RELATIONSHIPS OEJWEEN INEORMAYJOJJ - ABOUT AND ATTITUDES TOWARD - . OTHER moms: »- .- ' A PROPOSITIONAL JJJYEMYCRY . .. mam Connemara: of Ph. D. MJCHJCAJJ 31m. UNWERSITY -- , ‘ mmmmYCE " 3 ' 1973,;- . Michigan Stain 4 , w ‘ LIE-{21.345 I; «Y __ ‘ .K “ Uu‘ \\\\\\\ F-—- . JJJJJJ JJ “W J 3 \\\\\\\ JJ é: ABSTRACT RELATIONSHEPS BETWEEN INFORMATION ABOUT AND A'I'I'ITUDES TOWARD OTHER NATIONS: A PROPOSITIONAL INVENTORY By Richard Edward Joyce The present study is an examination of the relationships between an individual's information about particular foreign nations and their peoples, and his images of and attitudes toward those nations. The study includes (a) a discussion of nation—attitudes and the ways in which they have been measured, (b) a review of empirical, quantitative research on the factors which influence nation-attitudes, (c) the presentation of sixty—four propositions --tentative statements of relationships, derived from existing research on nation—images, drawn from analogy with data on other kinds of images and orientations, or offered as tentative hypotheses about untested relationships——about relationships between information and nation-attitudes, and (d) a series of suggestions for future research on these relationships. A nation-image is defined as the organized representation of a given nation in the individual's cognitive system. A nation—attitude is defined as the affective-evaluative component of a nation—image. Tn! ”in-am” it. the Elm. fa ini 17 aces Jim I “1 n “ml-min \‘I M \ w. Richard Edward Joyce Three kinds of information are discussed. Subjective informa— t_i_gn_——another component of the nation-iJnage—-is the set of beliefs about the nation which the individual has accepted as true. Available information is the set of statements about the nation-obj ect to which the individual is exposed, or to which he could easily expose himself. Factual information refers to the actual or objective characteristics of the nation. A simple nodel of information effects is that factual information about a foreig1 nation is discovered and transmitted to the individual (becoming available information), and then the individ- ual accepts the information into his belief system (as subjective information) where it forms the basis of his attitudes toward that nation. In reality, the process is not so simple. Most individual nations are not especially salient to most individuals, and so attitudes toward most nations tend to represent an orientation toward foreign nations in general, derived from such non-informational influences as authoritarianism, patriotism, and interpersonal orientations , rather than a response to information about the particular nation. The individual does not automatically believe all the infor- mation about other nations which becomes available to him. Rather he tends to unconsciously derive his subjective information largely from those messages which are most consonant with his expectations and desires. Thus, although an individual whose subjective information is favorable toward a given nation (holding, for example, beliefs that the country is economically advanced and friendly to his homeland) is Edy tc in”: m a: T‘h ~, u' v.4“. I Richard Edward Joyce likely to have a favorable attitude toward that nation, the attitude is not necessarily derived from the subjective information. Available information does not always correspond with factual information. The news and entertainment media, schools, interpersonal networks, and the conditions under which contact takes place all tend to present to the individual a limited and biased View of foreign nations. Exposure to these sources of information is related in various ways to nation—attitudes . In general, the more education an individual has, the more he knows about most other nations, the more favorable to other nations he is, and the more he is exposed to information about other nations in the mass media. Most of the individual's information about other nations reaches him through the mass media. Direct contact with another nation througi travel is likely to provide a more detailed and more personal kind of information and a more differentiated image. Under certain conditions, contact leads to nore favorable attitudes, but such changes are often temporary. In general, this study questions the common assumption that as people learn more and more about each other they will come to like each other. It is suggested that a more realistic understanding of the relationship of information and nation-attitudes provides a better baSis for effective international communication. FWD TOW RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INFORMATION ABOUT AND ATTITUDES TOWARD OTHER NATIONS: A.PROPOSITIONAL INVENTORY By Richard Edward Joyce A Dissertation Subndtted to Midhigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1973 ! COpyright by RICHARD EDWARD JOYCE 19 7 3 ii Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Conmunication, College of Communication Arts , Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. . a; ’ v Director of Tges is Guidance Committee: Chairman {EM-3 0.; Q _ . a, , ‘1! (f. k 3,1 ea / Until his death on June 29, 1973, Professor Hideya Kumata served as chairman of the committee and director of thesis . iii it ' :, < £311,331 r ii Erin lite De tiers c ACKNOWLEDGMHTI‘S I am very grateful to the many faculty members and students at Michigan State University who have given me their advice, encouragement, and friendship. I owe a great deal, in particular, to the former head of the Department of Communication, Dr. David K. Berlo, and to the melrbers of my Guidance Committee, Dr. Lawrence Sarbaugh, Dr. Frederick Waisanen, and Dr. William Herzog. I owe even more to the former chairman of my Guidance Committee, the late Dr. Hideya Kumata, and to its present chairman, Dr. Everett M. Rogers. I also wish to thank my wife, Raelyn, for her help, her encouragement, and her patience, without which this dissertation could never have been completed . iv . er TABLE OF CONTENTS Ormter I THE PROBLEM A, General Statement of Purpose . . . B. Images of Foreign Nations and PeOples l. Rationale . . . 2. Aspects of Images C. Focus on Attitudes . l. kflkmae. 2. Explication D. Focus on Exposure to Sources of Infimmfirm . . . . . E. Overview of the Present Study V II RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES A. The Tendency to Like or Dislike Foreign Nations in General . . B. Beliefs Associated with Attitudes toward Particular Nations and Peoples C. Causes of Relationships between Perceptions and Attitudes III A. Sources of Information about Foreign Nations and the Effects of Exposure to Them . . . . . . . 1. Reports on Influential Sources . 2. Effects of Education 3. Effects of Exposure to Mass Communications Media . 4. Social Influences 5 International Travel ACCEPENNCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT FOREIGN NATIONS . Page |_J (fiMNl—J 10 2O 27 33 38 39 57 87 90 91 91 95 102 109 117 Eier LL Chapter III (cont ' d. ) B. Acceptance of Information: Predictors and Consequences . . 1. Functions of Nation-Attitudes . 2. Events and Changes in Nation- Attitudes . 3. Selective Processes Influencing Acceptance of Information about Other Nations . IV ANAILABILITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT FOREIGN NATIONS . A. Biases in Sources of Information about Other Countries . B. Relations Between Knowledge of and Images of Other Countries . . V SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION A. Summary . 1. Detailed Summary 2. Overview . B. Suggestions for Future Research . 1. General Shortcomings of Past ResearCh . . . . 2. Specific Suggestions . . . 3. Variables to be Measured in an Ideal Study C. Implications for Theory—Building . l . The Concept of Attitudes toward Nations and Their PeOples . 2 . Differentiation as a Dependent Variable - D. Implications for Action . APPENDIX: List of Figures BIBLIOGRAPHY . Page 153 153 159 161 173 173 191 195 195 195 207 209 209 213 223 22M 224 230 23H 246 1F a "51!. A Figne LIST OF FIGURES A.Simple Paradigm for the Present Study Curvilinear Relationship of Preference fOr Nations and Presumed Knowledge of Nations Found by Cooper and Midhiels (1952) . . . - The General Form of the U-Curve of Foreign Student Adjustment Over Time . . . . . . . Potential Discrepancy between Factual Information and Available InfOrmation about a Given Foreign Nation . Potential Discrepancy between Available InfOrmation and.the Subjective InfOrmation which is Accepted by a Particular Individual about a Given Foreign Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . Factors Influencing a Particular Individual's Attitude toward a Given Foreign Nation vii Page 37 86 123 208 210 211 CHAPTERI THE PROBLEM A. General Statement of Purpose The object of this dissertation is the formulation of a number of propositions about relationships between people '8 attitudes toward foreig1 nations and their exposure to information about these nations. These propositions are intended both to summarize existing research and to suggest directions for future research on such relationships. Underlying this object is a more general concern: What are the factors which determine the attitudes and beliefs that an individual citizen of one nation will have about other nations and their people? Will exposure to particular kinds and amounts of information about other nations influence his image of these nations and his orientation toward them? This dissertation does not fully answer these questions (1) because most of the research it summarizes does not directly measure ”the information that respondents have about other countries but rather forces one to infer it from other variables, and (2) because it is drawn largely from data which show covariance but not causal connection between the indices from which information is inferred and the subjects' iWages of other nations. It is hoped, however, that this study serves the function of indicating what needs to be researched, as well as that l L' :f 'u. ' I \In Iul C N - 1 r\\ E E n . . a l“ mu PA LL vi]. \ 1| .le 8 1|; PK r E Mix J \I i JJJIY L L $1.. \ \ll 1 N \\V a! .1- QF\ 1‘ K 1;) .- h\d . JJ \ i . NM \V n M Hymn. OHM. .an Muir WWW QM?» n \I \ sfinN mils « . \I “Vi v .» HAJM‘ .\fiWs Rh \Il\ fin- U..\ 1 M. J v ‘ J1. IV \rh,.~ J I. H. ‘fiaw OWN 514 E Ann is k . . J 4 rs 3r is E, ii ... .ML , H1 V J . v..." . I .rl. - 2 of summarizing what has already been established. B. Images of Foreign Nations and Peoples 1. Rationale. Like many other people, the author would like to see increased friendship and OOOperation between the peOples of different nations, and it is this wish which lies behind his interest in understanding cross—national communication processes. One frequently runs across the naive assumption that the increasing exposure of peoples in one country to information about the peoples of other countries—~through international travel, through mass communications, and through formal educationl-—will result in reduced hostility and increased respect between the peOples of these different nations.2 Such an assumption seems to be implicit in both the goals and 1Some of this increase in exposure to information about other countries is documented in Angell (1969). Focussing on the period from 1955 to 1961, he estimates that study abroad is increasing nine percent each year, and research abroad ten percent each year. He also reports increases in other types of international contact, including travel to visit friends and relatives, participation in international non—govern— mental organizations, and residence abroad of businessmen (see also Angell, 1967). Cherry (1971) gives data on the growth of international news services, of international telephone traffic, of communications satellites (see also Mickelson, 1970), and of overseas broadcasting, and on increasing tourism and participation in international organizations. Data on North Americans overseas are available in Rubin (1966), which Elves an estimate of 1,H00,000 Americans living abroad in 1966, about 600,000 of them civilians. Data on overseas students in the United States are found in Institute of International Education ( 19 72). This Pliblication estimates that there are about 150,000 foreigi students and Scholars in the United States, and about 38,500 United States students and scholars abroad. . 2%., Aranguren (1967, p. 203): "Communication is also an Important means of destroying the mythical images that form barriers between races and prevent mutual understanding. The people of other countries are men like ourselves, and their administrators are not very imthods o is kind of 1:3st in im'timlar :fional his iii. in ten akin-ledge times. fitter, tha flakes t 3° Times, T :-r' Fl M5106 the \. 36mm f 1‘5 vital d 212* object Fm, ha it‘lifvmtel 33-101 to j 313 5.3918 the 51!. N'ition i' Emir, I“) fans) " 50118 ( 14 L, E01 if“ OF :9“: em, 51' 11an ._ SE. T‘t‘lfiant "A? h N (365 is of 3 the methods of many programs promoting cross—national communication. 3 This kind of assumption should not, however, be taken for granted. One should instead try to discover when particular kinds of information in particular circumstances are likely to make for increased inter— national friendship or hostility, esteem or contempt. It is easy to think in terms of a simple model where exposure to information leads to knowledge, and knowledge leads in turn to positive feelings and attitudes. Numerous studies in the literature on attitudes suggest, however, that there are times when individuals will receive information that makes them more negative toward an attitude object,” that there are times, perhaps more often than not, that individuals accept only evidence that is consonant with their existing attitudes,5 and that an different from ours. (It is in different systems of government that the vital distinctions occur.) Research into cross-cultures and a . more objective and less nationalistic approach to the teaching of history, have helped dissolve stereotyped images created abroad or deliberately fabricated by image makers , and so make a valuable contri- bution to information and international understanding. " 3As Merritt (19 72) puts it, "The naive version of the argument asserts that the foreigi student who comes to our shores to pursue his education will go away with a warm feeling toward the United States, Americans, and the American way of life. He will learn to appreciate Our forms of democracy and our foreig1 policies." 