aks~.n. ooflous saxusmst . . so ~o-.a ..m m o ashoxozy on» as mucmueoammm muss: sow mm—amwgm> so os-.a moon.o a>hzso2s Fp<.mmogm¢ mcoruew>oo ugmucmum vco memo: . mu >uo omcazapm zsuz usmsaass \ 10.00000. zo.u,.meu¢ou¢ udmuhdaz ooeoooooooooooeooooooo. . osxnsxss a mess zonhsuxo. uxszo: use- at» $3 . 32:... 185 as. zv —oocum .umumemouc_coz as» cs mucmucoa.mmm maps: ace mm_smpem> __< omego< mco_pew>mo neeucmum .ccm ocewz. O’II.., m5\o«\mo z o u m m w a u w a u s a H p s a : bung. cons. ounce“ nmom. mesa.“ nanm. «coo.» osmc. «mm«.~ moss.“ «ss~.~ soda.« «nms.~n ommm.ou «amo.s« smmu.wu ndsm.« admo.u :Om:.n snmm.« scam.“ came. oaon.~ nocm.~ ssnm.« memo.~ ~nm:.a. mnmm.n o. ‘0... O'UIUO >wn omqozqhm 5......QOO . ms\o«\oo u updo om:o.4 nnou.~ mm«n.¢ ooam.u mwomec msnaou mmwn.mo mm¢«.n n¢o~.o« smoo.o kam~.o sooueo Nonm.«: nmna.» mmam.m« sum~.mu muno.c ~m-.o nrco.m haaocm mumm.» Neat.” Nrmm.m« mmmm.mu Neo¢.c mmaw.s omma.o mon~.o .. "U’ . t C a- ‘10 '1-..' . ' Zawz zouhdmmo. l .l.urazoz whHrzhw hzmduum yeasmhp menu wv xu mm: hquman «zircon. hauudm mqncwr. zdacmzu 4:»:3: szyscr m>~cowa 1>h0cH ce>wh». s 3Q>hhh. chwnzw. Jquozu. mhzuusm xhznuau. acaqHCm: xmadhcmw maxmcmn 3dxmcm n>rvmor m>»1207 wscqnma. ODDOQOQ..OIO usH erHNs, 186 Ams.u 5 mpcmucoammm sompm Lam oopsmpee> .. T. .0. O - ' .0 .1... I II D —p<. mmogo< mcoppop>wo neeucmpm use memo: I" ‘0 . \ z o 2H m m u a m . . . . . . m s a H p s w a ms\n«\ma moose D t 4“ ma::.« mwnvo o~mno owom. numm. mccuon snow. ownsos sage. oesoow doss.« common .::mm.n whamenw n:m4.4n. camo.o~ cmm~.a« .msso. summ.~ euro." Omsk.“ ~Nmo. “saw.“ .mcsmon o:s«.n «saw.« som~.~ n«a«oa musu.u >mn ouaozqhm O suns.» uhnxshha o~mn.« pzmauuno msoo.s .!.II::.xoqsm»»< mesa.“ soozom mm~¢.« macaw mn~:.o ; won coco.“ xwm osco.cm mum a~¢n.n huazmzo> omuu.o atxhcu~m omms.o pauusmm os¢«.o mahomzpo mess.» zawowxeo ssc~.m« sszxzx ¢a-.sn szysmzx s~m«. on m>hoeam «ss«.e«. 3>houum .::-.-:..onm~. o -z-szl::: mashhhq coco. s .. 2a>hhpa “as“.m oscwezuu ms««.m :ssuozuo anm~.m m»:~usmm ~sss.n :pznuswm oocm.s«-lllll:.maas~ow: soom.n« somehow; oo-.o maxmomau «som.s .x. :axwouau oom~.o a>emxozx .unom.o a>~rsozx Zeus maqumq> .0 e o o o o o e o 0.0 o c o o o o o o o 2.“ mh\ou\09 I Mhaozzoubdmaouii.ur¢zoz wank ouznuux ZERO-ORDER CORRELATION MATRICES FOR WEIGHTED INDEX AND SINGLE-ITEM VARIABLES ACROSS: l. 2. 3. ALL SAMPLE RESPONDENTS (N = 241) ALL WHITE RESPONDENTS (N = I42) ALL WHITE RESPONDENTS IN THE INTE- GRATED SCHOOLS (N = 94) ALL WHITE RESPONDENTS IN THE NON- INTEGRATED SCHOOL (N = 48) ALL BLACK RESPONDENTS (N = 68) 187 Respondents (N = 241): ATTBLACK (X1) ATTTVPB SELFCPT YOUSMART KNOWBTVP SELFINTB MEDIAPRB GENREALB (x2) (x3) (x4) (x5) (X5) (x,) (X is is is is is is is is 188 Black Portrayals regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against ATTTVPBl SELFCPTl OTMEDIAl SIGOTVPI SESl SIGOTMAZ SIGOTMAl FREQEXPI YOUSMARI KNOWBTVl FREQEXPZ KNBLKWLl YOUSMAR2 SELFINTl KNBLKWL2 MEDIAPRl KNBLKWL3 Weighted Variable Names in Correlation Matrix for All Sample Black and White Portrayals (x2) (x3) (x9) (x10) (x,,) (x,,) (x13) (x4) (x5) (x13) (x,,,) (x4) (*5) (x14) (x7) (x,,) Respondents (N = 24l): ATTWHITE ATTTVPW SELFCPT YOUSMART KNOWHTVP SELFINTW MEDIAPRW GENREALW (x,) (x2) (x3) (x4) (x5) (x,) (X (X l89 White Portrayals is is is is is is is is regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against ATTTVPW] SELFCPTZ OTMEDIAZ SIGOTVPZ SESl SIGOTMAZ SIGOTMAl FREQEXP3 YOUSMAR3 KNOWHTVl FREQEXP4 KNWHTWLl YOUSMAR4 SELFINTZ KNWHTWLZ MEDIAPRZ KNWHTWL3 .(X Weighted Variable Names in Correlation Matrix fbr All Sample Black and White Portrayals (x2) (x3) (x9) (x10) 0'11) (x12) (“12) (x,,) (x4) (x5) 13) (x4) (x5) (x14) (x ”14’ 19C) .Jduuxuu ~nsns.- ~..ss.: ookss. ook~s.u oaooo.o aloe“. .~sno. -ons. ooooo.- u~oks.o osusu.o -ons. osoos. sound. solos.o soaso.o son~o.: uses“. sacs“. asses. sass». s.»~«. ..so~. ons.~. .n~sso.o .nons.. o..~s. ences.. -ons. noks~. oas.«.: I. Nddtmaor maauuo euanaoo «cede. om¢~ue ununooo oom~oo o~smo. oooououl unsns.o oasmooo cos—9.0 cacao.«o «nape. oo~mooo ~m-a. omcno.o snsuo. onoso.o ences.: csoo~.o osu~o.o «nocuoo «~cooo: ooo~o.o ososs.: onom~.o «soo~.u s«mm~.l couscoui :oom«.o :oo~«. -mno.o N43240:! uuzuusuu sooou.o .nmno.o ooso~.o osnnu. no~oo. neso~.o oosss.: sassa.o unmeu. sooou. omoouoo coo~uen moss“. mos~«.o coon”. nosau.: -m¢~o ocean. oscno.a ~o~ou.o sec—o. o~n-. cocoa. nessu.o usmamoo soomuoo Monaco mnauuoo ouo~o. cusou.: sosso.: ms~m~.o uuuoooo scene.: “and“. auumu.: asso~. mesmn.: sages. sscuu.: anonw. sssmm.: a~n-. nnunn.: sc~nm. ns¢o4.: omcn~. magma. snooo. soses.: ~oo~o. ~«Nuu.n omnoo. m~mou.: sauna. «sass.: sooou. assss.- aoouo.« m~us~.o msoa«.: ~osno. no~n~. scorn.o ocomu.o mess“. m~oo~.: :3 u 5 on mode outdaaur unman- onuoao vsumuco -¢oo. cwnauo mochuol ow~nuol cmwuooo awnJuo comma. cacao. :mwnooo cwnauoo retro. nmcmo. scnuoo o:uaoo urea“. chuoo nmwuuo nuance. amoeuol Namoooo 0c~«0ol arcad- sn—uoo 0n40oo morgue Jaw—oat momma. ¢w¢u~o cadence :mcuoo oomvoo mews“. msxnc\sa «catwao> «Jauamzx nsows.: Onsho- «asas.u oms~u.u «mans. unm~9.o o~amoeu oauoo.«. «mango. acumo. mossy. enous.” «nsnu.: ookos. ~o-u.: ososs. :cauool enous. cocoa. okco~. ass~u. en’s“. «~css. soo~u. apes“. snao~. «koo~u s«oo~. oases.“ sosoa. sou~s.o -o»o. ossso.ua sooms. eoksa.a :mc«a.0 I o a a a u c a u a «spoaoza unsuauau opzuusum «exuaucu e>pnxozn . nooouoc -~oa. «onus. oao~o. ounwooo «Nono.: . use>hph¢ no~o~.: amass. sn~so.: mn~m«.: hos—o.o nm~ou.: urges—h. nowoa. nm~os.: ao-o. nooo~. ocean. so~uo.: . ~a>pooum moaua.o onemo. aseuo. . oswso. crane-o «sunu.o 3a>bup¢ msmew. macs". ope~o.: no«oo.: ~«uno.o uscwu.o nsspszzx cocoa.: ~s-o. uu~so.o “nan“. no~so. assoc. weaaucmx aces”. so¢~«. wasps. cucmu. capo“. s-ou. :sauwzuu soumu. oousn.o ~o¢so.: ~«o~«. «msos.: n¢n~c.o .saarwao> m~m¢~. omens. cow~s.o nssou.: ~«upa.n -omu.: usszuzs muons.: o~a««.: «some. ssnus. mns~o. «macs. -2uusum cacao. osnmo. «woos. s~s-.: seuss. canon. sundae»: roams. nouso.u ~osoo.: usowu. sucru.: nmu~u.: "marmaoo m~mo~.o maosn.: eeoNO. assoc. ~ssnu. mucus. «4:»:rzx assoc. sop~«. swans. mono”. onus“. nosou. «>orzozx asses. grass. "and. osssu. ~uxs~. suo~u. saumcwuu sossa.: nnsno. assoc. eo¢e~. nm~ho.o moonu.: suzuusmm guano.o «sumo. s~mcu. owsso. dosh». onoou.: noxucuou noun“. uuumo. oms—n. nmm~u. ¢s~ou. un-n. a>przozx ssso~. ¢s¢~u. seas“. noson. ~«sou. esmuu.: savourpo sakes. seNDo. ”case. so~os.: oases. n~mnu. «enousmm «no»~. magma. rnom~. manom. osmun. o~s¢o. «moss—ea ¢~n-. soo~o. ovens. «noon. ~ssuo.: osmou. yussmppn ac~nn. m~nmo. “one“. "know. sous". mm~so. "ashouum noon~.. sews“. ~eoo~. carom. oc~c~. a~oou. co>>-q snuoa.L cosmo. asses. sees". poems. c~o~o. «mum ~ea~o. assao.: amooo. uncoo. oesou. mecca. nateouuw wmncoo. ommwn.u wanna. cosmo. nea¢u. some". nounswm unans.. «cumu.: amass. convo. -suo. nossu. «expousm room“. cmoso.: ~c:oa.0 ~«n~«. «mcco.u v¢o~uco hoarmrur gonna.“ s~4«o. edema. swan». anNou. «mews. narysczy whoou.: geese. aucsu.: «rsou.l cocwu.0 uncso.c «aenncua nmro~. omn~«. m~s~e. wansn. suoou. ~su—«. csemnauo saomu.: arose. wosco. ~«mnu.o «were. n¢u~uc «carwaor noose.“ s~s~u. cache. swan». canon. “mow“. ~42vsmzx m~oa~.: enomo.o um~ou.: snsmo.: o~nsu.o aroma-I apt—usum romeo. mssmo. crass. ownmu.: ~osua. some“. nona~c~t room“. ooouo.: ~csco.: «wows. uwmco.: n¢n~uoo «oczwaor swswo. ouona. «mean. an~0u. anew“. «sxvsmzx aso-o awmwu. onwso.: 4~on4.o «>bexuzx r ~«os~. cameo. soaks. ~axchou M ~¢ss«. ~sono. opzuusmm . osoow. «enhance . mhzmozoammm usaz a .s«.mezu~u~uuuou zouhssuaeou :32: .estse 3“: E u u s a u e s a a ouz-«l 19] aaasuou: anaemso» usapzxzx «swxaozs sexuauau aprnusuu nexuauau ashxxors sameness H ”soon. sgsms. ”as... -nqs. sss-. nso-. anono.. uomks.o oooso. .. upzuusun «okas. ou«.«.. .nsus. ooons. oases. some“. news“. «no~u.. guesses: and»... ss~os. ~o-s.u oooss. sass... smoke. ”one“. . necrosop nsoos.: mamas. sagas. «sass. «ssos.. -oss.. «saexzzu ¢.~o«. .oosss. sass“. ~¢.¢e. .os.«. asexaozu . noo.~. osoao. sss.e. oss~s. anemone. cuss“. uaou.. noosN. xezuusum \ _ caves. asses. neuuouou \ m noomu. .. caprxuzu . o u \ u . . . uuaousuu. «oases-4 unease». “aapouuu gasps». any» n.2eosno ”cause” «szeoosu hassoso» massacre «messes: «oaks. . snk~s. unssn.o onsos.. nouns. n~sns.. nusss.. ssms~. asses. ones”. oseso.. mono”. ~s.omr.o ass... goons.: oases. snags. o~s~..o -s.s. .sos~. ss~.o. ~s~n~. ~so-. oosss. sasnu.. ~_kuesum noose. sass“. s~ons. uossu. suns“. ss¢n0.. some“. cooms. names. oso~s.- kooss.. arose. .aeseees asses. -~ss.. kosna. onuoa.- okusu.. ocosu.. -os.. nss~u. asses. oases. so~¢~.- oases. mesrxee. os~ns. so“... cocoa. seeks. soaks. ookos. ”can“. seeds. «seas. sssss.- nn~os. -s~a. naseoesm .osso. o-o«. «mono. «ooss. uses“. .oenu.. sooou. seems. oo~su. co.~..- cook... s~s.s. anseees .«~ms. sass... .os.a.- n-nu. oo.~u.. asses. m¢¢ss. mouse. Asses. «nuns. ~kve~. s~n~u.. assesses assns.o anus". seems. ooanu. asses. assoc.o scoos.u ssoss.. oases.. eeows.o swoso.. sn.s~. «seduce: enous. usasu. oosns. seems. .okoa. n..s°.- pesos.: ao~.s. asses.. a~sms.- asses. ”sees. ss.m.zmu .aoo~. .ss~o. ones“. .~¢es. oso~s. secs“. onco~.. sksm~. ksoo~. os.us.« sonoa. snuN... saagoso» os~os. .soso.- «guss.- oknns. oso~s.. sores. messs.. noose. seems. «also. -oe~. s~n~s.- ~soesszx . osan~. os~as. ences. ms~«o. sn¢~s. assoc. mason. ”sen“. sates. scams. on.»9.: cokes.. -2susmm 5.2.