11L_E3_._g_.,Brouwer and van Bergen (1960), according to Hawkins (1969 ), found that Dutch school children, after exposure to a movie about India WhiCh emphasized traditional elements in Indian culture, became increas- 11)le negative toward India. 5E.g., LeVine and Murphy (19%) found that both learning and rememberEg of material about Russia occurred more when the material was consonant with subjects' prior attitudes toward Russia. Selltiz and C0015 (1966) found evidence that attitudes on race influence subjects’ ratings Of the plausibility of a series of statements. mivev LE Ems ‘Lmta ages w 3. ordex “('1 u t u individual's attitudes often play a role in determining what information he will be exposed to. 6 Much of an individual's communication, both as a source and as a receiver, is influenced by what he knows, or rather by what he thinks he knows, about the others with whom he is communicating. In order to understand communication events, one needs to know something about the images which people have of those with whom they are communicating. In order to understand what happens as communication takes place across national and cultural boundaries, it is necessary to have some under— standing of the images that communicators in different nations have of each other. This, in turn, requires a study of the process by which information about one nation is communicated to the peOple of another nation. The focus of this paper is upon the dependent variable of images of foreigi nations and their peoples. This variable is a specific form of the more general variable, images of groups and persons. Certainly much of the variance in attitudes toward foreigi nations can be predicted from current general theories of attitude format ion and change; perhaps future development of such general theories will make studies like the present one, which look at the formation of attitudes toward particular classes of objects, unnecessary. Given the current state of general theory, however, middle—range generalizations, such as those in this 6Summaries of the literature on selective exposure to informa- tion——McGuire (1969), Freedman and Sears (1965), Sears and Freedman (1967)-—indicate that attitudes and exposure to information consonant Wlth these attitudes covary in many situations . There does not , how—- ever, seem to be a general tendency for peOple to seek out consonant , and to avoid dissonant, information. 5 dissertation, about attitudes toward other nations would seem to be useful both to those interested in improving or testing the generality of existing attitude theory and to those with an immediate concern with cross-nat ional interaction . The concentration on images of foreign nations and peoples is somewhat arbitrary, but there are reasons to expect that such images are often shaped by a somewhat different configuration of forces than those which shape other images of persons and groups. As a subset of the larger area, images of foreign nations seem to be distinguished by lack of direct contact between the viewer and the object of his image, by the magnitude and heterogeneity of the image object, and by their special relationship to the nationalism of the viewer. Additionally, the channels through which information is acquired from other nations—— notably mass media, educational systems, and international travel--are all usually controlled to a considerable degree by the national govern— ment of the nation viewed and by the viewer' s own national government , agencies which are likely to have special concerns with the resulting public images. The unique characteristics of nation—images are in part Suggested by Niebuhr (1967, p. l+0): In modern life, the intergral national community has the sovereign power and necessary communal consensus to challenge, criticize, and transmute all social myths on the sub-national level. But it has neither the inclination nor the power to challenge the mythical content of its own pretensions to virture that it presents to the larger world, in which neither sovereign power nor consensus exists as a moderating power on the self—esteem of nations. 2. Aspects of Images. The term Eggs has been defined as "the organized representation of an object in an individual's cognitive mediKelJIa 11. mality< hemtamlat E:iE_ in die nation spies, and :11 {night} 3:... ion: Eli's in in as subp 3: "the 11mg 333), andt 111116 subf Some 6 systemi’(Ke1man, 1965b, p. 2L1). Thus the image of a nation "constitutes the totality of attributes that a person recognizes (or imagines) when he contemplates that nation" (Scott, 1965, p. 72). This paper will use '_ur_a;g_e_ in this broad sense, including not only the perceived nature of the nation referent, but also evaluations, moods, expectations, memories, and action orientations . 7 Image, more than alternative terms which might have been chosen, seems to encompass a variety of different kinds of orientation to other countries . 8 When considering an indi— vidual's images of particular nations, it is important also to consider them as subparts of the total belief system (Holsti, 1967, p. 18) or of "the image" of total reality which a person possesses (Boulding, 1956), and to remember that they may not be as clearly defined subparts for the subject as for the researcher. Some authors have tried to make a distinction between the image of a nation and the image of a nation's people. Willis (1968) refers to these reSpectively as the "national image" and the "ethnic image.” 7Compare uses of image by Kelman (1965b), pp. 2L1-26; Scott (1965), pp. 72—75; Pruitt (1965), pp. 39H—395; Holsti (1967), p. 18; Farrell (1967), pp. xiii-xv; Boulding (1956); Deutsch and Merritt (1965), PP. 132—135; Lasswell (1965), p. 341. . 8Thus to write of perceplions of other countries seems to imply dlrect rather than mediated contact with the objects of perception. To write of knowledge of other countries seems to imply that such lcnowledge ls valid or true. To write of beliefs about other countries seems to exclude responses which are emotional and unarticulated, while to write 0f feeling seems to exclude beliefs which are affectively neutral. To talk about the information a person has about other countries ignores ”the fact that a person may have strong attitudes toward other countries even when he has little information about them. To talk about stereo— Eypgg suggests that the image is over—simplified and conformist. Though Eggs has occasionally been used with some of these limitations, it seems to be the broader term and the best candidate to refer to the whole representations of other countries in peOples' minds . 2': seem mre mafia? as; re Eked for :estim as C 1,1 a po Jon of *1 km by Will “.in images it is basi lemme m mic“ in Inves 7 It seems more reasonable to treat the image of a foreign peOple as a particular aspect of the image of their nation, since when subjects are asked for their image of a given country they may interpret the question as calling for their feelings about the nation as a geographic unit, as a political entity, as a people, or in some other way or com— bination of ways.9 The differences in "national" and "ethnic" images found by Willis serve to emphasize that investigation of the extent to which images of other countries are differentiated in the subjects' minds is basic to any attempt to describe such images. In most of the literature reviewed in this paper, unfortunately, either "national" or "ethnic" images but not both was measured. Investigations of images of nations and groups of peOple have considered a number of variables which may be thought of as dimensions of images, but not all scholars have considered images in terms of the . . 10 . . same set of dimenSions. A rev1ew of various sources suggests some m 9See Doob (1964, pp. 65ff) for a discussion of the possible referents people have for the name of their country. Where a given ethnic group (e. . , the Chinese) live in more than one country, it will not be pOSSlble to treat the image of the people as a subpart of the image of the nation without qualification (as, for instance, saying "Chinese in Mainland China"). Much of the literature on images of peoples gives no indication of whether subjects Iesmnded to stimulus words like “Chinese" in terms of images of par— ticular groups like Chinese-Americans or Chinese in Mainland China, or in terms of relatively general and undifferentiated images. . 10For example: Boulding (1956, p. L+7418), dealing with images In general, talks about spatial images, temporal images, value images, affectional or emotional images, conscious , unconscious , or sub— conscious images, the certainty or uncertainty of images , the relational image ("the picture of the universe. . .as a system of regularities ") , the personal image, the public or private aspect of the image, and the correspondence of the image with reality. Scott (1962a; 1962b; 1965, PP. 73‘81), dealing with images of foreign nations, talks about the aren't que- :: of a give met and s fictive, Inc minutes 01 attitudes 131 in tum 5er in a g] 3mg omit ease mew or 'LITBiity 0? 1‘3“], and - fese variab REM on 55.19 and L] 311101»; Li} 638111131? i‘FC‘QNE, ac dies 100}, inability 51611315 6 331.311 gen mm all < firmed t} F7953 ind ‘meSJ C0: (me Of 3.: @me 315071611. 1.19m "$351 pp. 5311mm 111m be 2111:6133 a :ijth E The 8 different questions which can be asked about the image an individual has of a given nation: (1) What are the content elements in the image? content and structure of images. Elements of content include non- affective, non-evaluative cognitive elements, that is, beliefs about attributes of the nation, and affective elements such as preferences and attitudes, as well as action components. Structural elements , which in turn may be considered in terms of cultural structure—patterns found in a group of people-—and psychological structure-—patterns found among cognitive components within individuals' images-«include differen— tiation or dimensionality or complexity, salience, unity or inter— community or hierarchic organization, functional equivalence of elements, centrality or peripherality, cognitive consistency or balance or con— gruity, and permeability or rigidity. A more recent elaboration on these variables is Scott (1969). Harding et a1. (1969) say that most research on images of ethnic groups has conSidered whether beliefs are simple and undifferentiated or complex and differentiated, central and salient or peripheral and embedded, believed tentatively or believed with assurance, inadequately grounded or grounded on appropriate evidence, accurate or inaccurate, or tenacious or readily modified. Studies looking at attitudes have looked at general friendliness or favorability, and at specific feelings like sympathy, envy, and contempt, as well as at non-affective attitude elements, and have had to dis- tinguish general factors (like ethnocentrism) which influence attitudes toward all other groups from group and specific factors. Edwards (19110), suggested that stereotypes could be described in terms of uniformity (across individuals), direction, intensity, and quality (content). Karlins, Coffman, and Walters (1969) looked at stereotypes of peOples in terms of the content of the beliefs, the favorableness of the beliefs, the uniformity or consensus on beliefs, the relations between the personal stereotypes held by individuals and the social stereotype held by the group, and both traditional and contemporary stereotypes . Jordan (1968, p. 76ff), distinguishes perceived societal stereotypes, per— ceived societal interactive norm, personal moral evaluation, hypothetical personal behavior, personal feelings , and actual personal behavior. He provides a model for distinguishing these different aspects of the "conjoint structure of an attitude universe" and for examining the resulting data with Guttman "facet analysis” procedures. Bastide and Van Den Berghe (19 57) looked at interracial attitudes in terms of evaluative beliefs, past personal behavior, perceived social norms , and hypothetical future personal behavior. Smith, Bruner, and White (1956, pp. 34—37) looked at opinions about Russia in terms of differen— tiation, saliency, time perspective, informational support, objective Value (valence and intensity), and action orientation. Harvey (1967) Suggested that the study of attitudes should distinguish content and Structure, and emphasized concreteness—abstractness, including dif— ferentiation, articulation, integration, and centrality, as a central Structural variable. Gordon (1962) distinguished autonomous and con- trolled imagery , depending on whether the individuals had conscious Control of their images. (2) hat are ' me he relat mama ext The or: 11191501: me new di meme 0c Embed, a 3:51 10 (1181: 31151 genem If? Specifi 33 m‘mt i 3119 L, eXpe 11 1151 c The s 1‘9 Went ”‘13 the mm 113118 of 3'1 Central >1 \N mCePta 9 (2) What are the structural characteristics of the image? (3) What are the relationships between the individual's image and certain phenomena external to the individual? The content of an image is typically described in terms of beliefs or cognitive elements, affective or emotional elements, and behavioral dispositions . Beliefs may be thought of as having (1) evaluative components, of which both valence and intensity may be described, and (2) non-evaluative components , though it is not always easy to distinguish these in practice. Affect or emotion may involve both a general positive or negative orientation toward the object and more Specific feelings like envy or contempt. The behavioral aspect of content includes memories of past personal behavior toward the object, expectations of future behavior, and ideas about ideal behavior, about what one ought to do . The structure of an image includes both the interrelations of the content elements and the relationships between the particular image and the rest of the individual's belief system. Thus the structural elements of an image include consciousness and articulation, salience and centrality, differentiation and complexity, intensity, rigidity and uncertainty, and integration and cognitive consistency. Specific Structural questions might deal with the relations between the image Of a particular foreign nation and images of self, of what others in one's society believe, and of images of foreign nations and out—groups in general. Once the content and structure of an image are described, it is possible to ask how that image relates to phenomena outside of the mm. 01 me have sim' he and that aim, and a“ Freali’w." Some of many net .13 easy is is m a1 OJQJI—I-(DZU‘Wr—fszjm? g:- :1” 10 individual. One can look at the extent to which individuals in a group have similar images, at the relation between the individual's image and that projected by a particular source or medium of commun— ication, and at the degree of correspondence between the image and "reality." Some of these distinctions between aspects of images are con— ceptually neat but awkward in practice. Thus , although the focus of this essay is on the evaluative content of images, other aspects of images will also have to be considered at times. C. Focus on Attitudes l. Rationale. A large part of the research on images of nations and peoples has focussed on their evaluative and affective dimensions, both because these dimensions seem to be an especially important factor in cognitive processes and because of their presumed usefulness in predicting behavior. Thus Scott (1965, p. 82) writes, An affective or evaluative attribute constitutes a central dimension of image structures for a wide range of objects (9:. Osgood et al., 1957). To the extent that any cognitive attribute is correlated with the affective attribute, an image that includes the former will elicit an affective response. Probably the tendency to ascribe qualities of "good— bad" is an exceedingly primitive one that is never wholly absent from any image structure, however elaborated with additional dimensions. Particularly if the dimensional complexity is fairly low, the available attributes may readily engage in an affective association. As Scott indicates, the importance of the evaluative dimension has received support from factor—analytic studies. It also receives SCHEWhat more qualified support from studies involving judgments of :mxistent mat 10 trims, and from drive importar. mmsofpeoples. rams which fol] In their c 3mmflmmn(1957, §WWMH a to three—qua mmdinal vari. mmmm. Vibe prim. . .mmmm ll nonexistent nations, from studies of children's images of other nations, and from the studies of Peabody and others questioning the relative importance of descriptive and evaluative traits in stereo— types of peoples. Some of this research is summarized in the para- graphs which follow. In their description of "semantic Space" Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957, pp. 70—72) found ”a pervasive evaluative factor in human judgment regularly appears first and accounts for approximately half to three—quarters of the extractable variance . . . thus the attitudinal variable in human thinking . . . based as it is on the bed— rock of rewards and punishments both achieved and anticipated, appears to be primary. . . . " They also point out that this general evaluative factor can be broken down into other more specific factors. They report (p. 199) that Tannenbaum had subjects reSpond to the concepts Germans, m, and m with semantic differential scales and with a form of the Bogardus Social Distance Scale. He found that the evaluative dimension correlated more than other dimensions of semantic space with the ratings on the Bogardus scale.:Ll Prothro and Keehn (1957) gave the semantic differential to students in Lebanon for the concepts Italian, German, and Turk and found three factors similar to Osgood's evaluation, llCorrelat ions between the evaluative factor and the Bogardus ratings were .22, .62, and .59 for Germans, Chinese, and Hindus, mSpectively. The corresponding multiple correlations utilizing all three semantic differential factors to predict the Bogardus ratings were .78, .80, and .72, a considerable improvement in prediction, especially in the case of the concept Germans , a concept one might 338% to be relatively familiar. my, md ac films depends mime in juc 3m and Sch] tea variety :15 national 1' sales. They hfheih data, an (OSgC insions in More re .1“. Study by ( i375 which 86 filmy eva; :othe mncep. i‘sehflhte se- €193dlihe 01‘- ‘:‘dthe resul i113! HDStly [Eh 800m] 3., eXCite 12 potency, and activity. The percentage of variance explained by these factors depended on the concept judged. Evaluation accounted for more variance in judging Italians, but not in judging Turks and Germans. Kumata and Schramm (1956) had J apanese, Korean, and American students rate a variety of concepts including names of countries , nationalities , and national leaders with twenty of Osgood's semantic differential scales. They consistently found two factors, evaluation and dynamism, in their data, with evaluation accounting for the most variance. Other research (Osgood, 1963) also indicates the regular appearance of these dimensions in diverse cultures.12 More recent studies are those of Gardner and others and Willis. The study by Gardner, Wonnacott, and Taylor (1968) showed that all items which seem to be evaluative do not necessarily group together in a clearly evaluative factor. In this study students in Ontario responded to the concept French-Canadians with semantic differential type scales. A separate set of subjects was used to judge whether scales were evaluative or not. The ratings of the concept were factor—analyzed, and the resulting factors were described in this way: (Pl) evaluative items, mostly positive, not high in consensus (_e__.__g_. , pleasant, likable, kind, sociable); (F2) mostly non—evaluative items, high in consensus (e_._g_., excitable, talkative, impulsive); (F3) some evaluative, some not evaluative (§;E° , knowledgeable, sophisticated, cultured), and (F4) some evaluative, some not evaluative (e_._g_. , undependable, unreliable, dis- loyal). In a subsequent study with similar results (Gardner, Taylor, 12For references to more recent studies of the appearance of evaluative factors in semantic differential responses in different Cultures, see Tanaka (1972b). adieeustua, 1 hs study as w {1968) clearly szem'uype abou it. group ever Zese studies < :9 has used : hating tha' :3.”ng map 1233 adequate if Weider Willis mean 8de m 39mm l3 and Feenstra, 1970) , they conclude, "The factor patterns obtained in this study as well as in the one by Gardner, Wonnacott, and Taylor (1968) clearly demonstrate that an individual' 8 tendency to adopt the stereotype about an ethnic group is independent of his attitudes toward that group even though . . . the stereotype is highly evaluative. "13 These studies differ from those previously cited in that only one con— cept was used in each to generate the data for factor analysis,lu' suggesting that, while a single evaluative dimension may be useful for comparing images of different nations held by a given group, it may be less adequate for looking at images held by particular individuals or of particular nationalities .15 Willis (196 8) used bipolar adjectives to collect data from American students on images of nations and of their peoples . He per-— formed separate factor analyses for these two kinds of stimuli and 13Prom a similar study, Kirby and Gardner (1973) conclude that the consensual, stereotypic factor "can be further subdivided as informational (i.e. , reflecting directly what is Imown about the group) and evaluational—Tie . , reflecting a general evaluational interpretation of all that is known)." At the same time they emphasize "that the evaluational component reflects the community attitudes , but that an individual‘s willingness to subscribe to attributes in this component, like the informational component , is independent of his attitudes toward the group . " 1LiThey also differ in the choice of adjective pairs. Only three 0f the scales which had their highest loading on Kumata and Schramm's evaluative factor are used in Gardner, Wonnacott, and Taylor (196 8) , and all three of them had their highest loading there on F1. 15Peabody's methodological doubts, discussed later in this Chapter, may also be relevant to understanding these results. 1h found roughly similar factor structures involving two kinds of evaluation: 16 The first factor in the analysis of the ethnic images, which accounts for 36.4 per cent of the total variance, loads highest on friendly, kind, peace- loving, cooperative, and honest . This is obv1ously an evaluation factor . . . of a special kind, having to do with motives and intentions rather than abilities . The second ethnic factor . . . loads most heavily on industrious , with moderate loadings on thrifty and scientific. It is interpreted . . . possnbly as an act1v1ty~efficiency factor. The third ethnic factor . . loads highest on scientific, cultured, and intelli— ent. . . . It may be described as a "general super— iority factor." The fourth ethnic factor . . . is interpreted as a potency factor. Its highest loadings appear on brave and strong. The last ethnic factor extracted, which accounts for H.6 per cent of the total variance . . . loads most heavily on thrifty and next most heavily on mature. . . . . . The first national factor . . . , like its ethnic counterpart, is clearly a "good guy—bad guy" factor. The second national factor . . . is . also an activity factor. Now, however, it has more of a technological flavor, for*the loading on scientific has jumped . . . to .75. The highest loading . . . 18 still on industrious. . . . The third.national factor is more clearly a.thrift factor in the narrow sense. The fburth national factor . . . is . . . an evaluation factor relating primarily to abilities and attributes rather than intentions. . . . Its highest loadings are on cultured and intelligent. . . . The fifth and last national factor accounts for 4.4 per cent of the total variance. It . . . is clearly a potency factor. Another approach to determining the dimensionality of images of nations has involved asking subjects which of several nations they 16In this, as in most of the factor—analytic studies reported, the name assigned to a factor represents only the researcher's personal attempt to infer what quality the variables with high loadings on the factor have in common . Moreover, the appearance of the factors them— selves is contingent both on the arbitrary choices made in carrying out the analysis, and on the choice of scales used in the original instrument, miter similar, eithe 1%7,1988; Jones and prisms (Wish, Deutsch meal, these studies 31min such judgments (usually «unmist-anti derision is level of e We a parallel betwe mpotmey factors. htall subjects judge hmcteristics. Rob' 31918 amasized deve Mimilar to the Sovie itudfic in Detroit e iited States and the S iimer (1970) found tha iistham tended to eupha lilies" here more likel helmet. Another kind of insion of images of 2'Childnem's images of \_ 17Jones and Ashn W Umistiam—nm— : ' e, eccnomic item allure-non-We 15 consider similar, either using a grouping task (Robinson and Hefner, 1967, 1968; Jones and Ashmore, 1971; Wish, 1970) or using pair com— parisons (Wish, Deutsch, and Biener, 1970; Wish, 1970, 1971). In general, these studies have indicated that the most influential dimen- sion in such judgments is the political alignment of the nation—objects (usually commmist—anticomummist) , and that the second most influential dimension is level of economic development . 