“. ~o-s.. cso~... sookn.. onus... s-sa. sQNos. cocks. ”some. colds. .ssuo. coo... unassum- oe.o~. asa~s. cases. .~¢su. eeo~s. also“. un¢o~. aseo~. ssmo~. asses.“ sous“. sos~s.. naayose> as~os.... cease. asses. n-no.. osm~.. ascss.. os.¢9.o moose.. ~o~o°.. anaes.. Neoo~.. s~.ks. . «43.22:; seams. assoc. o~oss. ~nsu~. scoos. cools. o-os. o~¢ns. s~ooe. canoe. meson. annos.- aseyxozx 0059 c three. causao than“. «ONmoo mega. auscu. sauna. some“. smmuooo euc~ao «mucous Jovmcunu cuss . -oo~. .ssou. .Nkmu. seeks. swans. “Nkos. as.ss. memos. ocean. sesss.. ~.oau.. 3.2“.sem . onus“. goons. o-.s. .naoss. ~oe~s. skn~e.o os.ss.. News". sass“. sesau.- kssss.o om.e«.- . anemones ”unmou. pesos. soso . ~sonu. memes. ~ocnu. so-u. “sees. oases. snake. "use”. aosfis.o asexaezx sauna. 044.». one“ . sane”. sos~n. seeds.- owes“. . . .ornehuullwuwmwpunuiupoes.- «also..c . cocoa. . conga. mnnuo. ~o~ou.: moses. auoon. cacao. snoom. c n : ago on osso~. onnmn. «snoo. sense. .soss.a s~.~s. kssea. scan”. onon~. «sums.- «moses». . oos-. oeeo~. sense. asses. s~s.s. sears. enema. ank~. -°oe.- guesses. sass”. .o~s.. sssse. o~¢~s. Noose. a~asu. as~mn. souNs. «aseconm . H owes“. scoss.o sk~ss. coups. enema. o¢.n~. moons.- sass... ..oess. ~osss. son~n. ss..s. asses. ss~ss. sown H osch. sooso. seems. ~¢uko. ssoog.- ~4xecosm -. .H . . -u . . s.-~. skmo~. cases. oNos~.. ”esteem _ oops”. omens. ~sk¢g.- uszeoosm scams. soowu.o bearwaor . 0 am? nszysmzx .30-zoo 2.3.30» «.5523. 323.6» 2.339. 32.32 33.35. 3:39... :53: 35.33 3:53 1:965. sodas. onouo.: ossss.o on~ns. s-o.. muons. oksss.: sANAs. so-s. n-~s.- «sons. -ca«.. Nsuaurso .: ass“... ~so-.o ooooo. ouo~s. o.~o.. «souu. oosss. anns. soaks. sooss.u .snun. Ass... ueauusun . . . :3 .. 5 mazmnzoemmm Selim d2 mom 3.22 2293858 :2. . :22: . 2:. 3:33. 2.23.. 3: «u Hud$ ns\no\~o . ooz-~su¢ asaszzzx «magnum: asnuuzuu q.-..-- . . nouoo. s4s~s. s~s¢~n son’s. nous“. enous. ~s¢us.¢ n~osu. «snouxuo onm~o. macaw. ounmo. sauna. house. ocsso.u unono. upouuawm snom~4 non~;. ss~ao. os~ns. ~nsns. nsts. sxn>ssss . msnss. smmwu. sssss. oos~s. :ossu. mssrxsss “ m4s~;. sssns. .sssso.o s~sms. «assocsm _ snows. nosns. «ssss. xssssss _ sssss.o nssms. ssssxxzx H smm~s. ~aos~cux m . . cactuaov «Justus: «saunaun sma4uou: nasxzoyx «csouxso nnouo. anono. noo~oo mamas. anode. enema.» oo~mo. sumo. nouns. n~¢no. «snuu.o Numon. wquomxho usenn. sssss. noss~. oosss. ~¢o-. sssss.n mssms. sso-. osmss. snsss. nssss. nssss. usouusum nsous.o os~ns. sssn~. nmscs. mssws.o asuns.o masos. corms. oommm. «mo~s. oomss. smoss. sxo>sssa Oucno. sacs“. ~«~mo. mJaos. vaans. sco««.n momma. umnmo. ~nw:s. osssuou oumau. msoou.o u»~r:»»¢ usasu.n sosns. somNs. sssss.u ss:ss.. sosns.a nsnp~. assss. ossms. specs. ¢~sssns osmss. wasscuHm unsus.n sssns. os~s~. m~s¢s. oms~s.o snsns.u nssss. momma. Nesmm. nssss. amass.. \rssws. zosssss «nuns. assss.« vssss.n sssss. snsss. sssss.so nswss. asmss.- sesms.u sssss.c sssos. s~sss. nsasrzzx oom~s.u amass.o su~ss. smssn.n som~s.o nmscs. sssss. -sos.o ~sess. sasss.o nsmms. s~sos. ~onssswx unams.o assms. n~sss.u s¢~ns.- s~¢ms.o nssms.a nmsss. ssoss. gases. asm~s. scst. essss. assmozwu sssns. sssms. sasss. sssus.s snsss.u mosms. ~m-s.c ascss. assss.c sssss. sosss. eastwao> assss.o sass”. snsns. sssss.so nsoos. osmss.u :ssms.o sssss.o sssos. stss. stszzzx s Sew u 5 mazmpzommmm mamz5. . £222 .. :3 232.3,: «:26: .3: Nu mu«a mu\no\~° oc2-dx 193 Weighted Variabie Names in Correlation Matrix for All White Sammie Respondents (N = 142): Black and White Portrayals Black Portrayals ATTBLACK (X1) is regressed against ATTTVP83 (X2) SELFCPTS (X3) OTMEDIAS (X9) ATTTVPB (X2) is regressed against SIGOTVPS (x10) SELFCPT (X3) is regressed against SE53 (x11) SIGOTMAG (X12) YOUSMART (X4) is regressed against SIGOTMAS (X12) KNOWBTVP (X5) is regressed against FREQEXP9 (X13) SELFINTB (X6) is regressed against YOUSMARQ (X4) KNONBTV3 (X5) FREQEXPC (x13) KNBLKNL7 (X14) MEDIAPRB (X7) is regressed against YOUSMARA (X4) SELFINTS (X6) KNBLKNLB (X14) GENREALB (X8) is regressed against MEDIAPRS (x7) KNBLKNL9 (X14) Respondents (N = 142): ATTWHITE ATTTVPW SELFCPT YOUSMART KNOWHTVP SELFINTW MEDIAPRW GENREALW (x1) (x2) (x3) (x4) (x5) (Xe) (X (X is is is is is 194 White Portrayals regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against ATTTVPW3 SELFCPT6 OTMEDIAG SIGOTVPG SE53 SIGOTMAG SIGOTMAS FREQEXPD YOUSMAR3 KNOWHTV3 FREQEXPE KNWHTWLA YOUSMARC SELFINT6 KNWHTWLB MEDIAPRB KNWHTNLC Weighted Variabie Names in Correlation Matrix for A1] White Sample Black and White Portrayals (x2) (x3) (x9) (x10) “‘11) (x12) “‘12) (x13) (x4) (x5) (x13) (x14) (x4) 0‘6) (x14) (x7) (x14) 195 nsauczuo asaussxu «canaaos sszsusum sensuous suszmass ssausszx. ssssxszu usxuowas oszsusum aaxucuuu asssxozx. ossns.o sunss. ssnss. amass. s~sss. sssss.o smsss. sssss.. sssss.. sasss.. sssss.o ossss.o nxssssss ossss. amass. ms~ss.- sasss.o .ssss.. ss~ss. pmsss. sssms.. osssn.- sasss. oases. mssms. ussxxsss sssas.u sasss. sssss. s~mss.- sssss.. sass... sesss. a seess.- sssss. ss¢¢~. .~s4s. sssss.. . sasssssm susss.c -s;s. sssss. ss¢ss.. s~c~s.. mssss.u -sss. ssess.- sss~s. sss~s. sssss.u sssss. assssss ossms.- ssoss. sssss. ssass.u sssms. s¢~ss.- sss~s. scsus. s~mss.u sssms.u sssss.u scams.a ..vsasxzzx s~s~s. onsss.o sssss.u ssmss.u scams.u sssss. mssss.-. sasss.- ~usss.- sssss. :ssss. «sass. sacsscsx uses». sssss. ssmss. sssos.- ssmss.. sssss.o ssass. s~sss. mssss. asses. .msss. sssss.. zssuozms asses. sssss.o sssss.su msmss.u -¢ss.. sssss.s . srsss.- sssss. sssss.. ossss. amass.a sssss.o uosrmao» sssms.o ssoss. sssss. sssss.o s~sms. sesss... sense. . sesss. sumss.. sasss.u sssss.u ss».s.- ssssxzzx s~m¢s.o ussss.. amass.. sssss.o s~¢os. ossss. 22s..H sss-.o sssss. mmsss. sasss. sssss. sszsaswm assss.o .ooo~s. ssoss.. sssss. sssms. m~sss. ss¢~s. sssss.. sssss. ~ssss. sssss. sssss. :scsscmx assoc. oss~s.u sssss.su ssm~s.o -sss.. sssss.s sss~s... sesss. sssss.. ossss. amass.- sssss.o sasrmso» «sums. .ssau4.- ss~ss1u sscss. smsss.u sssss. sasss.- sss~s.u s~mss. sssss. sss~s. «smss. sssszzzx sssms. scans. scams. ~ssss.- ssmss. seems.- ssmss. ssmss.- srsss. sesss. ssmrs. sscss. sssxxszx moss..- ossss.o ssass. oswss.a sssms. sssss.u seams... sssss. ssmms. smsss.u suscs. Nasss.- masseuse oasss.i sssss. os~ss.- osss~.n sssms.-. sssss. s~sss. ” sssss.- sssss. Nesss. s-ss. sssss.u aszsasum sssss.o aosss.u ssoss. sasss.u sssss. sssss.- sssss.o. mssms. sssss. sssss. sssss. sasss.- sayscsss moons. s~sss. «ssss.u mssss. o~s~s. mss~s. . sssss. . sasss.- mssss.- mssss.a asses.o sssss. a>.z:s=x asses. nosss. sso~s.. sssss.- sssss.u sssss. v¢s~s. sssss. secos.o sssas. sssss. sesss.o msscsxso sssns. «moss. os~s~.o ~s~ss. sss~s. ss~s~. ~moss. sesss.- sasss. m4~ss.u sm-s. sss~s. sscuasum usss~. sssss. sncss.. sssss.o sssos.o sssss. sssms. “ areas. sows». ssssm. Nssms. sasss. sscsssss ousms. oosss. msoss.u sss-.. sssss.o mssss. sesss. sasss.. masks. ssmss. ss-s.- «sass. gassesss ossss. sss-.. oases. sssss.- sssss.- sssos.u ss4-. . c~ess. sssss. smsss. sssss. ousss.- massscsm osss~. sssss. usess.- ~sss4.. ssscs.- sssss. asses. s ~ssms. ssKNM. ss~mm. sasss. sssms. sasssss «moss. amass. smss~.. sssss.. sss~s. sssos. smmss. . sssss.- sssss.- essss. sssms. sssss. smmm sssss.n ussss. ssss~.- sssss.- sssss.- ssssN. sssss. a sssss.. sasss.- sssss. sssss.u ~ssss.- osxsocsm ssnss. s-ss.o osss~.. sasss.- sssos. oswss. s-ss.um sssss.. ssmms. smscs. .soss. ssmss. sssassm snsss. “sssss. msssn.. .ssss.us sssss.o mssss. sssss. m sssss.- ousss. sssss. sasss.o snags. marssssm ossss. sssss.o sssss..- ssm~s.- -sss.- sssss.s sssms.- scans. sssss.o assss. sssss.n sssss.u saszsso» sssss.o sssss.s sssss. soaks.- ~ssss. sssss.- sssss.sw sssss.. ss~os. scars. sasss. sscss. asxysszx snow». mss~s.u sssss.o sasss.- ms-s.o ss~ss. sssss.u sssss. assas. sasss. sesss.u asses.n mosssswx sss~s.u assss.- ssss~.u ~s~s~.. coess. sssss.- sssms. smsss. s~.s~. sssss. scams. . sssmozwu sss~s. soaps.- ~ssss. sesss.- sssss.su sssss.- ss~os. sasss. sesss. ss¢~s. ssxxsszs samws. -sss. sssss.su sssss. scans.. ssmss. ossss.c smass. sasss. sasxmzos ssssu. ssm~s.- sss~s.nu s~sss.. s~sss.- secss.- suuss.- sssss. mszsasmm .. -sss.o sasss. . sssss.- mssns. sssss.- sssss. sssos. soasscm; sssws.-” ussss. sesss.o ossss. ssscs.- sssss.n oasrmso> " sssss.- ss~ss. sasss. sass“. s.¢~s. ssxysszx 4.. ~s-s.- sssms. ssss~.o s~sss.u s>.ssszx ... . ss~s~. ssmss. ssuss. usxscusu . . - u , m sssus. sssss.a sszsasum . ...-.. z . _ s¢s¢~. sssucwas . a . w . . . m .swsaszco us sszzsu saussssuuou s us i . . _ smszsua as sssss.oo as was.» s . . 3.3qu mezmazommmm mafia» fl: mom measé 20:; 5300 353238 28:33.8 . I. u a I I o s . f o o o o o O o o o O 0.0.L o o o v.0 o o o o I o M n a u u u u a Wu 4 Q H h 4 a x o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0.. o o o o o .mes assassss - ussc yosssuuu. mxszoz mass on uudt whsno\so Deanna: 1596 anus“. compo. usooo. guacao osnms.u mamas. ennns.o nsnss. o¢~mso o-o~o onnno.o musauo «scan. ¢-owo onnns. “peso.- oncu~o menus. o~nooo on:ua. o~as«. \ Oncooo Queue. cacao. nosso.0 amass. ~44-. Hana“. anm-o un-u.o oo»~«. nouns. oncuo. .do-o.o «snag. ~0¢oo.0 credo. uo-o. ocuma. cpsss.o ex¢s~. «ounuoi ~o~muo s~mnoo «sass. owcwoo Havoc. Ame—.uzv wezmnzommmm mBHmz A44 mou meB<2 ZOHBuhh¢v ruQJthd atahouu» oauuaao ~m~nool «moon. Janna. ,oanc. sages. mn~suo ceseo. eosso. ¢¢~¢uo| mmwuu. ossss.