17 Wish suggests that there may be a parallel between these two dimensions and Osgood's evaluation and potency factors. These studies clearly demonstrate , however, that not all subjects judge similarity of nations in terms of the same characteristics. Robinson and Hefner (1967) found that an academic sample emphasized development (and thus tended to see the United States as similar to the Soviet Union, for example) while a general sample of the public in Detroit emphasized communism (and thus did not rate the United States and the Soviet Union as similar). Wish, Deutsch, and Biener (1970) found that Americans who were "hawks" on the issue of Vietnam tended to emphasize political alignment whereas those who were "doves" were more likely to base similarity judgments on economic development. Another kind of evidence for the importance of the evaluative dimension of images of nations comes from studies of the development Of children's images of foreigners and ethnic groups. Children of five M ' 17Jones and Ashmore (19 71) reported five non—independent dimen- srons: Christian—non—Christian, dark skinned-light skinned, dominant— SUbor‘dinate, economically advanced-economically underdeveloped, and Western culture—non-—Western culture. mix do not always ha out tmds to become cl admins (Piaget and We tilde of five or six ddutuhy; either one tumtein, 1957). Lidldrm begin to make maid other nations my demiptive stat ttitudes of American @0113ny complete by M). Hess and Tourne sutilization of elemel . (hildren first - mm duplex informati Ianbert and Kli' Rims of 6, 10, and [h 211) that: The childr age in seu the 6—year older chil gave were facts, or qualities children < ative dist 16 or six do not always have a clear idea of other countries. The con— cept tends to become clear for most children between the ages of seven and nine (Piaget and Weil, 1951). One study concluded that for children of five or six "national identity is a matter of a simple dichotomy; either one belongs to the good country or one does not" (Weinstein, 1957). This is indicative of the common finding that children begin to make evaluative and affective statements about their own and other nations and ethnic groups before they are able to provide any descriptive statements about them. A summary of research on the attitudes of American white children toward Negroes, for example, suggests that they make hostile responses to the word "Negro" before they are clear about its meaning. Specific content items appear later, first negative attributes and than positive ones, with the stereotype reasonably complete by the time the children are twelve (Buchanan, 1951+, p. 5). Hess and Tourney (1967, p. 29), in a study of the political socialization of elementary school students, found that in general, ". . . children first think of political objects as good or bad; later, more complex information and orientations may be acquired. " Lambert and Klineberg ( 1967) studied the attitudes toward other nations of 6, 10, and lH—year-olds in ten countries. They report (p. 211) that: The children's views of foreign peOples changed with age in several noteworthy ways. In the first place the 6-year-olds reSponded less frequently than the older children when questioned and the responses they gave were typically non—evaluative descriptions of facts, or general references to the good or bad qualities of the peoples in question. With age, children demonstrated a larger repertoire of evalu— ative distinctions, referring to foreign groups as Good, bad, ‘ mime content of alsonute that the imag mitive or completely attributes. Adults, as well mnatims without kn Mllport,1958, pp. 6 Tues of 35 peoples, th Mal Distance Scale. We fictitious as we he evaluative dimensic Wed even in instar The ooncentmtic 31%“ 0f nations he \ flap 0t everyone: 5% ey, Amer ( 17 Good, bad, intelligent, aggressive, poor, wealthy, peaceful, dominated, and ambitious. Striking con— current changes were also apparent in the content of the descriptive statements made about foreign peoples. The descriptions of the younger children focused on physical features, clothing, language, and habits in contrast to the older children's preoccupation with personality traits, habits, politics, religion, and material possessions . Either younger children evaluate peoples in terms of different criteria than adults or they evaluate peOples somewhat independently of the descriptive content of their images. Lambert and Klineberg (1972, p. 7) also note that the images of younger children are usually completely positive or completely negative, rarely combining positive and negative attributes. Adults, as well as children, sometimes give evaluative responses to nations without knowing anything about them. Hartley (1946; cited in Allport, 1958, pp. 66—67) asked college students to respond to the names of 35 pe0ples, three of which were fictitious, on the Bogardus Social Distance Scale. Most of these students responded to the names of the fictitious as well as the real peoples,18 suggesting again that the evaluative dimension of images of foreigners even, making can be measured even in instances where the image has no descriptive content. The concentration of research effort on the evaluative aSpect of images of nations has been called into question by Peabody (1987; m 18Not everyone responds to fictitious nations. 'IWenty years after Hartley, Armer (1966) found 66 percent of his subjects at the University of Wisconsin did not rate the prestige of a fictitious nation. Eisenberg (1968) reported that the more educated his subjects (Israeli students), the less likely they were to rate a fictitious nation. More recently Jones and Ashmore (1971) had difficulty in getting United States undergraduates to rate real nations evaluat ively . 1963). He has suggeste twist in images of todetezt such images. suiptive and evaluat fists tends to cmfoun abject says Americans psitive side of a " dmefast side of a " temy intend to imply bdsmjects rate adje adjective similar to ively ad the other w dWipfively but not Mate the concept " jg: : : "timid". inttIpueted as indicati Sililau memes ratings Rated as indicating de Mites, Peabody's s “We end of the so a“mutiny aspect of j “W descriptive ju Wit sets but dif it); Feh'ue, 1970) fo iii!- In Felipe's or Mule errors only 18 1968). He has suggested that the apparent importance of the evaluative dimension in images of nations may be an artifact of the methods used to detect such images. He pointed out that most adjectives have both descriptive and evaluative meaning and that the use of adjective check— lists tends to confound these two dimensions of meaning. Thus if a subject says Americans are generous, he is saying that they are on the positive side of a "good—Sperriing/bad—spending" scale and that they are on the fast side of a "fast-spending/slow—spending" scale, even though he may intend to imply only one of these two ratings. Peabody (1967) had subjects rate adjectives on bipolar scales where one pole was an adjective similar to the rated adjective evaluatively but not des crip— tively and the other was an adjective similar to the rated adjective descriptively but not evaluatively . For example, subjects were asked to rate the concept ”cautious" on the following scale: "bold" .— _____ "timid". Ratings near the "bold" end of the scale were interpreted as indicating evaluative dominance in judging traits as similar whereas ratings near the "timid" end of the scale were inter— preted as indicating descriptive dominance. On a series of seventy such items, Peabody's subjects always had a mean rating near the des- criptive end of the scales, and he concluded that " . . . evaluation is a secondary aspect of judgment and is typically based on the extreme— ness of descriptive judgment." Subsequent studies using similar adjective sets but different analysis procedures (Rosenberg and Olshan, 1970; Felipe, 1970) found stronger evaluative effects than in Peabody's Study. In Felipe's critical cases, evaluative consistency led to Predictive errors only 36 percent of the time, while descriptive asistmcy led to predi dries led Peabody to a m perception (Peabc (a) In anal the covariat Theissuedoesn Pedody‘s recognition 0 unfunded in the ulls for a reconsi flirtatious. Afocus on the in) of images of mat hid the influmce of I litheiuportaxoe of e‘ militylg and beca melts of interactio asbecause of the gene was of nations, anc hilable on this aspe \___ . ‘ 19Berlo, Lerner A! :Jmalffints of messa fittevaluation fee has and Ginsbu me that can b that MESS ' ll 19 consistency led to predictive errors 64 percent of the time. These studies led Peabody to a revised summary of the place of evaluation in person perception (Peabody, 1970): (a) In analyses of general relations based on the covariation of many traits , descriptive and evaluative relations are of considerable importance; (b) in analyses of separate trait judgments, descrip— tive relations are more important where they are specifiable; (c) in the combining of several traits, preliminary evidence shows that descriptive relations are even more important than for single traits. The issue does not seem to be fully resolved yet, but clearly Peabody' s recogiition of the way evaluative and descriptive data are confounded in the common use of adjective scales to study images calls for a reconsideration of much of the existing literature on images of nations. A focus on, the evaluative (or attitudinal) dimension (or dimens- ions) of images of nations and peOples is appropriate to our concern with the influence of nation-images on the communication process because of the importance of evaluation in the concepts of meaning and source credibility19 and because of the relationship between attitudes and patterns of interaction between individuals. For this reason, as well as because of the general importance of the evaluative dimension in images of nations, and because of the relative quantity of literature available on this aspect of nation-images, evaluation of other nations 19Berlo, Lemert, and Mertz (1969—70), in a factor—analytic study Of judgments of message sources, found a central "safety" factor similar to the evaluation factor of Osgood et al. In a similar study, Schweitzer and Ginsburg (1966) found as their strongest factor " a very global cne that can best be interpreted as indicating a lack of trust- worthiness." adpenples is the main 2. gplication. refers to the affective Vidal is said to have hlikes a given natio It is with some refer to the dependent teas much disagreemen h‘s term should be us ”For instance: midance behaviors ( basins as authorit usematism, religion in the orientation whi tiles and images it fihas built up for it: its for observed com: Web and Hart, 1951 101m in the directid gummy. . . " a :i‘lildndeu and Hmt, 1‘ Mai to evaluate umtable on mfavor llaltitude. . . . At W liking or disl $1950); Attitude is e "organize :Wilvesygtemn (K61 taiet 0f evaluative I U 2 ms". Attitude will Intertwim l 1965); "An bimiida Set Of t in, es lnclud I N 20 and pe0p1es is the main dependent variable in this discussion. 2. Explication. Attitude, as it is used in the present study, refers to the affective—evaluative component of the image. An indi— vidual is said to have a favorable nation—attitude to the extent that he likes a given nation and/or believes that it is good. It is with some reluctance that the term attitude is used to refer to the dependent variable in the present study. There seems to be as much disagreement as agreement among social scientists on how this term should be used.20 McGuire (1969) concludes that the attitude 20For instance: Attitudes are clusters of evaluative or approach— avoidance behaviors (Cronkite, 1969); social attitudes include such dimensions as authoritarianism/humanitarianism, social liberalism/ conservatism, religionism, political liberalism/ conservatism, nationalism, tendennindedness/tougtmnindedness, and sex permissiveness (Dignan, 1962); attitude refers to both the "mediating evaluative response" associated With a particular belief and to the summation of such mediated reSponses toward a particular attitude object (Fishbein, 1965); "Attitudes . are the orientation which the organism assumes as a result of the per— captions and images it eXperiences and the concepts and beliefs which it has built up for itself" (Gordon, 1962); "Attitudes are the inferred bases for observed consistencies in the behavior of individuals" (Hartley, Hartley, and Hart, 1952); "The nature of attitudes is generally agreed to lie in the direction of learned sets or diSpositions to respond, often evaluatively . . . " including both cognitive and affective components (Hollander and Hunt, 1963); "Attitude is the predisposition of the individual to evaluate some symbol or object or aspect of his world in a favorable or unfavorable manner. Opinion is the verbal expression of an attitude. . . . Attitudes include both the affective, or the feeling core of liking or disliking, and the cognitive, or belief, elements . . ." (Katz, 1960); Attitude(s) is the affective aspect of an image, and an Image is the "organized representation of an object in an individual's Cognitive system" (Kelman, 1965b); "A social attitude . . . may be defined as a set of evaluative categorizations formed toward an object or class of objects. " Attitudes have "emotional and motivational aSpects lnSeparably intertwined with cognitive content" (Sherif, Sherif, and NGbergall, 1965); "An attitude is an idea charged with emotion which Pmdisposes a set of actions to a particular class of social situations. " Thus attitudes include a cognitive component , an affective component (feeling), and a behavioral component (predisposition to action) (Triandis, 1971, pp. 2—3); attitudes, as opposed to perceptions, are fieldhas too much cm (1911,12. 557), s reliefs, give up in th balavioml predisposit been defined in this w ativen object at a gi union of situational inferred from behavio Manor is observ lnferences from Often presued to rela less closely to sitter \. Witty pemment, ingest in the ab: 1tude . . . ha: W State (2) of r " 0e (5) exerti‘ 2;“ 611m, 1935, ‘ hmeCGllire, 196 t(Illoeaptm 21 field has too much conceptual elaboration. And Berelson and Steiner (19614, p. 557), summarizing our knowledge of opinions, attitudes, and beliefs, give up in their attempt to discriminate clearly between them: These terms do not have fixed meanings in the lit— erature, but in general they refer to a person's pref— erence for one or another side of a controversial matter in the public domain——a political issue, a religious idea, a moral position, an aesthetic taste, a certain practice (such as how to rear children). Opinions, attitudes, and beliefs (hereafter OAB's) are rational and/or emotional judgments on such questions. A traditional approach has been to define an attitude as a 21 Though attitudes have behavioral prediSpositicn toward its object. been defined in this way, it is usually recognized that behavior toward a given object at a given time will be influenced by a unique config— uration of situational factors such that the attitude cannot be easily inferred from behavior toward its object unless a consistent pattern of behavior is observed across a wide variety of situations. Inferences from verbal responses solicited by the researcher are often presumed to relate more closely to abstract predispositions and less closely to situational variation than are other types of behavior. relatively permanent, are about relatively general and abstract entities , and persist in the absence of the stimulus (Warr and Knapper, 1968, p. Li); "An attitude . . . has at least five aSpects: (1) it is a mental and neural state (2) of readiness to respond, (3) organized (1+) through experience (5) exerting a directive and/or dynamic influence on behavior" (GM. Allport, 1935, in Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. 0. Murchison; cited in McGuire, 1969). McGuire (1969) provides an extensive summary of the current conceptualization of the word attitude. 212g}, Scott (1958b) says: "Attitudes toward foreign affairs can be conceived as acquired behavioral dispositions toward a particular Class of events." Campbell (1963) lists a variety of other terms also defined as "acquired behavioral predispositions ," including belief, 00 'tive structure, concept, evaluation, meaning, mental image, orientation , and stereotype. — lmoommmfication rese moperational equivale on, verbal behaviors hoe to the same prob ofqtestions, asked in Me, yet different me inld talk about the talk about a different: mattitude are weak, meliuimte the indie sue the validity of different dimensions 0 ”Mort methodology 3 We would look for he his search on wh i Cook and Sellti mm from overt in films: behavior, at \ 22 . m PlShbein and is“ attitudes; thj . tallies uSin mhffemnt “Begun“! ' W and S ‘ z] . El teIWung a diSCIEW attltude Which O; as are differed c a . :IfiCtion aft game ten“ fo up“? on Underl than a 11110 the ‘ class it the hang? 22 Even communication researchers find it easy to accept what a man says as an operational equivalent of what he thinks or feels. Ultimately , how— ever, verbal behaviors are subject to the particular situation, and hence to the same problems of inference, as other behaviors. A variety of questions, asked in a variety of ways, are used as measures of atti— tude, yet different measures often produce different results. One who would talk about the resulting data often has two options.22 He may talk about a difference as a defect of method, conclude that his indices of attitude are weak, and either average the results of different indices or eliminate the indices which seem weakest in retrospect; or he may assume the validity of his measures and conclude that he has measured two different dimensions of attitude or image. Neither current theory nor current methodology seems strong enough to make the choice easy, and so one who would look for a common thread in existing studies must concen— trate his search on what was measured and not on what was concluded. Cook and Selltiz (1964) take the position that attitudes must be inferred from overt indicators including: "Self—reports of beliefs, feelings, behavior, etc. , toward an object or class of object; 22Fishbein and Aj zen (1972) found over 500 operations used to measure attitudes; this is disturbing in light of the frequency with which studies using more than one Operation report different results from different measures. . Cook and Selltiz (1964) suggest the following approaches to interpreting a discrepancy between measurements: (I) assume there is a true attitude which one or both measures failed to gauge; (2) assume there are different classes of attitudes toward an object-—i_.__e_. , verbal attitudes, action attitudes, etc.; (3) equate attitude with behavior as a descriptive term for observe'd‘cmsistencies in behavior; (Ll) "think of {ittitude as an underlying disposition which enters along with other mfltences, into the determination of a variety of behavior toward an Object or class of objects, including statements of beliefs and feelings about the object and approach-avoidance actions with respect to it." — mindividual's reacti atrial relevant to th tare fimctiomimg may rd. . . physiological attituc’e masmemmt s :lti-opemtimalism). ward foreign peoples me than one indicato helf—reports of b Perhaps the mos hives giving the s M those which he f himsihly these che Wield by the subje W attimdes as well Masswrptions b3 ”Wives (Bushman a: Wartime subject: findiectives on the I Walters, 1969).?” MM ratings, sug \ WEEK“) Katz ar hm,“ home mu , of other Stt hush, pp. M) e 2‘! v' Kirby and GaJ ’ eluding Wall 23 the individual's reactions to or interpretations of partially structured material relevant to the object; . . . performance on objective tasks where functioning may be influenced by disposition toward the object; and . . . physiological reactions to the object." They suggest that attitude measurement should utilize a multiple indicator approach (£3. , multi-operationalism) . By this criterion most studies of attitudes toward foreign pe0ples and similar groups are weak, because few use more than one indicator of attitude and very few use indicators other than self-reports of beliefs and feelings. Perhaps the most common approach to measuring images of nations involves giving the subject a list of adjectives and asking him to check those which he feels describe a given nation or ethnic group.23 Ostensibly these checklists are designed to reveal beliefs or stereo- types held by the subjects, but often they are used to make inferences about attitudes as well. Sometimes such inferences have depended on a priori assumptions by the researcher about the favorability of the adjectives (Buchanan and Cantril, 1953; Reigrotski and Anderson, 1959); at other times subjects have been asked to judge the favorableness of the adjectives on the list (Vinacke, 1956; Abate, 1969; Karlins, Coffman, and Walters, 1969).2hr Subjects have sometimes objected to making the Checklist ratings, suggesting that results attained by this method may 23315., Katz and Braly (19W), Gilbert (1951), Prothro (1959a), Barton and Byonne (1947), Berreman (1958), Diab (1952), Rabisl'ka(1970). For lists of other studies using this approach, see Lambert and Kline— berg (1957, pp. L5) and Ehrlich and Rinehart (1955). , 2|+1 iiiboth at the Dale ifir'standimg of inft 28 Beliefs, however, can neither be measured directly nor manipu- lated. It is important, therefore, to consider the relationship of subjective information to available information, the statements about the nation-obj ect to which the individual is exposed (or to which he could easily choose to expose himself). Available information can be measured independently of the nation—attitude, and thus it is possible to ask (whether increased exposure to such information relates to nation— attitudes. Ideally it would be possible to relate attitudes toward foreign countries to exposure to particular items of information about the countries. In practice this is rarely possible. The number of messages involved in field studies is often too great to allow detailed descrip— tion of the information to which a person is exposed. Often gross indices of exposure to information, such as number of years abroad or amount of formal education, must be used to try to understand why dif— ferent people have different international attitudes. In the laboratory it is often possible to see to it that subjects are exposed to particular information, though there is still little control, other than random assignment, of differences in information attained prior to the experi— ment. Individuals exposed to a message about another country will Of course differ from each other in their retention and understanding Of the message content. To understand the relationship between exposure to information, and attitudes toward other nations, it is necessary to look both at the relationship between exposure to and retention and understanding of information about other nations, and at the relationship income to particular Anew may :1 yet not believe it rating that most Russ hforuatim test base this point) little in hinfomation dram belief (of what the ' Ensues of knowledge Waller kinds of ii \ ,1 261mm (1955 illified easily bee it Nettler (1915) ("filtration on of uttemat a "(m iii? Peeple may 29 between attitudes toward, and retention and understanding of infome- ‘tion about, other nations. Additionally, the individual's recall of information is, in some cases, the only indication available of his exposure to particular messages. A person may remember and understand the content of a message and yet not believe it to be true. If a subject who has read a message stating that most Russians like Americans still believes otherwise, an information test based on the message is likely to say that he has (on this point) little information when in fact he may be relatively high in information drawn from other sources. Unfortunately, measures of belief (of what the individual can state about the nation—object) and measures of knowledge (of what the individual can state "correctly") are not always clearly distinguished in existing research on attitudes toward foreign nations}26 We must also, therefore, look at belief statements about other countries as possible indications of exposure to particular kinds of information.27 26Fagen (1966, p. 75) says that most political images cannot be classified easily because they are mixtures of information and evalua— tion. Nettler (1946) says that a given item may be seen as a measure Of information or of attitude depending on whether the instruct ions indicate that a "correct“ answer or an opinion is sought, but often different people may disagree on whether a question is one of fact or opinion. . 27The importance of measuring acceptance, as well as reception, lS emphasized by fishbein and Ajzen (1972, p. 520): "It has been argued . . . that to be effective a message must, at a minimum be attended to and comprehended. However, a subject's reception of sup— portive beliefs is no guarantee that he has accepted them, and it is his acceptance of these supportive beliefs, and not his reception of them, that is assumed to influence persuasion. Similarly, although a Silbject may be unable to recognize or recall a given supportive belief, he may nevertheless accept it. Further, the message may have indirect aim presumed to messages known to (3} retention and co (1) se1f~pemeived km to an individual will hut the nation-obj e iasheard, the result here in between. In if is assured that wh Exposed is accurate c infDuration influence it to make this assm IBalities of other he \— °ff§cts on beliefs nr @1615] not be new aintended as 'erm' tux 'leaming' or . Wale. Therefo mil persuasion and ”Bonding <1 , images with Mm effect . . 30 In looking at exposure to information, therefore, it is useful to consider the following kinds of variables as relevant to understand— ing a person's information about other countries: (1) exposure to sources presumed to carry information about other countries, (2) exposure to messages lmown to contain particular information about other countries, (3) retention and comprehension of information about other countries, (*4) self-perceived knowledge about other countries, and (5) acceptance of statements about other countries as true. The actual reality of a given nation makes up a third level of the concept information. Just as subjective information does not cor— reSpond perfectly with available information, the information available to an individual will not correspond perfectly with factual information about the nation—obj ect. If the individual chooses to believe what he has heard, the resulting beliefs may be either true or false or some— where in between. In Chapters II and III of the present study, however, it is assumed that whether the information to which an individual is exposed is accurate or inaccurate is irrelevant to the process by which information influences (or is influenced by) his attitudes toward nations. Not to make this assumption would require an investigation of the realities of other nations and pecples, not an easy task.28 In this effects on beliefs not contained in the message, and these effects would Obviously not be revealed by any reception test where such beliefs would be regarded as 'errors.‘ . . . It is often impossible to tell whether a glven '1earning' or 'reception' test is a measure of reception or of acceptance. Therefore such tests may or may not be found to correlate With persuasion and the results appear to be inconsistent.” 28Boulding (1956, pp. 16Llff) argues that it is worthwhile to Compare images with other images rather than with ”truth," ”. . . pm- POSing in effect . . . to make a science out of knowledge by the deft i'uussin, if an indi‘ to rot like Indians, «L helevant. Tierearetwoe telelevanithat an ' is: of mother natio information may be t utim about nations, but serving as a The other exce ndtheir peoples are people) are neither w Wholly primitive. osmever be fully d W by an observer. In reviewing t mmtions and pec information which an \.__ FMihmion of some "Madge, namely th 29A similar < 219188 that the exp; Mledge-by—repor @165 but only as Meme, on the We a very differe- 3‘335 that much cc diluted, cmtrivec‘ imam (1951, p. 1 Wm With the st 3]. discussion, if an individual who believes that all Indians are Moslems does not like Indians, the fact that most Indians are not Moslems is irrelevant. There are two exceptions to the above assumption. First, it may be relevant that an individual does not share a consensually accepted view of another nation. Lack of Jmowledge of basic, noncontroversial information may be taken as an indication of lack of exposure to infor— mation about nations, or it may indicate that the group with consensus is not serving as a reference group for the individual. The other exception does involve an assumption about what nations and their peoples are really like. It is assumed that a nation (and a pecple) are neither wholly good nor wholly bad, neither wholly modern nor wholly primitive . Nations and peoples are complex stimuli which can never be fully described in words nor ever be fully known and under— stood by an observer. In reviewing the effects of information on attitudes toward other nations and peoples a distinction will be made between sources of information which are direct and those which are mediated.29 An substitution of something that is not what the philosopher means by knowledge, namely the image, for the real thing." 