- owesosi ceuouol mr~ausu sawms. .nnms. cosnu. mossc. pcsss. n4sno. NcnoOoI nséano ~o~nuo un~b0ol chance Queen. nnmua. amass». moouo. ~o¢nooo ccocuo oaso~o aowwuo «ouo~. annuoo stave. 5040—. Huang. :nwucol mncuosl n4m~ooo nacho. omega. ”4:40. ~«muool au-~o anoonou ocean. su4~co woauuol u~uooo secsno o:—mno sodas. ~0n~uo ns\no\so .zldacuow: ou «Japxzzx ocean-I umcnuoo oc~uoo "nun LJsouso manna. Nnmnuoo c-Jus masons. ooanuol ~¢sns. covoo.0 wnmnooo cmsow. ~:coo. assoc. osnsu. omao~o .NJcoo.o ~¢roo.o oosco.o ascms.o o~4ou.o munmu. «su:o. ornau. :cvun. OJrOOoO osrouoo NurNu. sauce. nomnwo momma. ~sm~s. acorns- :nwmusu ocrbouum dons“. s:a0uo named. sown". canoe. madca- vo4oo. Jsuauoi cammnol os¢4~. ms:os. ccmosu so~mo. ss::~. mnacool «mace. caucu. ms~s~. em¢~o. magma. magma. ao¢s~. nnwsu. sarm~. sosnool mnmsoo owe—ac! n~o~oo woman. 0 moaooo ~::ouo ssaro.0 nw-9o swan". ucuuaum actbouun sooowo nnmwoo monuuo noun“. n~uuoul onus“. m:aonol suave. cmrcs. «sto~. maoouoo meson. saJss. asuo~. meson. irrwsuoi u~¢muo u~cauo suauuo mscauo ;:~muo ~:ruso ~smmoo swam~o u:0mn.l mmcno. chmoo -~mnu uOdeo omega-o unwou- e~coaol osuuno s:~09o .nsomuo «been. Hoouuo unwou- utmou. «chO. -n~no a¢c4uo swoon-I u~s~uoc comma. wwsuno smooeoo assoc. sunsu. m~ssn. seces. am~ws. -~mo. asses. orssnou woman. ac~c~. :Nsns. moan—o nnmon. asc~o. «enous orsnoot mantra muon~o . .Jdudzuu. CJaUJGZI «airman» mutuuaum odacnour oxitmno> .~438Jm28 n>~msozx oaxucuuu NOJaao mmtuo. J5. . usxnsxss sssxsszr ussususs aszsusuu sassswcu sssss.. assau- acacnol suck“. sorsoo coarJo unrcuo btcrmaor ~ouooo Nomnuo canouol momco. beta—.0 msrnaoc oc~uool oo4ao. puree-O ououusu ocwao.l anon". unnsu. cacao.“ oa~uuo octoa. ences.. ¢-auo unn10o0 mso~ou ”momm- 0n~¢mo cncsoo mutan- rnkau.0 n—cnuo omsawo c«::~o Oomowo manur. nonna- mowauol a>hzaozx camnooo ocamuo «noun. s~o6oso raven. manta. sues". urea“. Oaawaoru m~o~os noooo. anus”. nmJJo. meson. -s4o. n:¢~:o mucus.-. oscso. onn~o.o nao~4. ~ssso.o a¢¢~no o¢u~s.n n:o«:.l anmnu. emanaol smssc. :Juua.o .p-us. mos~o. woosu. aroma. e¢:so. :¢:-. stJu. verso. mango. sx~uo.l ossso. mrono.c ¢sm~uo asouns $auoux»o oooNoo ovuwnol nnown. Jgsnuo JflnJooO crnmaoo nuance. oooo~oo ¢Jouool .mcacssu: usumu. ¢m~nooo agnn«.0 curds. emera- a-uuoa o:-—.I “was“. ¢c~cuo eo~so. ¢au~uol nousuoo ~m4cmso ao~soo c1n~uo scnuu. ncwouso an~su. nJuau.o momms.o Ju4~s. om~nu.o 0:4.9. asocu. nn3un. moomo. asoauou awmou. ficn~u.0 :-cs. oo~uu. mu:-.o a»2uaaum onxuuuwu a>hnacrx Joom—ol m~o°ns I who: vonhdwau. wrizoz a»2uuquu unannou: oasznaop «Jasxxzx n>srro=x wc-uowau asrsusum cosmaou athrruzu eq—omxho Opouqum nzn>hwp< uuurxbht oo>hccum za>ppu4 oaypxzzn wood—out :Jsuozuu unarmao> max—33:8 art—ugum InocuCWI macvmaor ‘43»3328 n>sxzozx horseman 3s7~usum oaswcuau o>~xxuzx m-wowxpo muouuamm nca>shpa vcasmpuq va>sccsm ro>~pb¢ nvum uh»h« «condo _n«o«9o :nonuo census «nood- m~u¢uo . . addtmao> (axbxxzx n>bxzozu nnNmuo bodac- «omoo. QGJQQ. owned. ~cmn~o nmouo. on~nuol macaw. canuuao os~ouol n~¢auo «anmuoo mo~ouo Jonas. ms~mo. nmuoo.0 nncunoo mucnooo 4~nm~o acnmo. mscnuoo o:¢no.o moanwo amen“. ocNuOoc oouoo.u0 :n~m«o o:-:o0 ao4uoo or—cu. nonwooo onnwoou savouoo cs~oo. n»~su.l mwouoo cacao.“ uc~«o. ooomo.l «verso o¢~uooo ooooo.«0 :numao mb\nu\so uuuzzhbd an>wouum scanne- -~mooo ocwxn. mamma- waanuau soNJa. oassw. ~m4n:. ssmns. amass. s~ss:. nc~sn.o nmsos.u ansmso mooro.1 no~ss.u aasssss anaco- -~nnoo wanes. coon—o :~mm:o Shruuqmm 015““. NJOflao ¢unc1o @umsno MMJmJ. o¢rhmo s:~o«.l sssMOol «swag. 0-aco NJNOnso osxszazx «amount nmnuoot 0-oao 3coouoo marsn. ascns. onxmcuau as:nuol twanoo n~3¢q.0 onumfioo one‘s. coasao sumuuot «msno. awsn”. ocfi:no0 ku¢suoo \Nsx. msxnsxss caudHOmr canvas- omuuooo Naumo. arncuo J-mo.0 assoc. cnuauol t>hzxorx nua~us mauve. “awn”. canqo.n moJuns «oc«u. s~nro. weave. cuPuu-I usumu. smuru. sauce. nOJnuo :ouuo «(wads smu~uo Owen". laauazuu «swan-I nuswu. mduouzho JmJnool mwucuo moJ~uo QJNMuo :smoo. wmr4u. Jsonnoi Nnonwo oNouool spams. axonuol I wbcc fouptudc- urszoz ocuowtho chauuawn nxo>hhh< whwxxhhd oa>hcc~m xc>phhd uqnwxzzx cucuncwx camoutpo opauuawm nzn>hhhd usuxxssa ao>hcc~m rn>hhpd osssrszx monasowx xaswnrwu UncIMDO> cuwpaxzx Nguu Ouz-qx 198 Weighted Variable Names in Correlation Matrix for All White Respondents in the Integrated Schools (N = 94): Black and White Portrayals ATTBLACK ATTTVPB SELFCPT YOUSMART KNOWBTVP SELFINTB MEDIAPRB GENREALB (x1) (x2) (x3) (x4) (x5) 0‘5) (x7) (X is is is is is is Black Portrayals regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against ATTTVBP SELFCPCT OTMEDIAB SIGOTVBP SESW SIGOTMLB SIGOTMAB FREQEXBP YOUSMRTB KNOWBTPV FREQXPB KNBLKWLB YOUSMTRB SELFINBT KNBKWL MEDIAPBR KNBKWLB (x2) (x3) (x9) (x10) (X12) (x12) (x13) (x4) (x5) (x13) (x14) (x4) (x5) (x14) (X (x14) 199 Weighted Variable Names in Correlation Matrix for All White Respondents in the Integrated Schools (N = 94): Black and White Portrayals ATTWHITE ATTTVPW SELFCPT YOUSMART KNOWHTVP SELFINTN MEDIAPRW GENREALW White Portrayals (x1) is regressed against (x2) (x3) (x4) (x5) ”5’ (X (X is is is is is is is regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against ATTTVWP SELFCPT“ 0THMDIAN SIGOTVPN SESN SIGOTMLB SIGOTMAB FREQEXNP YOUSMRTN KNOWHTPV FREQXNP KNWHTLW YOUSMRNT SELFWINT KNNTWL MEDIAPNR KNWTNLA (x2) (x3) (x9) (x10) (x11) ”12’ (x13) (x4) (x5) (x13) (x14) (x4) (x5) (x14) (x7) “‘14) 2C”) le’hhb‘ sssss. -ao~. sssss. noses. mosss. sssss. sssss. nsnss.a oases.-. ossss.o sssss., sasss.o ssmss. ossss.. sssss. sass». sssss. asses. nss~s. wwsuno . Noomwo uh- .' aa,hhh4 :soss. sssss. sssss. sssss. sssos. sasss. sssssfu .smss.. smsss.- ~ssss.c sssns. asses.- sasss.- smsss. mssss. sssss. ss~ssn s~s~s.. .ssss. .sssN. Nssss. ssss~. oaaudzmo NONHdoI mecca. Gamecol connool ocoowo NKNNOO Nashua onuONol Kdlhool m~anoo Ghmauol Naomoo 9N¢Juo :numOoO «conu- chNuo r «Ounce .omono. ”samsoomom_amesmomsz saunas- moxoos -o~ool ns~sws «anneal ..Cr". 34hozozx sssss. sssss.. moaso. ssss~. sss~s.- sss~s. ns~ss. sssss. sssss.- o~sss. ssmss. ~4mss.- smsss. sssss.- smsss. sass". sssss. sasss. ssSss. ssss~. snowwo ~o~ouo s~¢ss. sssss.. sosms.o sssos.- assss.- sssss.. sasss. s~sss. ssss~. «sass. ”sass. asses. assss.- sssss.-s sssss. sssss.- sss-. ssss~. sesss. sass». sssss. m~mss.- sssss. sssss. ~ssss.- sosss.. «ssss. s-ss. sassN. musss. asses. amass. ossss.- sssss. mssss. sssss. msms~. Asa u zv H mma 2H mszmmzommmm mesms ass mom xsmess assessmmmoo osuau. oases. ansso.u ms»:~. :o~:«. oon4s. wsnsoo ~m~ss.c aonoool mamas. enous.. motes. mmuso.0 ccco0.0 ocscu. on~ss.u smoco.n oscss.o asses. vsono.l menso.o nnnnno mosuu. nwcss. ences.. ssooc.o cosonol. «goon. mosqwo Gavan. «sumac- A>hraoz¥ sm~:s. ¢~:oo. oases.l nso49.0 aoowo.u oo-uo mamas. comm«.o «eon~. soosw. wos~s.u -s~o. somou. asess.u ssmss. n~nms. msmos. comma. smNss. momma. ~om~s. omows. unmoo. :scss. mmsoo. arcan- momma. o4~suo mssss. mason. «asks. aosnn. canyJozs auxowau >apmxozx amxuouuu wbuxzhh¢ FZmauqu Vucsmpyc sooxum mocou mos xwm mum hdcrmaor axxsoonw kmuuswm maaomrso aqwomxso strxzx Jxxgmrx m>sou~m 3>pooum ma>phha xn>whhd mucmozmo raamazmo ohzsusmm :hzuuamm mmaq~owr xuaauomr maumnmau Inxuomou u>hmxozx .ouhnazou mm hozzdu hzmnuuuumou 4 nu nurtuaa Mn oceanooo no m344> a thZmHUuumuou ZOuhdJmuuon 2(91 moons. moose. Natan. caucus- lumen. mammuol Ounces! anwmuoo condo-I n&mnoo us’hhht Ooonao «onwa- sssss. \ nonoNo NJuNoo #9409. 00009. «ansu-I 093ooo domsno Jacouoo annuaol vanad- cuomao munnoo huoneoo owaooa scene- caucu- Janse- «mama. nhowwoo hmmonol «ensue! anew“. «casu- xum ocuuao seawaoc Quoauo mowwuoo none“. have“. Nmanol neeuuo mecca. Nouns. onsno. xc’hhbn ”onto. «omNOoo cacao. oon:1. oJNuool ouvuaso cutaw- «0:09. o~o~ooo «OJoosl o~o~os sous». ONouN. «~o:o.o oneness owooa. nuc:~o -u~usl gonna. thaw“. oamuao amongst «nooaoo actoo. cacao. «v0.9.0 omhhoo~w memoo neunwo nnaawo ~¢~nooo oncoNo cactus woman. ”mama. Cuamuoc ~o-oo @snnc. OKNmOoO anamooo :mNmoo ommcool ocswool owmows camco- ousco. nJumwo A>hmxozx oc~nuol mowcms candool :onOooO 0:000. Ououaso muunwo mm~4ao vacuuol mmeUoo vacuu. Naanooo omcmnol csmcoou :cnnwo owuoosl :Nwmo.o :mooo. cowmo. cums“. omawuoo essenso moowo. mmwao. o-:«s mmNJosl and: acuquuu~ 3>hoo~m . «osmo.o opatmaor mouco. nuzxamzx nno~s. moxnuau scans.-. sasmxozx cmwau. amxmcwuu canon. usurxsss cssss. pzmasuso snoou. vocsmpbq mocmo.o Jooxum soNsu. wasno manna. mud amaso.o xum ~o~¢o.- mum uvsmo.o hacxwao> nseos.o cxrsouum n:«:u.n houusum cancs. mauowrpo onses. assomzso o¢nnu.¢ 4:»:32: noses. sxxsmzx 55mm». m>poo~m u>erxo2x sooso.a Inserted mwaou. spouusmm cosmo.o a3>bwpn sseos. :a>soosm ocsso. axe-wow: comes. «szsxzx onm~9.o hzuxuumm somuu.n hzazmao> cameo. sszzx samss. :sarmaos rmrou.o xsprxzx sacso. assemau «coca. >apxxozx as¢¢~. azmemnu mend". huauuawm moscs.. am>sssq memos. nm>soosm ussmo. 2mmm ~m~ss.o osxsoosm nanns.n mszsousm :mso—.| amasuomx sm~4«.o msxymzx ss¢~s.u ymzsuswm somoo.u maprmanr sm~4s. sxxmzx homes. aparmao> urszoz was; ouz-¢t I 202 Olfituaor Monuo.l Nsto. oo~N~.0 Ooonu. onuno.o ouuun.l manan.o o:o»n.c Om0««.0 Onaoo.o NOONN. uu< snsmu.t ostou. noooa.t Ouowo. OuNn«.0 nnuao.o oonou.o moo~a.o ouuoo.o noo~o. .«~:o. ouaa~. «omoo.0 omosu. Queen. ooaoo.o Joana. snwmw. ua~n«.o omoo~.0 o~n-.0 nooso.l venue. m¢o~9.0 mocha. dxxflz¥ mauoo.o nosau.