2‘gA similar distinction is made by Cherry (1971, pp. 8—10), who argues that the expanding network of world communication provides mainly "knowledge—by-reporting" which encourages us to think about foreign peoples but only as abstracts, classes, types, or "things." Shared experience, on the other hand, is "lmowledge—by—encounter,” likely to have a very different effect on attitudes. Boorstin (1961, p. 79ff), ergues that much communication (and travel) today exposes us only to 'dlluted, contrived, prefabricated . . . pseudo—events." Sherif and Hovland (1961, p. 199) distinguish learning which draws on extensive contact with the stimulus and learning which instead “is based largely idividul receives in btntels to that con s‘es gaunlizations . tassel experimees an the other coun than individuals, an haunts and general' times some of the h‘onutim are frequ This distincti always cleamut. A Yd give one firsthan Pm may relay his jflirtation). An art mithas passed thm M“Illumination mediz ”Elli-Sims from the . We other country i We this distinct feign travel are of hfmatim from schc ”'5 Peers. \ Ege$ricd verbs mag 13 more preva 32 individual receives information about another country directly when he travels to that country or talks with pecple from that country and makes generalizations and judgments about the country based on his personal experiences and contacts . Mediated information is information about the other country which is communicated to the individual by other individuals, and it includes, implicitly, or explicity, the judgments and generalizations of these other pecple. Chapter IV discusses some of the ways in which both mediated and direct available information are frequently discrepant from factual information. This distinction between direct and mediated information is not always clearcut . A conversation with a national of another country may give one firsthand (direct) information, and at the same time that person may relay his opinions about what his nation is like (mediated information). An article about another country may present information that has passed through and been modified and selected by a long string of communication mediators, yet the reader may draw his own personal conclusions from the article just as he would from observing an event in the other country himself. Despite such ambiguities, it is useful to make this distinction, because the influences of direct contact like foreign travel are often very different from the influences of mediated information from schools, mass media, leaders of one‘s own nation, and one' s peers . on categorical verbal formulations by others” and conclude that stereo— thg is more prevalent in the latter case. It should not i issuelnv better than fusible attitudes tc ansetofbiases, w hustle attitudes. idiberate and inadv often more likely to limited sanple of pla Heels. It is true, sense of the word inf tome senses than a uneventhe mediators irrelevant details This chapter h ti”itudes and images “Wm Of, and act P339198- This disse] relatimahips between After an exta has concluded the M is in order 3‘53 of nations a1 fisfmorily relat iifltemxatimai as 33 It should not be assumed at this point that direct information is somehow better than mediated exposure, or that it results in more favorable attitudes toward foreigners. Each type of source has its own set of biases, which may in particular cases work toward or against favorable attitudes . Where mediated commmmication depends on the deliberate and inadvertent biases of the mediators , direct contact is often more likely to be biased by the inexperience of the traveler, the limited sample of places and pecple he meets, and his own morale as he travels. It is true, however, that in a strict, information—theory sense of the word information, direct exposure presents more information to more senses than a comparable exposure to mediated messages can; however, the mediators may well have served to eliminate redundant and irrelevant details from the message. 13. Overview of the Present Study This chapter has discussed two broad classes of variables, (1) attitudes and images of other nations and peoples and (2) exposure to, reception of , and acceptance of information about other nations and pecples. This dissertation is intended to be an exploration of the relationships between these two classes of variables. After an extensive review of literature on such relationships, it was concluded that an attempt to synthesize and evaluate existing research is in order. A variety of empirical findings relevant to images of nations are available, but these findings have not been satisfactorily related to each other. Our knowledge of the correlates 0f international attitudes is limited by the limited variety of samples mdxidrfindm' gs are the involved, by th . have not been studied - sitivariate analyses “ nemesemc study is 7“ ismtlvm, and wha The review of ' nirioal studies of l utimhwe tovard ration These studie belated to attitu soared to be relev lilimdes, an additi whelates of these “Vial Was made of st its as attitudes tr mmpld'mfllded att: he mm, of helical makes a i'l mm of 31+ on which findings are based, by inadequate measurement of the vari— ables involved, by the fact that many possibly influential variables have not been studied under controlled conditions, and by the lack of multivariate analyses of factors related to international attitudes. The present study is intended to help make clear what is known, what is not known, and what needs to be known. The review of literature has been directed mainly toward empirical studies of the images and attitudes which pecple in one nation have toward another nation or toward the people of another nation. These studies involved a variety of variables which appear to be related to attitudes toward other nations . Where such variables appeared to be relevant to the relationship between information and attitudes, an additional review was made of literature dealing with the correlates of these variables . In addition, a somewhat less thorough review was made of studies involving predictors of such similar vari- ables as attitudes toward ethnic groups within nations, internationalist and world-minded attitudes, and attitudes toward foreign policy. The review of literature involved a systematic search of various periodical indices and abstracts for the period from 1965 through 1972,30 a similar search of all issues of certain journals for the same period,31 M.“— 30Including Psychological Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, {gage Research Abstracts Journal, The ABS Guide to Recent Publications 3; the Social and Behavioral Sciences, The Annual Feview of Psychology“, wnt Sociology, The International Bibliography of Sociology, Inter— flgicgmal Political Science Abstracts, and Dissertation Abstractsmr- flgfgmal RetroSpective Index. “" allncluding Journal of Social Issues, Journal of Peace Research, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Journal of Social Psychology, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Journal of International Affairs , 35 and a search through various bibliographies. 32 An attempt was made to read all relevant articles. From the works cited in the articles read, additional references were drawn, including references to material published before 1965, and these were read in turn. Certainly not all relevant material has been covered 3 inadequacies of indices and bibliographies , inadequacies of libraries , and an eventual need to stop "reading and start writing have all limited the review. It is believed, however, that this review is fairly complete and fairly representative . The results of the review of literature described above are presented in the form of a series of prepositions. Such prepositions are tentative statements of relationships, derived from existing _re_search on nation-images, drawn from analogy with data on other kinds 9f_images and orientations, or offered as tentative hypotheses about untested relationships.33 Together they form a tentative mdel of the figugnal of Comication, Canadian Journal of Psychology, Public Opinion Quarterly, Journalism Quarterly, and Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog . 32Including Mowlana (1971), Gray, Gray, and Gregory (1968), Tumin and Anderson (1972), Angell (1966), Smith, Lasswell, and Casey (19%), Smith and Smith (1956), International Sociological Association (1957), Breitenbach (1970). 33For a general discussion of the propositional approach, see Reindl (1970, pp. 67—75). In general, the prepositions presented in the present study were derived from existing research findings in the following way: (l) the relevant variables measured in the studies reviewed were iden— tified; (2) measures in these studies of relationships between two or Here variables were identified; (3) all results pertaining to the rela— tronships between given sets of variables were drawn together and com— pared; (Ll) propositions were derived which expressed the dominant Pattern of the data pertaining to particular relationships. f pecples, and in part L _; mime and nation— '7 summarize and synthe Myhas drtwn gen i. ‘ factas which shape I of, information anon ‘ issue (fl, Bri the preemt work. ‘ W1363de the o lied to begin the bNoted that each I m (Other thing t] Wes will have 111 n £thpr dew mates in 36 factors which shape the attitudes held toward foreign nations and their peoples, and in particular of the place of exposure to, and acquisition of, information among such factors. Many different research findings exist which pertain, directly or indirectly, to the relationship between information about foreign nations and nation—attitudes . Though some attempts have been made to summarize and synthesize findings relating to particular aspects of the issue (_e_;_g_., Brigham, 1971; Merritt, 1972; Amir, 1969), no previous study has drawn generalizations from the range of studies reviewed in the present work . The propositional inventory is not a theory of informational effects on nation-attitudes. It is, instead, an attempt to form from existing research findings, some of the building blocks which can be used to begin the construction of a theory. In particular, it should be noted that each proposition is to be understood to have a ceteris paribus (other things being equal) assumption, as if the relationship described by each preposition were independent of the relationships described by the other propositions. An effective theory of nation— attitudes Will have to explain the complex way in which the particular relationships described by these propositions are interwoven in a multi— variate system. The present study can be thought of as an investigation of a Simple model whereby factual information influences available infor— mation, available information influences subjective information, and subjeetive information influences attitudes (Figure 1). beliefs (the subject teir attitudes tow flirtation of the 8 nomination of the prelude to investig Chapter III Ration available to “femurs to info “W, and looks a tan Will accept t Gtapter IV 1c him by lng moss m I 37 +| Subjective J+ + Available Information Factual Information Information N ation— Attitude Figure l. A Simple Paradigm for the Present Study Chapter II examines the relationship between the perceptions or beliefs (the subjective information) people hold of other nations and their attitudes toward these nations. In a sense, it is a further examination of the structure of the dependent variable, but such a consideration of the place of subjective information is a necessary prelude to investigation of the effects of external messages. Chapter III considers the reSponses a person makes to the infor- mation available to him about other nations. It considers the effects of exposure to information from several sources, including direct contact, and looks at the processes which determine whether the indi— vidual will accept the information to which he is exposed. Chapter IV looks briefly at the chances of an individual in one nation being exposed to accurate information about other countries. Thus, in reverse order, the present study asks, what kind of informa— tion about other countries is a person likely to be eXposed to; how likely is it that he will accept the information he is exposed to; if he does accept it, is this acceptance likely to change his attitudes; and just what are nation—attitudes anyway? Finally, Chapter V provides a summary of the propositions pre— sented in the earlier chapters and discusses the implications of the Study for researchers concerned with a theory of nation—attitudes. V lapping variables of nations. (hapters I to an an individu believing that info ‘ readied him and that it asks hon such b The variance ficzlar nation may h tunes in their a ‘ mince within indi {find of interaction: isflith sources of V of different nations toItlate nost 0106‘ j; M: attitudes ti - We it provides CHAPTER II RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES This chapter suggests and discusses the evidence for a number of prOpositions about the relationships between the somewhat over— lapping variables of cogiitions , evaluations, and affect toward other nations. Chapters III and IV deal with the nature of the information to which an individual is exposed and with the likelihood of his believing that information. This chapter assumes that information has reached him and that he has formed beliefs about another nation, and it asks how such beliefs will relate to his attitude toward that nation. The variance in attitudes of different observers toward a par- ticular nation may be thought of as made up of variance across observers in their attitudes toward other nations in general and of variance within individuals between their views of specific nations (and of interactions between the two). The main concern of this study is with sources of variance within individual observers in their views of different nations, Since this is the variance that would be expected to relate most closely to information about other nations. The vari— ance in attitudes toward foreign nations in general is discussed first because it provides the background against which Specific nation 38 ' ;' associated with the . ole of general 1' spedfic nation effe l. The Tendency Strider, and P01 attihdes. Thus, Proposition attitude tow, related to if all other na It should be Still proportion of itpmposition is i referred to the 3itionsvliinhare1 m that social distan ‘ 'I'allmians" come ’ Mal countries . than that we 39 effects must be recognized and because of its possible interaction with specific nation effects. l A. The Tendency to Like or Dislike Foreign Nations in General Hartley (1946, p. 25) used the Bogardus Social Distance Scale to measure the attitudes of United States college students toward thirty— five nations and races. The split—half reliability of these data was +.95, indicating that the scores varied more with the judge than with the country being judged. This finding is consistent with the more general finding in person perception research that more variance is associated with the peroeiver than with the object peroeived (Hasdorf, Schneider, and Polefka, 1970, p. 13), and it indicates the important role of general liking or disliking of others in determining nation— attitudes . Thus , Proposition 2A1 — The favorability of an individual's attitude toward a given foreign nation is positively related to the mean favorability of his attitudes toward all other natEns. It should be understood that most people can name a relatively small prOportion of the nations that actually exist, but if anything, the proposition is more accurate in the form above than it would be if it referred to the mean of the individual's attitudes toward all other nations which are salient to him, as is shown by Hartley's finding that social distance to the nonexistent "Daniereans," ”Pireneans," and "Wallcnians" correlated from +.78 to +. 85 with mean social distance to the real countries. It is for nations particularly salient to the individual that we would expect the proposition above to have relatively ldtavior that "Peopl pejtdioed against 0 hlioaling a tenden ingetezel. For ins h1959 of a nation biases of attitude Occasionally, has (1958, p. 38 01‘ disliked both In iSIiked the other. likely to find othei lad differential eX] (lit?) found a posi' titmard Jens for h‘tet States unive 33ft salient for th hid be qualified Proposition ability of a and the near natio' ns W112 H0 little predictive value . Positive correlations between attitudes toward other groups have appeared often enough in studies of ethnic groups within countries that Berelson and Steiner (1961+) offer the generalization about human behavior that "PeOple prejudiced against one ethnic group tend to be prejudiced against others." Scott (1965, p. 72) cites various studies indicating a tendency either to like or to dislike foreign countries in general. For instance, a Canadian Institute of Public Opinion survey in 1959 of a national cross-section of Canadian adults found that favor— ableness of attitudes toward any one country on the list was positively correlated with favorableness of attitudes toward the rest of the countries listed (the countries were Germany, France, Italy, and Japan). Occasionally, however, exceptions have been found to this pattern. Isaacs (1958, p. 382) found that 39 percent of his sample either liked or disliked both India and China but that 61 percent liked one and disliked the other. But his elite sample was made up of men who were likely to find other countries particularly salient, many of whom had had differential experiences in India and China. Triandis and Triandis (1962) found a positive correlation between attitudes toward Negroes and toward Jews for data from Greek university students but not for United States university students . Again, the concepts may have been more salient for the latter group. It may be that Proposition 2A1 Should be qualified by the statements which follow: Proposition 2Al.l — The relationship between the favor— ability of an individual's attitude toward a given nation 95151 the mean favorability of his attitudes toward all other gations will be more strongly positive when the given nation ' itmm imageable. nation-images wh Mdency to react i the follwing propc Proposition attitudes t< Will be non fier natlol mfavorable ml... @ life. There are t L; 31$, it is possi ililies have a gen i”particular we ‘ ermt SOCii All is relatively non-salient to the individual than when it is not. Proposition 2A1. 2 — The relationship between the favor.— ability of an individualrs attitude toward a given nation and the mean favorability of his attitudes toward all other nations will be more strongly positive for individuals to whom foreign natidns in general are relatively non-salient . These sub—propositions are consistent with much research on thought processes in general. Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin (1962), for instance, argue that we use larger categories or equivalence classes in dealing with stimuli with which we are not especially concerned, thus reducing the complexity of our subjective environment and making it more manageable. But they have not been adequately tested in research on nation—images where salience, though it may occasionally be guessed at, has not usually been measured. There is some evidence that the tendency to react in the same way to other nations and ethnic groups may be part of a more general tendency to react in the same way to all people. This is expressed in the following proposition: Proposition 2A2 — Individuals who tend to have favorable attitudes toward people they deal with in everyday life will be more likely to have favorable attitudes toward other nations than will individuals who tend to have unfavorable attitudes toward pecple they deal with in every— day life. There are two kinds of theoretical support for this reasoning. First, it is possible that individuals with certain kinds of person— alities have a generalized need to treat those they classify as "others" in a particular way, and that the concept of "others" applies for them to different social levels. Second, it may be that assumptions about interracial Ielati ad being practiced ° timips when the ' 2 hesemnd of these Some evidence Otistiansm (1959, i Wheat-oriented _ relative-outward ' that this elassifi ' their attitudes tan = hatGhdstone (195 ration is associat fithe Jhtemation We." He also r States college stud hfimbeazs some a ‘ Plheated for indiv Researdi on film speeificatior meditations. 0r , Whtims of him Wes of attitut 5‘98 not apply to 1 31118 of interpen 1+2 interpersonal relationships , being learned relatively early in life and being practiced frequently, are generalized to international rela— tionships when the individual is confronted with them later in life. The second of these theoretical positions will be discussed first. Some evidence for this "generalization hypothesis" comes from Christiansen (1959, pp. 23—24, 127), who states it as the hypothesis that a person's reactions to international situations will parallel his reactions to everyday situations. He classified Norwegian cadets as threat—oriented or problem—oriented and as passive, active-inward, or active-outward in their reactions to everyday situations and found that this classification explained a moderate amount of the variance in their attitudes toward international affairs. Scott (1965) reports that Gladstone (1955) "found that a belligerent orientation toward nations is associated with interpersonal belligerence, while pacificism at the international level tends to go with nonviolent attitudes toward people." He also reports that Scott (1960) found that with United States college students "the kind of foreign policy advocated for one's nation bears some correspondence to the kind of interpersonal relations advocated for individual humans." Research on the generalization hypothesis is not adequate to allow specification of when it is most likely to predict attitudes toward nations . One problem is that these studies have emphasized evaluations of kinds of international behavior rather than conventional measures of attitudes toward nations . It may be that generalization does not apply to both. Another problem is that it oversimplifies the nature of interpersonal behavior. In learning interpersonal behavior individuals learn to people. In studying possible to see if t nations that exist i inane, find out i interpersonal orient international orient The approach he generalization l research. LeVine (1 Will take place and effect will occur: . It fuming n 0f effe< bounded gimp is tion won Viewed a would b1 deehani: Ingroup equval. structu- it of fpimds and kid differ in the its. Tentatively ) no the follming 43 individuals learn to respond differently to different categories of people. In studying the generalization hypothesis it should be possible to see if the same differences exist in attitudes to foreign nations that exist in attitudes to other people. We might, for instance, find out if the individual has We—They distinctions in his interpersonal orientations that parallel similar distinctions in his international orientations . The approach suggested in the preceding paragraph might give the generalization hypothesis greater generality for cross—national research. LeVine (1965, p. 50) suggested that sometimes generalization will take place and at other times a displacement or complementarity effect will occur: . It may well be that the critical factor deter- mining whether a generalization or displacement type of effect Operates is a concept of dissimilarity or boundedness with the outgroup in question. If the group is viewed as similar to the ingroup, generaliza- tion would be expected to operate, whereas if it is viewed as dissimilar, then a diSplacement expectation would be reasonable. Thus the choice of behavior mechanisms would hinge on the stimulus equivalence of ingroup and outgroup for ingroup members. The stimulus equivalence is established or prevented by the social structure of the group. Traditional and modern societies differ in their definition and treat— ment of friends and strangers within the society, and presumably they would differ in the way they generalized these habits to intersocietal images. Tentatively, then, it migmt be well to break Proposition 2A2 into the following two subpropositions: PmWSitiOn 21 between in 1 socretal 1913 W Proposition 2. an indiVidual m Concepts like to the sociologist , in real situat ions . than of an intrasc in such a case predi it only if the sitt n be salient.l This problem if fldgdt and Wei]. . . . ll are by 2 the chi ment in dram i 0n the and aft must 113 or bma uh Proposition 2A2 .l - Individuals who emphasize a distinction between ingroups and outgroups in interpersonal and intra— SOCietal relations will be more likely than other individuals to emphasize a distinction between ingroups and outgroups in their attitudes toward nations. PrOposition 2A2.2 — The evaluative and descriptive distinctions an individual makes in his judgments of nations will be similar to those he makes in his judgments of individuals and groups within his society. Concepts like intrasocietal and intersocietal may be meaningful to the sociologist, but the distinction they imply is not always clear in real situations. A person may be to a given individual both a member of an intrasocietal outgroup and of an intersocietal ingroup. In such a case predictions from the preceding propositions will be use— ful only if the situation clearly indicates which kind of interaction will be salient:L This problem becomes apparent in the discussion of ”decentration" by Piaget and Weil (1951): . The feeling and the very idea of the homeland are by no means the first or even early elements in the child's makeup, but are a relatively late deveIOp— ment in the normal child, who does not appear to be drawn inevitably towards patriotic sociocentricity. On the contrary, before he attains to a cognitive and affective awareness of his own country, the child must make a considerable effort towards "decentration" or broadening his centres of interest (town, canton, . . lOne situational factor that may influence salience of nationality ls interaction with people of other nationalities. Thus Bochner and Perks (1971) found that Asian and Australian students were more likely to mention nationality in describing a person they had interacted with if he was not of their own nationality than if he was. Bruner and Perhnutter (1957) found students from the United States, Germany, and France were more likely to mention nationality in describing a person if h? was not of their nationality and if he was being described at the same tlme as other people of other nationalities . etc.) a (with S of WhiC points with wh tricity SUPPOSi jnfluen the Chi influen that iII gratior CIDP “I honest If the individual n nations is the one etnocentrism, it n usable his attitt The other k5 152.2 comes from m Si nocentrisn, isqi Adetailed s «3' demo Stig- (: 373% The result Sipithtiacomg mistihfliémian Siren" (Roi draw pith tend to COVd Sbrighten disci MI behavior; ( Getty to See th #5 etc.) and towards integration of his own impressions (with surroundings other than his own) in the course of which he acquires an understanding of countries and points of view different from his own. The readiness with which the various forms of nationalist sociocen- tricity later emerge can only be accounted for by supposing, either that at some stage there emerge influences extraneous to the trends noticeable during the child's development (but then why are these influences accepted?) , or else that the same obstacles that impede the process of "decentration" and inte— gration (once the idea of the homeland takes shape) crop up again at all levels and constitute the com— monest cause of disturbances and tensions. If the individual who has relatively unfavorable attitudes toward other nations is the one whose decentration has not gone beyond the level of ethnocentrism, it would not be expected that his nation—~attitudes would resemble his attitudes toward other pecples within his nation. The other kind of support for Propositions 2A2, 2A2.l, and 2A2.2 comes from research on such related variables wflngritarganrgm, ethgocentrism,“ isolationislnyman'd___world-m}indedness . A detailed summary of the history and methodology of the research by Adorno e_t___a_l_. (1950) and others is beyond the scope of the present study. The result of the research is a considerable body of data demon— stratinaihaccwgaggewgfla...yariety of variables in what has been called " .aiithggi’t‘arwiannpersonality:(Adorno ‘_e;t__a}_., I950), "closed-mindedness" or lldogmti§mn (Rokeach, 1950 [2.811 _"a SUPQWPdinate conceptual dimension" —M_.1~.