| «onou. 0mm:o. non«~. o«nno.0 no:oo. oNoca. Ono:~.0 99999.“! uu0ma.0 an:co. xwm naadu. enous. Nocmu. so~mo.l «0009.0 onwoa.u -o~u. c:-a.l Inwoo.o oowwo. :nmoa. o:~ou. ~mouo. m-:o.0 Juana. chou. 0mm:o.l onnno. ssuhw. mowed. no~aa.i soa~u. Nuouu.o 00-o.o so:~u.0 abutmaor 6J3¥402x nonNo. ~s~mo.0 oo-~. 5 oo:n~.a canno. omuNn. mnnon. Q3wnn. :maan. onaoo. ~oo-.o ooeoo.n| ancca.o mwm Juana. Chomo.l u~o:o.l mmwoo.0 ssoss. . o¢«¢«. nmaOu.o omssw. ocuou. am~a~.o ao—o«.o N¢40o.l comma. ossnu. mooao.| m:no«.o ammno.o nuson.0 ocuoo.o canso.o om~o9.0 sonoo.c ~mm0a. mm~0~. henna. on wont mauao.o nosou.u Homo“. :mmJO. nonu~. o«nno.! nocoo. . o~ooo. on¢:~.l cocoo.dl «domo.l on:oo. cocoo.« onaoo.| nsmss.u nssns. sssss.u o~ess.- ..s.s. sasss.-. o~s~s. sssss.s- sasss.- sssss.s smsss. ossss.- nssss. ~s~ss.- sss-. .s.s~.u .ssns. oss~s. msssn. sssss. .msss. asses. ~s.-.- sssss.s- asses.o anxomuu mnNmo. nnauw. nmono. ~suoo.0 nsouw. oawno.0 oonmo.o mmnuo.o o:o:«. Nowoc.l oncsu.o omwmo. ~J~¢a. omwmo.l Nawoo. h¢¢tmao> (txroon manna. Q~O:~. ooomn. ann~o.| mOmmo. «mnwo. oasJu. nn¢-.c u~n~o. nn0-. «~m~o.l assno.o memo“. eonso.o «anN. ~3-o.l ~o~oo.l n:wou. eo-o. owmmo. mowoo. Numoo.0 s~04u.l nno-.0 Numoo. ms\Na\Na >thmxozx comma. Inawa. o«~n~.l Naomo. --a.l «oNno.I oac¢«.o ouan~.l sans“. oosaa. ocamo.l cance. no~¢«.0 oouoo.l 0o~o«.l om-«.o haemaum coo-. neoss. amass. ho~ns.o o~oso. assss.u madam. :on:~.n assss.n :on4~. :ssss. -.Ks. :smms.o «nose. whoms. sssms. ssmms.o smnss. :ssns. -ow~. osm~s. oasms.o -vo«.o can:~.o oasms. tmxuaudu :«ono.o scans. mamss. sn~mn. n:ss~. Noo~o.o o~s¢o.o on~ss.n conso. «nmo«.n mses~.o o~mns. unmou. o~mns.o snmos. noses. ocoss.u u«uout»o «nvhn. nm:««. lnuou. ovum”. owwoo. onwnu. hwsou. woo~o.o Onwuu. Noowa. 0m~««.o mouno. ~oomn. sawoo. vanwo. woccu.l cacow. woman. oonou. Noaco. «:m4o. @nsw~.| aa«m~.l Neo~o.i 0nh-. Ava u zv msoozum ouhhoo~M «coco.o somso.i memos. o:~mo. om3na.l cukco. so:ao. :wNuo.c oases. :mwmc. ouscu.o ~cso~. memos. ands“. omsnc.l oosss. «coho. ences.- mc-:.u oncoo.u enema. n:«m~.c onso~.u :m~mo.u n:«n~. n mwapzxozx omocN. exxwouau .smss.. sussusmm oaseu.o am>»»»¢ esoNs. am>soosm ooamN. :wmm «oo~«.o asthouum naaos.o carpooum Nmocs.n amassomx unmoo.o osxymzx amass. smzsusum mmoma.u maprmaor «macs. sxymzx monmu. m—«zmaor snsos. mszxsmzy csscs. maxouau cnmno.o >a—mxozy smsss. amxmowou aeoo~.a wbuzxpwa momma. h2mauu~o nonws.o vocsmhpq canes. sooxum z>soosm .mnms. assorxso osmoo.l spauuawm mason. az>ssss monnm. 3a>pou~m sscss.o «:aauow: coonu.o «sxpxzx somNs. szuxusmm sosms. pxmxmao> ooonu.u Jasxzx «osmo.n spyrmac> gnome. ssprzzx :munn. axxomau moss". >apxxorx ~ssss. axxmcuau «mnou.u huauusmm noses. am>sssq s¢~ms. ao>snosm csmou.o :wmm ~4aos.i marhoonm sm~cs.o marsoosm euros. amassom: mcuoo.o oszxmzx so-s.o smzsusum «osmo. mahxmaor oosoo. sxxmzx uzsznz usuu ouzuth 203 13>hbh¢ xu>hounm Rxaduout ddzhzzx hz~3qum bxdtmbcr 4:»328 abutmsor IJhxzzx oulno. oomho.o ocsmo.o omono.l :QNNn. Mucm~.o omeno.l n«on~. amonu. :pnuuaum - «has». suaoo.l unwmo. ”mnoa. 05¢:o. un~mo. 95049.0 «nNmu.o I ax>hhbd 5:0:o.o unwoo. owmoo. Owsaa. ~c~oo. o~l«0.0 NQNoo.c 31>»00um ~s~:«.0 «wowo.t m:«:o.0 N»~:u.l cause. Nsmau. azaq~0mx mwooo.0 amkan. cocoa.“ om~n«.0 ooooo.«l «4:»328 m~o~«.o mocoo.u owku. morro. bauxuawm omson. cocoo.ui omsou.| hxuxmbor omho«.0 ooaou.uo Azhzzx omnau. Shazmnor Alxcudu >thxozx Bxxuauuu huauuamm uo>hhh¢ Lo>~ounm zwmm oathoonm matpnoum «macuom: muxxmzx h¢z~u4wm «cane. cane“. cooso.o J~«~«. Osaka. lsmoo.l munnu.I Numnu. gamma. ommwu. h:~««.o omnmu.ox sanctxho nuns“. munoo.o moneo.o Gnsov. oo~a0.I ~oooa.o mmowo. o~o:~. Omar". chno.0 c:«m«.o vuoou.o thauuqmm ”noun. onnOu. onuo~.o toono. Knead. mowed. sma~«.0 mn:ou. nwcmu. maooo.| mo:m«.0 ouumo. n2>hhh¢ neuon. ownam. osmoo. nsooa.l owwmo. sauna. nmnoo.o :mwaa.. 4oooo.l owm:o. an~:c.o o~0:«.0 xa>poo~w commo.l oo~¢~.l o~uuo.l 59050.0 onwmo.l Nanoo.l nswco. ~o0:o. oowmo. ocean. snauw. ownou.l arouuomt coon«.0 aconfl. nomo«.o oseuo.l oNomo. ndnoo. :owno.o ow~uo.c noero.l scwco.n ~mc«0.0 ~smoo.o dgzhxzx JJmon. oonoo.0 n~u-.c «econ. somww. Juowo.o oo~mo. moomu. «Jean. ao~na.u nmo«o.o oun~«.o szqumm Oswoo. nonNo.0 wswmo. Oos-.o ooanw. onuno.o 0m«~n.| mnmon.o c:0rn.0 omo«u.0 wreco.0 Neo-. kxarmaor ouonu.l “can“. nomc«.| on:uo.l o~omo. fiance. acono.0 cmwao.l nooro.I soo:o.o ~0c~o.o Nsmoa.o axbxzx Obnoaol manna. Ns~m9.0 OQNNN. wean~.o onuno. omawn. mnnon. 040nm. smeau. oncoo. Noo-.| xhutmaor corn“. «Conu.o nomad. usJuo. awomo.o nonoo.0 comma. omwuo. noono. soceo. Noauo. ~hmoa. xabxxzx ancaa. oOOON. gamed. umwmo. mnwww. no~n0.0 owoco. moooo.l :onmu.o mwcoo. uu~ou.lu axxomuu atouc. nsmoo.| mJNOD. owowu. «:n~«.0 awnsu. Owomu. anno. mwuuo. o~:~«.0 >a~rzozv . Nodme.0 e~400.0 advau. mNuno.l moonc.o mmaaa.l undue. nose". no~s«.o taxmamou Ooouo.’ wnwoo.o mmdoa. n:-~. «wwwu. 0:4:c.t acn@u.l omega. bunuuawm 00590. osmno. ”mowo. mahmo. Nomad. ammao.| Nco«~.0 nm>hhh¢ «couu.c owomo.0 omnno.l woomo. ncnu~.o awnan.c am>hoo»m mNonu. nwcso. uvnoc. ounmo. ousou.| 3mmm «@cac. soon“. mocca.u son««.0 cathouum woouw. o~¢oo.l @«sso.0 mathouum onoaw. nomo«.0 «maaHOmt «dome. mazymzx Glutmaor 438028 obstmaor dexamzx ouxcuak >u~mxozx amxwowau mhnthhq hzuauuno yuaamhbc Joczum woqmu nomna. souuu. nomho.o h:~nu. NuJuu. o04~o.0 :nnsa. on:~a. sumac. moon“. honno. Joc:«.u 2<~0trho nuon~.o Jena“. nuan~. ::«mu. muona. non:~.0 emaoo. oomnm. cco:«. :mcon. no:no.0 «menu. xbauuaum osfieo. mocnu. osmao.l mu4na. n0maa.l wooso.l on:mo.l mwcna. cmmro. omnno. oncNo.o mnnou.u ax>hhhn o~c«o. ens:o. o~Juo.I :nsao. :o~o«. s~:«o.o :anow. mwuoo. Osomo. o:«ou. 4cmmo.o :mwno.c xa>bou~m oqun.l snuu~.| ocu:o. sn««~.0 ovoua.l oswka. -noo.l oana. cscxo. nmnmo. 4unwo. 44009.- «zeanowt embed. Nomuo. om~o«.u ~vo«o. nnwoo.o Nnooo.l nwowo.l . -Jmo.0 srmwa. canno. o:oo«.0 redwo. «Axuzzx ONONu.I nnauo. oNONu. nnwnc. «nsma. o:a0«.0 nnwOa. ~m:¢~. :«NNo. ”moon. onoNo. sumo~.u hz~3u4mm ooaoo.« cacao. aooua.uo oneoo. omwmo. ooaoo. o~mnu. muooo.o Nomno.o m-m~.o comma. moomo.o hxvrmaor annex. NOouo. omno«.l Novuo. nnwoc.l Nnooo.0 noowu.l ~54mn.| unnon. cansu. o:co«.0 oouwu. 4:»22x 00909.“- Onooo.l cacao.“ anawo.t om~m9.0 ocuao.l o~mn«.o whoop. Ncmso. m«~o~. oomoo.o moomu. Shutmao> unsou.l. uuouo.l omsou. N00u0.| unwoo. Nnooo. nvowo. NNJmo. unnoa.l cumso.l 0:00". cou~o.l thxxrx ONNOQ. “Mongol ¢h~Oo.l mucou.l cownw. aboNQ. NuooN. hmwso. knmwo.o oouao.l coon». «owed. nxxcmou 43 u 5 msoozum . . . 03558.5 m1... z~ mhzmnzoammm mtxz 4.3 mom x35: 28.53338 . msxusxms . usno 232mg. uzaznz 3: «u wont ns\~osmo oszsnlfi 204 zhaouamm am~o«. Na want ax>hhh¢ nauea. :3 1v -'7 6" .1 (1.. .‘IfiJl-u: .u‘hl.fii zv maoozum awh thxzx zhmtmnor thIzzx naaaa. msxmsxks h:«@a.l mab:a.l mcauu. momma. mos:a.0 namha.o mmh:a. Zanozzbo . m~\~a\No u whqo zowhdmmu. . mtqzoz wank OQZHNaz 205 Weighted Variable Names in Correlation Matrix for Respondents in the Nonintegrated School (N==48): Black and White Portrayals Black Portrayals ATTBLACK (X1) is regressed against ATTTVPB4 (X2) SELFCPT7 (X3) OTMEDIA7 (X9) ATTTVPB (X2) is regressed against SIGOTVP7 (X10) SELFCPT (X3) is regressed against SE54 (X11) SIGOTMAB (X12) YOUSMART (X4) is regressed against SIGOTMA7 (X12) KNOWBTVP (X5) is regressed against FREQEXPF (X13) SELFINTB (X6) is regressed against YOUSMARD (X4) KNOWBTV4 (X5) FREQEXPG (X13) KNBLKNLA (X14) MEDIAPRB (X is regressed against YOUSMARE (X4) SELFINT7 (X6) KNBLKWLB (X14) GENREALB (X8) is regressed against MEDIAPR7 (X7) KNBLKWLC (X14) 206 Weighted Variable Names in Correlation Matrix for Respondents hithe Nonintegrated School (N==48): Black and White Portrayals ATTWHITE ATTTVPW SELFCPT YOUSMART KNOWHTVP SELFINTW MEDIAPRW GENREALW (x1) (x2) (x3) (X (X is is is is is is is is White Portrayals regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against ATTTVPW4 SELFCPT8 OTMEDIAB SIGOTVPB SE53 SIGOTMA6 SIGOTMAS FREQEXPH YOUSMARF KNOWHTV4 FREQEXPI KNWHTWLD YOUSMARG SELFINTB KNWHTWLE MEDIAPRB KNWHTWLF (x2). (x3) (x9) (x10) (X11) (x12) (x12) (x13) (x4) (x5) (x13) (x14) (x4) W (X (x14) 2(97 0 o o o t O o o o o r 0 o o o o o o o o o o o a a a m m w d ua«:mno» cauxuazx .44uuxuu ..s-.. ssssu.-. acne“. anosa. m:~mn.0 sanun.o aa-a.0 «ca:~.0 nancu. o-s~.o s~sumo uaaaa. ~aru4. oaJaa.l Joaoa.o aoaaa.u acnau.l o-u~. nauaa.o «scnu. Joana. .sOOaN. oouoa. aaaoa.ul as»... .o-s~.o a~na«. 4numa.o asoau.l acaua.l «mama. uv~4~.0 mma~«.o ammua.o swasu.o nuana. sane». sewed. camaa.o umnan.l Joosw. ataan.c an~au. o:-«.o su~«a.l mcoo:.o m~n-. nuaan.n sc«0~.0 ann-. u~o~a.| oavsu. ao~4a. wmuon. Nusn«.I smasnc. aa«ca.o aaaaa.u. Jacob. aam~a. anumn. osta. aauaa.l lurql.rx. - m ..rrh .. a .. . ......1...—... Aooxom a . coonu. so-s. sncss.o osnns. ~400».I ocossoo :«U‘u. oqm~s. ssoon. scnos. use... oum~s.n secon.c :-ss. «sows.o goers.u o:mms.u no.5s. enocm. aa-o. nm~es. sacks.o canes. arses. ~55... -om..l esnss.u conga. cam~u. scans.“ ow:cs.u ocean. oam~s. can mean .szsasuw unJma. oomuu.l ~4~ou.0 na~aa. no~u~.0 aa-u.l amwau.o macaw. nasuw. snuJu. uGJ-. muaau.l no~u~.l anaa. au~au. s~0ra.o cacao. moauu. :manaot maaau.l m-an.l ~maaa.| J~0u~.0 :cnan.l aunru. Nsamu. acuun. oaanw. adama. nwsma. nanau.l m:n~a.l macaw. n~swa. a¢a¢uauz noaaa. ~o~na.| om~aa.o :~4~u.o :cms~.| u¢o~a.l ooanu.o onnow. occuw. «Juan. mamas. anna~.0 atms~.o cocoa. :nmna. oases.u. manna. amses. amass. a.¢an.l enaoo.a cuss... ancao.n ornco.o .«cns. cones. ca4¢~. sacs“. annaN. ocu~s. ncc:«.| :nsna. anno~. oom~u. o~css. ms~na\sa acqtmao> namuu. enosa.0 sonsn. uoa:~. a-sm. srsau.l oo:ca. oocoo.uo o-su.au «noe~.n sooo~.o cocoa.“ ¢-s~. amoao. awasa. sm.:~. amuse. noena.o save... «mac». canon. causs. macae. nucaa. cn.-.. :ocu..- omsan.n magma.- auoaa.uo cauwa.c asuma.a ¢¢scu. auooo.«u aau~a.u mason.- anno~.i 3.3.32.3. 1.2.65. macaw. samNs. ensso.n «sumo. s:¢¢».n sacso.a. osmoo. nac~o. sscon. . karma. summu. . m:a~a.0. s:¢¢n.l ss~ns. uuuua.l. rocno.u o4ums.fl Noses. :ns¢~. ..sts. . nm~ou. .ssss.J 9.0... “ noses. --s.. -¢mu.l tsnsa.l marsa. 2 o.m~s. . cocoa.“ «wacu.J :aan. nawua. assoc.“ n-mu.u nmc~s. cac~uol . n w v oaxuamcu saga... oos~s. m-m«.o cn-o. mama..- wo:~a.| -¢m~.| omooa. amen“. armso. msmno.o coeco.| ~mc~.. sscao. ssmks. s.s-.- :mnns.o mrnsc.n assno.o «msrc. «sess.o «snag. snm~s.n :so-.i swans. vrmsa. .cs~..- cs.c..o 4.....- eases. snsm..l cusps.a sons—.3 sauna. ......u. .s».... mecca. -aru. esopo. n..m«.- m:osu. aooc:. nrcna.a asruc.n «some. aosas. on-s. ences. oNoms.i womow. ~m~n«.| ~msms.a n¢sss.¢. soc... unnva.| ¢.vou.o s~m~o. cso-.u ~.~.o.n once“. smmcs. ssnns. mc~.~. sauce. sumss. ...-.u ~¢~sa.o unans. urnsn.o mn-~.n msuos.n mmscs. 4~msa.n asmwm. ~c~su.u owacu. aszs. smsnz. m 4 a u b 4 a : ome~azozx «camo.. nuke... :noco. oases. Janus.o s¢.0u.. n4~7000 cNJOs.u :«nws. ...ss. «swan. onsos. .m.~..o 4-a~. n~.nu. onsm~. msenu. ~m~cs. c.~¢U.. ossco.o ~sses.u causu. -m~s.i «novu.o cosau. unmso. axssu. awsmo.o ¢~so_.o snsss.n canc~.n ..:4~u.u csass.o -e~u.n Harms. n~m~n. r~aa—. -ssu.u :~.so.u ~o~cs.u suuao.a «anva. .- . qu>hph4 . s. uhbzxwhd .¢o>~ou~w xo>uwhd uszsxszs coocncut xacquwu cournno> mJJbIJZX .sezsassm zone—Cut uoqzvao> Dthilzx J>sx3023 uaumcmcu :srsuswm xarwcwmu a>srzozx ssscarsc ssauusum acaswsuq XUsscssa so>scaum co>sswa swam outsccam sauusuw ssrpcuum hasxmao> 04:34:23 hnccuoul aasuorwa woqxuao> 04:24:23 s»:uu4ww coaaucwx ouqrmaow «43y4c7x a>pazozx occhUuu cszuuaun moxucuuu .owhaaxou uc hOZZau b2w~0umuuou a mu embanaa Mn aoaaa.o¢ no m:4<> 4 .mhzunuuuuwou lauhddwccou. hr. 2.323 a 3:. 72:25. wtdzoz ......OOOOOIODOOOQOOOOOO oczHNbxxozx oo:a~.t Janka. nOJna.O mus¢«.l ascom. :Jnhu. cauun. wear“. hxcrmao> uaxxam7¥ mn¢;~.u armma. cornw. or-«. or.«a.0 Guano. saaan.l eec:a.o awuua. aamuo. scam”. genus. summs. 0:m~u.0 s:¢¢n.0 3-no. “aqua.o conno.i a:mmo.I wwauo. :»uu~. cou~u. mamas. uroso.t :Jocs. arson. ~sssu. ~sam«.0 annao.| tango. ¢4m~a. “cabaxozx umruomau abz~u4mm maxmouuk a u u 0 . coc-. oaaoa. o:m¢a. ansa~.l o~o~a. ”sovuoi zose»m:ozx c::s«.o au«~«.0 I made raubduru. .0 Mtazoz chauuaum xaaqucu: unarmao> aazszxzx 4>srxozx auchwou Sbrnuawm toxwtucu n>przczx aduomrho opouuswm ¢3a>»»»< wsarxssq oa>poa~m 3a>hhwd kapxzrx ouncuoml adamazuu cecrnao> mgahzzzx abruuamm :aacacm mcqamau> csxbzxzx J>pxaozx haxmcwau a»?au4um rachmou a>srzozx hauomxpo ssauusmm :muaphpc rudamwhc sn>bcc~m ¢a>shp¢ ammm acxsccnm bauuqmm sqxsoo~m rearwao> uazvqazx aquamtho ahauuuwm Udnu ouz-¢1 2(N9 neatmaor ~a~¢n. o¢mm~.n nsmu~.u .nwso. sansn.u sas:~.n a-u~.n scaaa. cages.- uaszxzx ~ans».a NJsJo. moaaa. onoo~.l ~osnu. «4uma. ouooo.ul :~«o«.l am¢~u.o a-s~. 8+.qu qoozum omesmomeszoz a; zHW mezmazosmmm mos E32 _ . , ahZouwm owuvao :onma.u oatsu.a aa-ool mou-.a cwmon.l JOsou.l «amm~.o wurma.o «sarw. conga. «an wadm ab¢uu4wm axa>hhha uhuxzhha -ss~.- ~¢om«.l acno~.I uaqrmao> ouxbxzzx .1vaauowx avaJa.o no~mfl.o :Ja~n.0 aammu. unmaa. namNN. nomao.o :naha.0 «qua. sonwn. ~a~«o. «aaaw. mmum~.u ¢n~u~. uwcua. ~¢:ca.l cm~:a.u wosco. u¢£o~. aouau.u| anumw. ¢-«~.I m~\na\~a Nonan. ~Js:a.l maoma.l anamw. ~a«n«.0 «Jama.0 uuooa.« 4~«o«. amok“. ¢~mam.l cocoo.«o soomN. amm~u. osscu. eabzxozx oswuo. new... macs“. nsn~o.u n::o~. m~a4~. ocean. osos..- maasn.o :noao.a omo.~. . . anaboanm msomu.l ao-a.| MKJmn. aumna.l waxwowdu ‘aoso. sc40~.| u:m.m. mnusu.o :o.n:. urwea. moosu. eruu.u 4.0.9. ucc.c.o ccc.o.o 1a>hhkd a:~n~.| m~on~.n moosm. ~:.uo. «snow. zbzuuaum so.:s.u hammo.n -.o~. «moss.- 4smsw. scram. wamoo.n crass. auwao.a ackqm.u assoc. kazbrnzx ~ansn. ~¢~:o.u mooao.n onmow. ~osns.u «asmo.u raxwomau J¢naa. nswan.0 cvmam. :os:«.u uaaon. mMJro. «span. munda. mango. anmsa.n «5.0a.l a? . msxno\ua onSfimmmoo cuaquom: 34szzozx sanouzpo .man.o nsssn. macs..- mormn.c mausn. cm-«. :msns.i ~m~u«. scnn.. .«onu.u Nesaw. asumu. us.¢..n m..nu. ~ssrs. own... c.w.~.u ssssu. ncsmu. sow... m..¢.. u..~s.o I whcc ronaducu. . uzszcz o»»»< whurzbuq ¢a>ucuaw 30>»»»¢ kdihzlzx cue-Hrs; aduomt—o abauudwv :xc>»—»1 upsrzpsa c0>~cu~M 30>»»»< u43hzzzx anon—aw: aaumozwu onetwaor wazhrzzx wank ocz-¢z 210 Weighted Variable Names in Correlation Matrix for Black Respondents (N = 68): ATTBLACK (X1) ATTTVPB SELFCPT YOUSMART KNOWBTVP SELFINTB MEDIAPRB GENREALB (x2) (x3) (x4) (x5) (X5) (X (x8) is is is is is is is is Black Portrayals regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against ATTTVPBZ SELFCPT3 OTMEDIA3 SIGOTVP3 SE52 SIGOTMA4 SIGOTMA3 FREQEXPS YOUSMARS KNOWBTVZ FREQEXP6 KNBLKWL4 YOUSMARG SELFINT3 KNBLKWLS MEDIAPR3 KNBLKNLG Black and White Portrayals (x2) (x3) (x9) 0‘11) (x12) (x12) (x13) (x4) (x5) (X13) (x14) (x4) (x5) (x14) (x7) (x14) 211 Weighted Variable Names in Correlation Matrix for Black Respondents (N = 68): ATTWHITE ATTTVPW SELFCPT YOUSMART KNOWHTVP SELFINTW MEDIAPRW GENREALW (x1) (x7) (X White Portrayals is is is is is is is is regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against regressed against ATTTVPWZ SELFCPT4 0TMEDIA4 SIGOTVP4 SE52 SIGOTMA4 SIGOTMAS FREQEXP7 YOUSMAR7 KNOWHTVZ FREQEXPB KNWHTNL4 YOUSMAR8 SELFINT4 KNWHTWLS MEDIAPR4 KNWHTWL6 Black and White Portrayals (x2) (x3) (x9) (x10) “‘11) (x12) (x12) (x13) (x4) (x5) (x13) (x14) (x4) W (x,) 212! Oaawuzuo uuuuo.o caeao.| onuoo. oaooo.| haven. onmco.o cosnm. osmsc.o socaa.o unmas.o aosco.o ascsa. som:o.o mamas. noose. ensoo.o 40.:9. amass. aaaoa. No—au.0 «econ. noseu. :msns. anus“. unc-.o :nccn. assoc.- memes. o~moo.o cnmv~. cocoa. .I’. .... I . ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 043x402: sssss.. .msa... sssms.. sso.s.o sasss. ~ss.... .s.s~. ....s. s..ss.. ~osss.. ...s.. ....s.. sass... .ssss. .ssss. s..s~.a ....s.a sss... ....s. ....s. s..ss. ass... ss..~. s~.s.. .ssss. ..css. .smsss. s...~. .ss.~. sssss.s ....s.a ssssw. . suscuss» oaoaa.u so:oo.u ooooo.o ~5sm..- «sous. emces.. oa-c. oaoou.« “can... :csmo. names. aaaan.ul «aea«.o cosoo. nus... :osnc.n eassu. assno. ~o~o~. amonu. saacs. use... demos. amen“. ~4:ua. ascmu. o~uuq. sarca. scone.“ Jacam. a¢awo.| apaaa.l James. no uo<¢ ”brandy” ~¢umo.o once”. ommm~.o enamool :us:«.o amasu.a 4mnnu.o camaa.n aches. panoa.n ~:-~. omccu. xenon. was“... ..euu.o a~u¢~.| ~¢sm=.n “can... sacsu.o a-ca.t mc:~a. m~¢-.l ncumc.n maac:.o so:ss.o ~¢~ea.. ssnns.o mane..- 03Cf6 0| aonss.o n~osu.u ms»~e.u cau~«.| naeaa.c o¢ahazozx caoauoo ~oa¢«.o aasoo.l secs... Jrqcus earuo. arsuu. Jn~au.0 :vacu.u cmsma.l Ncc¢u. :quoo. Jr;¢o.| .m..s. rxpsu. m..su.o msmou.u ¢u~.~. ~m~59.0 ua¢4u.l tnrauol craso.u uro¢u. nmJuu. ”Jana. OJJwa. name“. mason. :.~au.| nx~o~. :uaoa. 633:0. n-o~. :n~oo.| :w~:o.0 «usoo. yn~ou.o n-a~. ~2usa. as.m~.l macro. aa:a~. N3¢>~uu< uhuzxppa :n>»cu.m 30>»~h< cazazszx Jansana: 3u Jarstxzx ~>531CZX couwowau 1.2...am sayuowou Q>a=ZC78 ma.o.r»o MucouJum ~cc>hpp¢ ¥U_cc—m co>———¢ . ~vam qu_cc~m unausam nathocuw sucru2c> ‘JVsYJCJK noes—am: masmuzwu maryaczx caczwzo> H57~u4mm cac4~Cux mac1m3c> Jayyac‘x ~>srxu2x oaxmcmeu aszuusum maxucwnu .oupaarcu ma hozz 4 .wbzusssaausn zs.s..sssou .ac . mtnssss . use 25:28. uxdzcz ......I...OOOOOOOOOOOO. wank ouz-¢t 2113 untouauu Janna. nnoao. henna. wanna. aau~N. manna. aooau. auou~.o Oaaaa.l anonN. aeoa~.0 annan. nocun. onen~.o aooa~.0 aoaou. chasm. umnau. casm~. «orNN. oaaaa.l adduuzuo Numau.o hasnu.o no..ssss xsssssss ...».s. n.~ss. s...s.- sesss. ...ss. «sass.. ss-s. ......u uses». ..s... ..-s.. ssss..- sss... soawn.u ..ssss.u sssss. «oumw. ..sss. -sss. “sass. .ssss. ussss. «uoao.l Oun~n. macaw. ounuu. anuu. anamu. nuaaa. uscn«.0 omurm. nhcaa. mua:a.o mOana. oemoa. thJuoi msaaa.l Nmsu~. auamu.. ¢~mar. usmuu. swan“. onau~. sc-n. manna. IwaduOUt hadtmao> odzhxxzx «anuud naahaaum :aaaa. a~a«~. snuaa.l nuamu.l 0554“. :éaaa.l m~4ra. mausa.0 aun~a.o «Oman. mmena.u manua. anana.t «amau.a m~4ra.c owns“. «draw. masmu. :anwn. «swuu. m~o~«. name". om~ma. «masw. aauma.o nmmm«.0 aaabhhc oaowu. ammoo. osoms. . coasa. s.-o.0 cosco. asaos. .owso.l arcs“. «mugs. mscus.| s¢¢0u.| m~moo. omcau.| msoau.n sssos.. ~s~4u. sesso. uncoo. c~sus. onros. oomoo.u nw45~. ~ams~. cocoa. msa:a.u num«a.0 «aaau. Nshxxazx. sssssqa ussss. sssss.- .ssss.- «mum octvoaum moaoo. noos~. wsous. one»..- cocoa... annwu. ~cmss. an-~.u ma..~.o ~:.su. ~0m««.c asses. nus.~. ~a.ss.i unmss.r «eke..- uaasu. mom... mms~u. ~u..s.- oopss.u Nuass. oss~s.o mess. reams. «s.s«.o sanaa. woman. nam4a. -aa«. sanuo. uoqaaol n:n¢~. o~csn.l m:sma. mama». rcno~.l m~awn. asmou. «damn.l m:nc~.0 masoo.o uo¢-. Nsaau. «woun. mmunu. :cgnu. mmrow. cacao.o sa~««. a:Ura. gunma.I 45n~a.i “dander! acatnao> nbtundum aduauoux ma oJIXJazx coona.l ouunu. acauo. aaecu. N~aau. muuau.o «Nana. mecca. aoawa. aaaaN. moana.l. c-n«. .... --—-'— ... .--—-— 0- .--o a - ... -.-. c - u- 0 on -a - ac~»ao agxuaucu saNn~. onduu. smusu.l smasu.n ~m~u«. buuuawm muaau. n04mo. mosso.l 4srun. on44u. aswoo.o muss“. a~cnn.o sss~a. u~o~n. assos.o s¢~o~. o~mm~. o~o~p.o assna.c «ammo. ascsN. omomo. mo:su. asuco. mas.n. assoc. m¢s~s. soo.~. ans-. nascs. on:-. sr~m:. shzuuamm awann. ~aa~a. Janna. «sm:a. ammaw. LNLma.I ”(trauma «sema.a a:mnn. among. cauuo. ~anau. m:¢«a. :~cp~. aa«a«.o mooaa. 53:04. J~¢u~.l amour. asaou. erfJoO 4~ao~.u nmuau. ustv. acwma. Juno~. asap“. aawra. mn::n. m~n¢«. manm~. Othdo moaoo. aucna. srxaa. coca». N>haxazu ouchwuu unwoa.c comma. as u z. mazmezommmm 5.3m mom E32 zosafiméoo musnoxsa . :4 meta noo~o.l a:@na.| saw . ms\na\sa I ...—«c 205—h13028 omsua. wanna. asuna.o marca.l «Nnos. Mesa“. s~e~u. J«nr~. .osxxamzx oomno.o o-nn. sucan.i scc¢s.n “sumo.i mansn.c uwsnv. ~¢sss.u sssuw. .cva~. oanm.n ~0w~a.l ao:~s. 4cv4~.o swarm.n semso. ra~:a. pc.o~.i urcmo.o nu~ss. «asso. whose. meseo. amass. ns.:~. w~u¢«. o~nro. oonsw. umscs. o.ms~. anm4~. abzuuaum maxuowuk. a>bc302¥ aaamu.l asmuu. amoaa. nasoa.l n4uouxho . counu. chauuaum ~osou.o :aaqucmx ~¢~o~.o . scarvaop acsoo.u cassxxzx nchs. ~>srzozx «noes. oasmOmmu scans. :szsusum ¢a~mu. scumcuwu auusu. aaszaczx nunancur oosas. eauouxso moss~.u abouuaum coso~. ~3a>sspc as~cs. abuts—pa mm~.u. oa>socnm anus“. 3o>pphd :~v~«.o (Asuxzzx osm~o. aooaucux :osns. :qunzea owwmu.o c¢s1m30> a~m~s. msxsxxzx snows.u asznuswm csmu«.l 3moa~6m1 ocmmu. sosxuao> :~m~_. Jazsxxzx s~sss. ~>srxczx ::rm«. cosmomuu msmso.. ssrsuuum ~¢mcu. . saxuowmu «sn4s. a>srzrzx mnoau. nascmxso sane".o nsouuamm s-su. ~mnspssa n:ooo.i xcsqassa unsaa. ne>~oc~m sanau. ma>pbpd womu~.n ~muw osn.s.o oar—ocsm m:pmn.0 noouaum onsmo.u nazsocum smmmo.u scsrmaor «maou.n oazxsmzx News..- equawzno sauna. ahauuamw quzoz uauu Ouz-¢t 214 amazmao> aoaua. aacou. aao:u.o aoaaa.o Oaaaa.l usamu.l «aaau. amaou.l casua. maszxzu nouua. ansau.l uquu. om:~«.0 chna. 0n3nu. aaaaa.«0 ~:ana.o ncn~«.0 «aoau.o no :quuJum nauoa. chad». Ncuun. awcma.l oo:a~. muemN. ms¢:a. smcuu.o a¢¢n~.I ccsma. muoea.l macs .:~ahzxozx smn~s.0 mms-. acacu. ~nen~. mQNms. uncnu. sense. mocwu.o mmsgw. (came. -a..~.-- -_n.-- bow--_aoh -ao——--—.--.- -..... av-.- .- . «arda.o. ...—o anabouuw maaaa. m~ou~. :aan4. «mesa. swama. Oaaam. nmmmw. Mataa. na~m~. maua~. NNcsu. «osw«.o saa:a. “was”. n~¢~«.n 3a>hhb< oanNu. ~Jo~a.l mwooo. ~3¢a~. wanna. aaxwawzu IhZHuduw csooo. macaw. n~nnm. oso«~. swron. :moom. «smas.i nusso.n :ooso. :aama.l sauna. oazbzzzx nodua.l Gnuaa. «acJ«.I cmawn. aernu.o ¢n3nn.o unxmowuu 5:0:o.| ss-~. msnss. ncsmu. suso~. -~s4. :smnu. «anno.n “mama. amass. auona.a :caduow: o-~«.0 acu0~.I nua:a.| cmwwu.l k¢c~6.0 urama.o ~:ona. a>hzzor¥ manso.u om-~. ans4~. ansn~. ~¢uus. nsrmw. mesqu. vsuss.uo c¢m-. cusps. accou.| p . xdqwazuu m::o«.t "Jumu.0 osooa. unmau. nmown. momma. nrm~u. «Juan. nauouxho scmca. :maua. asanw. Joana. Nuamu. rnom~. accou. unwou. anmca. sanuw. orncu.0 Ma. 2233 . :2. 7333...: uzhwhd ussxxbs< 4a>suu~m zc>whw¢ 0.7»3328 :aouucwx caaouzso ohoouqmm ~3a>hpnq whats—ha Jn>scc~m zones»: oazsyzzx Jonqucut zacmozwu nacrv:o> mazwxzzx aqua ocz~Nax INTERCORRELATIONS FOR MEDIA PERCEPTION INDEX 215 INTERCORRELATIONS FOR MEDIA PERCEPTION INDEX As reported in Chapter III, six measures for each set of black and white portrayals were combined to form the media percep- tion indices. Each measure is given below followed by a table of intercorrelations for the six measures in each index. Measures for Florida Evans A. When this person is on TV, she has a family and neighbors. When this person is not on TV, does she have the same family and neighbors? l yes _§__no 2 I don't know (Variable name: MRTVF) When this person is on TV, is this person just playing a part or pretending? _§__yes _l__no 2 I don't know (Variable name: MRTVFLOR) Measures for Redd Foxx C. When this person is on TV, he owns a junkyard and has a son and neighbors. When this person is not on TV, does he own a junk- yard and have the same son and the same neighbors? (same responses as above) (Variable name: MRTVFOXX) When this person is on TV, is this person just playing a part or pretending? (same responses as above) (Variable name: MRTVREDD) 216 v.15“. "mix...— fi‘.‘.a u .«- 3. . . .. . I 2 217 Measures for Black Portrayals in General E. When you see black people on programs like Good Times, they have families and neighbors on the program. When these people are not on TV, do they have the same families and neighbors? 1 yes ._§__no _2_I don't know (Variable name: MRTVFAMB) When you see black people on programs like Good Times and other programs with black families, are the people just playing a part or pretending? __3_yes _l_no 2 I don't know (Variabie name: MRTVBLFM) Measures for Archie Bunker A. When this person is on TV, he works at a factory, and has a family and neighbors. When this person is not on TV, does he work at that factory and have the same family and neighbors? 1 yes 3 no 2 I don't know (Variabie name: MRTVA) When this person is on TV, is this person just playing a part or pretending? _§__yes _j__no 2 I don't know (Variable name: MRTVARCH) Measures for Edith Bunker C. When this person is on TV, she has a family and neighbors. When this person is not on TV, does she have the same family and neighbors? (same responses as above) (Variable name: MRTVEDIT) When this person is on TV, is this person just playing a part or pretending? (same responses as above) (Variable name: MOTVEDIT) -.1 .. _ n. I: . ' u‘.-._‘°: 5hr.» 218 Measures for White Portrayals in General E. When you see white people on programs like All in The Family, they have families and neighbors on the program. When these people are not on TV, do they have the same families and neighbors? 1 yes _§__no 2 I don't know (Variable name: MRTVFAMW) When you see white people on programs like All in The FamiLy and other programs with white families, are the people just playing a part or pretending? 1 yes _§__no 2 I don't know (Variable name: MRTVWTFM) TABLE 8.-- Intercorrelations for Media Perception of Black Por- trayals Index_(MEDIAPRB). MRTVF MRTVFLOR MRTVFOXX MRTVREDD MRTVFAMB MRTVBLFM MRTVF 1.00 MRTVFLOR .16 1.00 MRTVFOXX .4O .19 1.00 MRTVREDD .11 .40 .25 1.00 MRTVFAMB .43 .20 .53 .15 1.00 MRTVBLFM .04 .42 .OO .35 .13 1.00 219 TABLE 9.--Intercorrelations for Media Perception of White Por- trayals Index (MEDIAPRW). MRTVA MRTVARCH MRTVEDIT MOTVEDIT MRTVFAMW MRTVWTFM MRTVA 1.00 MRTVARCH .17 1.00 MRTVEDIT .52 .16 1.00 MOTVEDIT .14 .46 .09 1.00 MRTVFAMW .40 .17 .46 .16 1.00 MRTVWTFM .13 .35 .08 .54 .10 1.00 INTERCORRELATIONS FOR SIGNIFICANT OTHERS' ATTITUDES TOWARD TV PORTRAYALS INDEX 220 INTERCORRELATIONS FOR SIGNIFICANT OTHERS' ATTITUDES As reported in Chapter* III the attitudes of up to five significant others for each television portrayal were elicited from the respondents. These attitudes were measured on five-point Likert- type scales for liking of the character portrayal. The scales ranged from "very much" to "not at all” and were scored from 5 to l with 5 being the high point of the scale. The scales for black por- trayals formed the index SIGOTVP3; the scales for white portrayals formed the index SIGOTVPW. For the following intercorrelations, the attitudes are simply labeled by letters. A frequency table of sig- nificant other mentions (by relationship to the respondent) is also in this Appendix. TABLE 10,-- Intercorrelations for Significant Others' Attitudes Toward Black Television Portrayals Index (SIGOTVPB), F G H I J P Q R S T F 1.00 G .86 1.00 H .73 .82 1.00 I .65 .75 .86 1.00 .56 .64 .74 .84 1.00 .56 .55 .51 .50 .42 1.00 .48 .54 .62 .51 .56 .75 .88 1.00 .42 .49 .53 .63 5.63 .63 .74 .84 1.00 J p Q .53 .60 .56 .58 .51 .83 1.00 R S T .41 .49 .57 .63 .71 .55 .64 .73 .87 1.00 221 222 TABLE ll.--Intercorrelations for Significant Others' Attitudes Toward White Television Portrayals Index (SIGOTVPW). 1.00 .35 1.00 Fun. .53 .34 1.00 DOG!) .29 .27 .39 1.00 E .47 .54 .55 .41 1.00 K .69 .43 .34 .21 .52 1.00 f .61 .41 .70 .36 .62 .55 .65 1.00 .06 .56 .54 .21 .37 .41 .73 1.00 02: g .21 .29 .44 .22 .44 .50 .64 .63 .81 1.00 RELIABILITY ESTIMATES FOR INDICES ACROSS SAMPLE GROUPS 223 RELIABILITY ESTIMATES FORINDICES ACROSS SAMPLE GROUPS Chapter III reported the reliability estimates for two-item indices (using the Spearman-Brown formula) and indices with more than two items (using coefficient alpha) for the sample as a whole (N = 24l). This section reports these estimates for groups within the sample. White Respondents-~Integrated Schools (N = 94) Reliability Coefficient Two-Item Indices (Spearman-Brown Formula) Frequency of exposure to television 57 portrayals of black persons (FREQEXPB) ' Frequency of exposure to television 87 portrayals of white persons (FREQEXPW) ° Knowledge of television portrayals of black persons (KNOWBTVP) .45 (Name,identification) Knowledge of television portrayals of black persons (KNOWBTVP) .67 (Race identification) Knowledge of television portrayals of white persons (KNOWHTVP) .72 (Name identification) Knowledge of television portrayals of white persons (KNOWHTVP) .85 (Race identification) Self-interaction concerning television portrayals of .68 black persons (SELFINTB) 224 225 Two-Item Indices Self-interaction concerning television portrayals of white persons (SELFINTW) Generalized reality concerning television portrayals of black persons (GENREALB) Generalized reality concerning television portrayals of white persons (GENREALW) Attitude toward television por- trayals of black persons (ATTTVPB) Attitude toward television por- trayals of white persons (ATTTVPW) Other media attitudes toward b1ack persons (OTMEDIAB) Other media attitudes toward white persons (OTMEDIAW) Self-concept Multi-Item Indices Media perception of black characters (MEDIAPRB) Media perception of white characters (MEDIAPRW) Significant others' attitudes toward television portrayals of black characters (SIGOTVPB) Significant others' attitudes toward television portrayals of white characters (SIGOTVPW) Significant others' attitudes toward mental ability (SIGOTHMA) Reliability Coefficient (Spearman-Brown Formu15) .61 .64 .46 .58 .75 .29 .41 .54 Reliability Coefficient (Coefficient Alpha) .72 .65 .94 .96 .57 226 White Respondents-~Nonintegrated School (N = 48) Reliability Coefficient Two-Item Indices (Spearman-Brown Formula) Frequency of exposure to television 54 portrayals of black persons (FREQEXPB) ’ Frequency of exposure to television 68 portrayals of white persons (FREQEXPW) ’ Knowledge of television portrayals of black persons (KNOWBTVP) .40 (Name identification) Knowledge of television portrayals of black persons (KNOWBTVP) .97 (Race identification) Knowledge of television portrayals of white persons (KNOWHTVP) .84 (Name identification) Knowledge of television portrayals of white persons (KNOWHTVP) .76 (Race identification) Self-interaction concerning television portrayals of .65 black persons (SELFINTB) Self-interaction concerning television portrayals of .57 white persons (SELFINTW) Generalized reality concerning television portra als of black .68 persons (GENREALB Generalized reality concerning television portrayals of white .47 persons (GENREALW) Attitude toward television por- trayals of black persons (ATTTVPB) .54 Attitude toward television por- 68 trayals of white persons (ATTTVPW) ' 227 Two-Item Indices Other media attitudes toward black persons (OTMEDIAB) Other media attitudes toward white persons (OTMEDIAW) Self-concept Multi-Item Indices Media perception of black characters (MEDIAPRB) Media perception of white characters (MEDIAPRW) Significant others' attitudes toward television portrayals of black characters (SIGOTVPB) Significant others' attitudes toward television portrayals of white characters (SIGOTVPW) Significant others' attitudes toward mental ability (SIGOTHMA) Black Respondents (N = Two-Item Indices Frequency of exposure to television portrayals of black persons (FREQEXPB) Frequency of exposure to television portrayals of white persons (FREQEXPW) Knowledge of television portrayals of black persons (KNOWBTVP) (Name identification) Knowledge of television portrayals of black persons (KNOWBTVP) (Race identification) Reliability Coefficient (Spearman-Brown FormuTa) .43 .44 .65 Reliability Coefficient (Coefficient Alpha) .68 .70 .89 .91 .58 6& Reliability Coefficient (Spearman-Brown Formula) .70 .95 .56 .82 228 Two-Item Indices Knowledge of television portrayals of white persons (KNOWHTVP) (Name identification) Knowledge of television portrayals of white persons (KNOWHTVP) (Race identification) Self-interaction concerning television portrayals of black persons (SELFINTB) Self-interaction concerning television portrayals of white persons (SELFINTW) Generalized reality concerning television portrayals of black persons (GENREALB) Generalized reality concerning television portra als of white persons (GENREALW Attitude toward television por- trayals of black persons (ATTTVPB) Attitude toward television por- trayals of white persons (ATTTVPW) Other media attitudes toward black persons (OTMEDIAB) Other media attitudes toward white persons (OTMEDIAW) Self-concept MuTti-Item Indices Media perception of black characters (MEDIAPRB) Media perception of white characters (MEDIAPRW) Reliability Coefficient (Spearman-Brown Formula) .82 .66 .56 .84 .67 .65 .53 .78 .43 .45 .53 Reliability Coefficient (Coefficient Alpha) .72 .65 229 Multi-Item Indices Significant others' attitudes toward television portrayals of black characters (SIGOTVPB) Significant others' attitudes toward television portrayals of white characters (SIGOTVPW) Significant others' attitudes toward mental ability (SIGOTHMA) Reliability Coefficient (Coefficienthlpha) .94 .95 .57 FREQUENCY OF SIGNIFICANT OTHER MENTIONS BY CHARACTER 230 FREQUENCY OF SIGNIFICANT OTHER MENTIONS BY CHARACTER Table 12.--Frequency of Significant Other (Attitude) Mentions by Character. Significant Character Total Frequency Other Archie Florida Edith Redd Significant Bunker Evans Bunker Foxx Other Mother 95 99 82 89 365 Father 84 78 66 79 307 Brother 87 94 7O 80 331 Sister 63 87 60 75 285 Friend ll3 149 99 98 459 Relative 25 32 3l 32 l20 Teacher 3 2 3 2 10 Me __6_ g .12 .15. 43 Total Frequency 476 553 421 470 (Significant other mentions for each character) Total mentions possible for all characters: 964. 231 APPENDIX C STRUCTURAL AND ESTIMATING EQUATIONS BETA COEFFICIENTS, MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS. R SQUARE, F TESTS, SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS, AND DEGREES 0F FREEDOM ACROSS SAMPLE GROUPS 232 STRUCTURAL AND ESTIMATING EQUATIONS 233 STRUCTURAL AND ESTIMATING EQUATIONS Structural Equations 1 P12X2 T p13X3 + P19x9 + P1q X 11 X = P X P 210 10 + 25 = P X P 311x11 I P312 12 + 3t = P X P 4 412 12 T 4u X5 ‘ P513x13 + P5v x6 = P54x4 + P65X5 + P6l3xl3 I P6l4xl4 + P6w P X + P X + P X P 7 74 4 76 6 714 X ll 14 + 7y x8 = P87X7 + P814Xl4 T P82 Z8 Estimating Equations P x + P x + P x + P (x. 12 2 13 3 19 9 1g) = P + P + Pl9r9l + qurq1 r11 12521 13531 234 (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) (8) (9) 235 +P +Pr T P 19592 1q sz =P 12522 13532 r13 T P12"32 T P13533 T P19593 T P1th3 r19 T P12"92 T P13'93 T P19"99 T P1qTq1 (x2 T P210x10 T P25) +P r22 T 5105102 25552 5210 T P21051010 T stTsz (X3 T P311x11 T P312x12 T P3t) r33 T P3115113 T P3t't3 ’311 T P31151111 T P31251211 T P3t"t3 '312 T P311x1112 T P312T1212 T Pat'ts (X4 T P412x12 T P4u) r44 T P4125124 T P4uTu4 r412 T P412"1212 T P4uTu4 (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) rs13 T P74’414 T P755614 T P71451414 236 P x + P 513 13 5v) +Pr P5135135 5v v5 P51351313 T P5v"v5 P64x4 T Pesxs T P6l3xl3 T P514x14 T P6w) +P P +P P64'46 65r56 T 513513 T P514T14 6wrWS P64T44 T P65554 T P6135134 T P6145144 T P6wTu4 P54545 T P65"55 T P6135135 T P6145145 T P6wrv5 +Pr P614'1413 6w w6 P645413 T P655513 T P61351313 T + P P645414 T P55’514 T P613T1314 T P61451414 6wrw6 P74x4 T P76x6 T P714x14 T P7y) +Pr T P76r67 T P7145147 7y y7 P74547 P +Pr P 7145144 7y u4 74544 T P76"64 T + P P74546 T P76r66 T P714'146 7yrw6 + P7yry7 (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) 237 (X8 T P87x7 T P8l4xl4 T P82) +Pr T P87r78 T P8l4rl48 82 28 T87 T P87577 T P8145147 T P82".y7 r814 T P875714 T P81451414 T Pasza (31) (32) (33) BETA COEFFICIENTS, MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS, R SQUARE, F TESTS, SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS, AND DEGREES OF FREEDOM ACROSS SAMPLE GROUPS 238 PATH COEFFICIENTS, MULTIPLE CORRELATIONS, R SQUARE, F TESTS, SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS, AND DEGREES OF FREEDOM ACROSS SAMPLE GROUPS TABLE l3.--All Sample Respondents (Black Portrayals), Beta Coeffi- cients in Figure 3 (N = 241). Dependent Variables X1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 ATTBLACK X1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ATTTVPB X2 .26 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SELFCPT X3 .l7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- YOUSMART X4 -- -- -- -- -- 12 .00 -- KNOWBTVP X5 -- -- -- -- -- .07 -- -- SELFINTB X6 -- -- -- -- -- -- .22 -- MEDIAPRB X7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -.l2 GENREALB X8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OTMEDIAB X9 .08 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTVPB X10 -- .37 -- -- -- -- -- -- SES XII-l "- "- .10 "“ -" -- -- -- SIGOTHMA X12 -- -- .28 32 -- -- -- -- FREQEXPB X13 -- -- -- -- 3o .23 -- -- KNBLKWL X14 -- -- -- -- -- 28 .16 21 Multiple or Simple R .32 .37 .30 .32 .30 .40 .23 .24 R Square .10 .14 .09 .10 .09 .l6 .05 .05 F Test 9.26 36.5 ll.9 26.8 23.6 11.3 4.55 7.33 Sig. Level .00 .00 .00 .00 .OO .00 .OO .00 Degrees of Freedom 3/237 1/239 2/238 1/239 1/239 4/236 3/237 2/238 239 240 TABLE l4.--A11 Sample Respondents (White Portrayals), Beta Coeffi- cients in Figure 4 (N = 241). Dependent Variables l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ATTWHITE X.l -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ATTTVPW X2 .25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SELFCPT X3 .12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- YOUSMART X4 -- -- -- -- -- .03 .01 -- KNOWHTVP X5 -- -- -- -- -- .l2 -- -- SELFINTW X6 -- -- -- -- -- -- ,1] -- MEDIAPRW X7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -,o4 GENREALW X8 -- -- -- -- —- -- -- -- OTMEDIAW X9 2l -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTVPW X]0 -- .42 -- -- -- -- -- -- SES XH -- -- .lO -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTHMA X12 -- -- .28 .32 -- -- -- -- FREQEXPW X13 -- -- -- -- .17 .26 -- -- KNWHTWL X14 -- -- -- -- -- .05 .14 .08 M”;§;g}§ ar .35 .42 .30 .32 .17 .31 .13 .15 R Square .13 .18 .09 .10 .03 .10 .03 .02 F Test ll.7 51.6 ll.9 26.8 6.70 6.06 2.58 2.64 Sig. Level .00 .00 .OO .00 .Ol .00 .05 .07 Degrees of Freedom 3/237 l/239 2/238 1/239 1/239 4/236 3/237 2/238 24l TABLE l5.--All White Respondents (Black Portrayals), Beta Coeffi- cients in Figure 5 (N = l42). Dependent Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ATTBLACK x1 -— -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ATTTVPB x2 .l8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SELFCPT x3 .26 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- YOUSMART X4 -- -- -- -- -- 14 .02 -_ KNOWBTVP x5 -- -- -- -- -- .15 __ -- SELFINTB X6 -- -- -- -- -- -- .24 -- MEDIAPRB x7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -,23 GENREALB x8 -- -- -- -- _- -- -- _- OTMEDIAB x9 .02 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTVPB x]0 —- .35 -- -- -- -- -- -- ses xH -- -- .07 -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTHMA x12 -- -- .34 .33 -- -- -- -- FREQEXPB x13 -- -- -- -- 27 .23 -_ _- KNBLKWL x14 -- -- -- -- -- .08 .l6 .01 M“;§;g}§ 3’ .43 .35 .35 .33 .27 .35 .27 .23 R Square .19 .12 .12 .11 .07 .12 .07 .05 F Test 5.24 19.7 9.30 l5.6 10.8 4.63 3.67 3.96 Sig. Level .00 .oo .oo .oo .oo .oo .01 .02 Degrees °f 3/l38 1/140 2/139 1/140 1/140 4/137 3/l38 2/139 Freedom 242 TABLE l6.--All White Respondents (White Portrayals), Beta Coeffi- cients in Figure 6 (N = 142). Dependent Variables x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 ATTWHITE x1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ATTTVPW x2 .15 -- -- -- -- -- -- -_ SELFCPT x3 .l6 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- YOUSMART x4 -- -- -- -- -- .05 ,0] -- KNOWHTVP x5 -_ -- -- -- -- .21 -- -- SELFINTW x6 -- -- -- -- -- -- ,1] -- MEDIAPRW x7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 13 GENREALW x8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -_ OTMEDIAW x9 13 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTVPW x10 -- 46 -- -- -- -- -- -- SES xn -- -- .07 -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTHMA x12 -- -- 34 .33 -- -- -- -- FREQEXPW X13 -- -- -- —— .20 .39 -- -- KNWHTWL x14 -- -- -- -- -- .10 .14 .02 M“;§;E}§ 3’ .30 .46 .35 .33 .20 .45 .13 .13 R Square .09 .21 .12 .11 .04 .20 .03 .02 F Test 3.57 36.5 9.30 15.6 5.73 8.74 1.46 1.16 Sig. Level .01 .oo .oo .oo .01 .oo .22 .31 Degrees of Freedom 3/l38 l/l40 2/l39 l/l40 l/l40 4/l37 3/l38 2/l39 243 TABLE l7.--White Respondents, Integrated Schools (Black Portrayals). Beta Coefficients in Figure 7 (N = 94). Dependent Variables X1 x2 X3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 ATTBLACK x1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ATTTVPB x2 12 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SELFCPT x3 .32 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- YOUSMART X4 -- -- -- -- -- .30 ,0] -- KNOWBTVP x5 -- —- -- -- -- .22 -- -- SELFINTB X6 -- -- -- -- -- -- .25 -- MEDIAPRB X7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .42 GENREALB x8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OTMEDIAB x9 43 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTVPB x10 -- .40 -- -- -- -- -- -- SES xH -- -- 06 -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTHMA x12 -- -- .33 .34 -- -- -- -- FREQEXPB x13 -- -- -- -- .25 29 -- -- KNBLKWL x14 -- -- -- -- -- .06 .26 .03 M“;§;B}§ gr .55 .40 .34 .34 .25 .43 .36 .43 R Square .31 .16 .12 .12 .06 .lB .13 .19 F Test 13.4 17.7 6.05 12.1 6.05 5.09 4.56 10.5 Sig. Level .00 .00 .00 .00 .02 .00 .00 .00 Degrees of Freedom 3/90 l/92 2/9l l/92 l/92 4/89 ‘ 3/90 2/91 244 TABLE lB.--White Respondents, Integrated Schools (White Portrayals), Beta Coefficients in Figure 8 (N = 94). Dependent Variables x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 ATTWHITE x1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ATTTVPW x2 .17 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SELFCPT x3 .22 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- YOUSMART X4 -- -- -- -- -- .15 02 -- KNOWHTVP x5 -- -- -- -- -- .01 -- -- SELFINTW X6 -- -- -- -- -- -- .14 -- MEDIAPRW X7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .20 GENREALW x8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OTMEDIAW x9 .09 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTVPW x10 -- .44 -- -- -- -- -- -- SES x1] -- -- .06 -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTHMA x12 -- -- .33 .34 -- -- -- -- FREQEXPW x13 -- -- -- -- .25 .39 -- -- KNWHTWL x14 -- -- -- -- -- .12 .04 .11 ””;§;g}: gr .30 .44 .34 .34 .25 .45 .14 .22 R Square .09 .20 .12 .12 .06 .21 .02 .05 F Test 3.07 22.8 6.05 12.1 5.94 5.83 .623 2.23 Sig. Level .03 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00 .60 ' .11 Degrees °f 3/90 1/92 2/91 1/92 1/92 4/89 3/90 2.91 Freedom 245 TABLE l9.--White Respondents in the Nonintegrated School (Black Portrayals), Beta Coefficients in Figure 9 (N = 48). Dependent Variables x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 ATTBLACK x1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ATTTVPB x2 .25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SELFCPT x3 .13 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- YOUSMART x4 -- -- -- -- -- .15 .18 -- KNOWBTVP x5 —- -- -- -- -- .21 -- _- SELFINTB x6 -- -- -- -- -- -- .14 -- MEDIAPRB X7 -- -- —- -- -- -- -- .35 GENREALB x8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OTMEDIAB x9 .14 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTVPB x10 -- .29 -- -- -- -- -- -- SES xH -- -- .09 -- -- -- -- -_ SIGOTHMA x12 -- -- .52 .45 -- -- -- -- FREQEXPB x13 -- —- -- -- .30 .35 -- -- KNBLKWL x14 -- -- -- -- -- .11 .11 .09 ””;§;3}§ gr .30 .29 .57 .45 .30 .51 .28 .38 R Square .09 .08 .32 .20 .09 .26 .08 .15 F Test 1.01 4.04 8.98 10.8 4.33 3.63 1.20 . 3.65 Sig. Level .39 .05 .oo .00 .04 .01 .31 .03 Degrees °f 3/44 l/46 2/45 1/46 1/46 4/43 3/44 2/45 Freedom 246 TABLE 20.--White Respondents in the Nonintegrated School (White Portrayals), Beta Coefficients in Figure l0 (N = 48). Dependent Variables x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 ATTWHITE x1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ATTTVPW x2 .20 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SELFCPT x3 .26 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- YOUSMART x4 -- -- -- -- -- .22 .17 -- KNOWHTVP x5 -- -- -- -- -- .35 -- -- SELFINTW x6 -- -- -- -- -- -- .13 -- MEDIAPRW X7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .54 GENREALW x8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OTMEDIAW x9 .36 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTVPW x10 -- .50 -- -- -- -- -- -- SES xH -- -— .09 -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTHMA x12 -- -- .52 .45 -- -- -- -- FREQEXPW x13 -- -- -- -- .17 .33 -- -- KNWHTWL x14 -- -- -- -- -- .01 .l8 -.l8 ””;§;E}§ gr .41 .50 .57 .45 .17 .58 .30 .57 R Square .17 .25 .32 .20 .03 .34 .09 .32 F Test 2.45 15.6 8.98 10.8 1.44 5.09 1.49 10.5 Sig. Level .07 .00 .oo .oo .23 .00 .23 .00 Degrees °f 3/44 1/46 2/45 1/46 1/46 4/43 3/44 2/45 Freedom 247 TABLE 21.--All Black Respondents (Black Portrayals), Beta Coeffi- cients in Figure ll (N = 68). Dependent Variables x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8 ATTBLACK xI -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -_ ATTTVPB x2 .46 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SELFCPT x3 .30 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- YOUSMART X4 -- -- -- —- -- .10 .12 -- KNOWBTVP x5 —- -- -- -- -- .08 -- -- SELFINTB x6 -- -- -- -- -- -- .20 _- MEDIAPRB x7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .18 GENREALB x8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- _- OTMEDIAB x9 .20 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTVPB x10 -- .41 -- -- -- -- -- . -- SES xn -- -- .24 -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTHMA x12 -- -- .47 .50 -- -- -- -_ FREQEXPB x13 -— -- -- -- .29 .15 -- -- KNBLKWL x14 -— -— -- -- -- .14 .17 .26 M”;§;B}§ gr .6l .41 .52 .50 .29 .37 .28 .31 R Square .37 .17 .27 .25 .08 .14 .08 .10 F Test 12.2 13.1 11.9 21.8 5.82 .980 1.79 3.46 Sig. Level .00 .oo .00 .00 .01 .42 .15 .03 Degrees 0f 3/64 l/66 2/65 l/66 1/66 4/63 3/64 2/64 Freedom 248 Freedom TABLE 22.-—All Black Respondents (White Portrayals), Beta Coeffi- cients in Figure l2 (N = 68). Dependent Variables ATTWHITE X1 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ATTTVPW X2 .30 -- -- -— -- -- -- -- SELFCPT X3 .l5 -- —- -- -- -- -- -- YOUSMART x4 -- -- -- -- -- .03 .15 -- KNOWHTVP x5 -- -- -- -- -- .21 -- -- SELFINTW x6 -- -- -- -- -- -- .12 -- MEDIAPRW X7 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- .14 GENREALW X8 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- OTMEDIAW X9 .24 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTVPW X10 -— .45 -- -- -- -- -- -- SES X1] —- -- .24 -- -- -- -- -- SIGOTHMA X12 -- -- .47 .50 -- -- -- -- FREQEXPW x13 -- -- -- -- .28 -,05 _- _- KNWHTNL X14 “ " " -- -' -.05 -.00 .12 Multiple or . Simple R .43 .45 .52 .50 .28 .26 .l9 .25 R Square .l8 .20 .27 .25 .08 .06 .04 .06 F Test 4.66 l5.7 ll.9 21.8 5.75 .799 .829 1.15 Sig. Level .00 .00 .00 .00 .Ol .530 .48 .32 Degrees °f 3/64 1/66 2/65 1/66 l/66 4/63 3/64 2/65 "‘1111141111111111“