-WKAM fl'h“ “. \\ a. .--- -—- ~__ ~,_ \_ ' __..—- s -. .—-. of "concreteness—abstractness" (Harvey, 1967). Some of the variables Which tend to covaryinthis syndrome are: (l) dnildhood training empha- sizing harsh discipline and authority, with parental love contingent on "good" behavior; (2) power~orientation in personal relationships, and a tendency to see the world divided into the weak and the strong; (3) malice on stat anemia move the aggressivene height into own t ntler than self an ability to take th idiot; suspicion ndiffexentiated c insistency, into] There is a rust of it comes : hither than towan W N... 2This list Mines of autln tannin, p. 22) Fertilization CE Wiser and Flame iiiPerlnutter (I 55M continuous dihritarian poi improperly er“- tneextrenes rat] Edge of the var. L16 dependence on status and authority-related cues, tendency to align with authoritarian movements , conformity with authority; (1+) a tendency to value aggressiveness, ambitiousness, and conservatism; (5) lack of insight into own thinking, self—dislike, tendency to blame others rather than self and to project bad qualities onto others, and poor ability to take the role of the other; (6) fear of punishment and retal- iation; suspicion of others; insecurity; (7) relatively simple and undifferentiated cognitive structure, categorical thinking, need for consistency, intolerance of ambiguity, and tendency to see things in terms of good and bad; and (8) rigidity of thinking, inability to change mental set, insensitivity to subtle cues, stereotypy.2 Proposition 2A3 - Individuals who are relatively high in authoritarianism (or closed—mindedness or concreteness) are likely to have relatively unfavorable attitudes toward foreign nations. There is a lot of support for this general proposition, although most of it comes from studies of prejudice toward domestic ethnic groups rather than toward pecples of other nations. In fact , the nest frequently WithSflnihguffsg;e9 evolved 0ch Of earlier M 2This list is derived from Harvey (1967, p. 206) and from the summaries of authoritarian personality findings in Allport (1951) and Bem (1970, p. 22). See also Berelson and Steiner (1964, Chapter 12, generalization C6) . Values for aggressiveness, 631:3. , were reported by Saenger and Flowerman (1951+) . Self—dislike was reported by Brodbeck and Perlmutter (195”) . It should be emphasized that we are talking about continuous variables even though our listing names the relatively authoritarian poles of these variables. The research in this area has been properly criticized for talking in terms of differences between the extremes rather than emphasizing the covariance across the full range of the variables. ' an and been, 195 pip designed to n is relevant researc . . spin (lesigped to n unnef'renste \a ride in of two oompr isn(for the United dole scale oorrelar +.61with ethnooent hsn Farris (1960 Ernie and authorit dualitar'ianism) co M with Russia a f0nd that when rel astirs it was like itions for the Uni “fish correlated r \. | 3Much of th final scientists ‘ , “maritime comp ”111d have happene ffifis CQIIIEDdabl ] heSeen as a "syné 3:7; Wales of anti iii-i “hive oumotati 47 files designed to measure anti—semitism and ethnocentrism.3 Some of . . .. ~M ~u‘Fr‘1V‘.-m‘ «m... “g _‘, ”Wm-Lam? .. . . .. . ”~Wu—r w¢3mgbml-’E‘f‘-‘ 4‘ w- the relevant research is summarized in the following paragraphs. Puthoritarianismhasmbeenlfiomdwfiq helne gati—vely., related to scales desiagricreasgrej{worlgemindemessfl (Sampson and Smith, 1957, Smithnand Rosen, 1958).,and1,.F.[internationalism" (Levinson, 1957; Fenster— wal‘dpilSvS-B”)? fensterwald's scale of isolationism—internationalism was made up of two components, westward expansionism and eastward isolation— ism (for the United States) which correlated with each other +.7l. The whole scale correlated +.6Ll with authoritarianism, +.65 with patriotism, +.61 with ethnocentrism, and +.’+L+ with political and economic conserva— tism. Farris (1960), studying adult whites in Alabama, found that anomie and authoritarianism were correlated positively with jingoism and with expectations of war. MacKinnon and Centers (1956), in a survey of Los Angeles County, found that a scale of authoritarianism (_V_S_. equalitarianism) correlated negatively with favorable attitudes toward trade with Russia and toward teaching about Russia in the schools, and found that when relatively authoritarian individuals did favor these actions it was likely to be because they thought they would be advan— tageous for the United States. Terhune (l96u, 1965) found that dog—- matism correlated with nationalism +.Lt8 for foreign students and +. 13 3Much of the research on authoritarianism has been done by social scientists with a strong dislike of prejudice (and a high value for cognitive complexity) . It is interesting to speculate about what would have happened if researchers on authoritarianism had been free Of this commendab le bias . Perhaps extreme open—mindedness would also be seen as a "syndrome" and perhaps the terms used to describe the correlates of authoritarianism would not bear such consistently negative connotations . ‘ afloritaianism sy :‘ utluritatianism ar ,. States involvement for Pelican studer liz, was), found wt." Sherman (19' ludlasu and Ares fund a oomelatior alility of attitude college students “mt mly in descr ilarian respondent: instile comotatim ufloritarianism i' Wility is inpli \ ’i . | In sumam 51179131 we the aut ilhave used names it!!! generally kI ate for "authorit ,. “View of 00an 515 the case wit j'lfliptims of t} ‘3 flusitive attitut silty, for insv 1‘ .v; E, T ”s. Floating a de: stuns 1+8 for American students at Michigan State University. Bay gill. (cited in Katz, 1965), found that "power—oriented nationalism is related to the i authoritarianism syndrome, whereas a people—oriented nationalism is not." Sherman (1973) found a moderate positive relationship between authoritarianism and hawkish (as Opposed to dovish) views on United States involvement in Vietnam held by United States college students. And Basu and Ames (1970), studying Indian students in Los Angeles, found a correlation of -. 75 between the F—scale and a scale of favor— ability of attitudes toward the United States.” The pattern is not, however, a simple one of authoritarians having good feelings toward their own country and bad feelings toward outsiders. Saenger and Flowerman (1951+), for instance, had United States college students assign adjectives to different~ groups and found that "not only in describing Jews, but also in describing Americans, author— itarian respondents markedly prefer words with a decidedly negative hostile connotation. . . ." This finding may reflect the fact that authoritarianism involves a generalized hostility toward others. Such hostility is implied by these two subpropositions: LlIn summarizing most of these findings it has been necessary to Simply use the authors' names for the variables involved, trusting them to have used names that accurately describe the scales which were used. Where generally known conceptualizations and measures exist, as is the case for "authoritarianism," the problem is minimized, but where a Variety of contradictory conceptualizat ions are competing for attention, as is the case with "internationalism," it would be preferable to have descriptions of the scales used. (An ”internationalism" representing a positive attitude toward transcending and de—emphasizing national identity, for instance, is very different from an "internationalism" I”epr‘esenting a des ire for increased interaction between sovereign nations.) ‘2' sanity" is relate '_ rpects of his own I nihis anxiety an to the British of attitudes have beer to their satisfact v, (1956) found negat mud worth and " Preach (1955) f Men. And Far] When war with I factory outlook for Bettelheim ”Elms, found th ‘ “938883:in those 1Jilly to direct p iii frustration a it '1' 4'. ..- _ McClosky (1 .- 3:ates dining the all“new aggressj 49 Proposition 2A3.l — Individuals who tend to dislike them- selves will tend to have relatively unfavorable attitudes to foréign nations . Proposition 2A3. 2 - Individuals who tend not to trust other people and who are pessimistic about human nature will tend to have relatively unfavorable attitudes to foreign nations . Scott (1965) summarizes studies showing that a "sense of personal security" is related to positive images of other countries. Positive attitudes have been found related to the individual's satisfaction with aspects of his own life, his optimism about personal and national events, and his anxiety and fear of dangers. Thus Kosa (1957) found attitudes to the British of Hungarian immigrants in Canada were positively related to their satisfaction with their life in Canada. Spilka and Struening (1956) found negative correlations between ethnocentrism and sense of personal worth and total self—adjustment. Srole (1956) and Roberts and Rokeach (1956) found positive correlations between anomie and ethno— centrism. And Farber (1951) found that students advocating an immediate showdown war with Russia were relatively unlikely to report a satis— factory outlook for their personal lives. Bettelheim and Janowitz (1950) , in interviews with World War II veterans, found that those who felt they had had bad breaks (but not necessarily those who had actually had bad breaks) were relatively likely to direct prejudice toward Jews and Negroes, also suggesting that frustration and insecurity are related to aggression and hostility. McClosky (1967), in data from three surveys taken in the United States during the 1950's, found isolationism related to paranoia, mis- anthropy, aggressiveness, anxiety and guilt, to relatively little faith otterthinldng, e outmtr'fl (1968, ‘ aopposed to isol and are relatively 5 errelated positiv " ‘ morthreat and n ' mder’dueat. Chr hypothesis“ the i eds desire for mid manifest 15h In the lid] Penna (195th) Pflexplanation is illlixerophobia and it authority, with Weigh group and - Mutter neasun , ifitter wives than :- \_ ~.-‘ “ 5virus. (1 Milly on all ! 50 in democracy, and rejection of one's own institutions, as well as to psychological inflexibility, extreme beliefs, dichotomous brother— other thinking, ethnocentrism, antisemitism, and segregationism. Free and Cantril (1968, p. 68—69) report data Showing that internationalists, as opposed to isolationists, have relatively more trust in human beings and are relatively likely to believe that human nature is basically good. Presumably pessimistic views are threatening to the individual. Gladstone and Taylor (1958) found that a tendency to feel threatened correlated positively with belligerence in general and belligerence under threat and negatively with pacification in general and pacification under threat. Christiansen (1959, p. 56) states as the "insecurity hypothesis" the idea that personal insecurity may lead to aggressiveness and a desire for a showdown. It would seem likely that such attitudes would manifest themselves in unfavorable evaluations of other nations.5 In the light of Proposition 2A3 it may seem surprising that Perlmutter (1954b) found a positive correlation between authoritarianism and xenophilia, a term which would normally refer to love of foreigners. An explanation is offered by Frank (1968), vino suggests that the opposites ,of xenophobia and xenophilia are alike in that both represent hostility Eiito authority, with the xenophobe displacing his aggression toward a foreign group and the xenOphile hostile to his own leaders. Thus when Perlmlrtter measures xenophilia with items like "Most European girls make ' better wives than American girls," the subject hostile to Americans, as 5Willis (1968) found that isolationists tended to respond less favorably on all evaluative concepts toward a group of nations. tell as the subject lots although xenot (h Europe, at leas hericans, self-dis ad a tendency to s hodbeck and Palm Gardner, W01 as of English-Cane first acceptance of he of French-Cam huts to the cone. 1Celine on the fee is highest loadjn ithoritarianism i lather than Islet e “I. ,5th Siemotypes 51 . Well as the subject who likes Europeans, is classified as a xenophile. Thus although xenophilia is associated with a willingness to live abroad (in Europe, at least), it is also associated with hostility to typical Americans , self—dislike (a higher correlation than with authoritarianism), and a tendency to stereotype Americans and Europeans (Perlmutter, 1956; '- Brodbeck and Perlmutter, 1954) .6 if Gardner, Wonnacott, and Taylor (1968) factor—analyzed the respon— ses of English-Canadians to the concept "French—Canadians." They found that acceptance of a set of widely shared descriptive terms——the stereo— type of French-Canadians—-was not related to the ascripticn of evaluative traits to the concept. 7 A measure of ethnocentrism had its highest loading on the factor with the evaluative traits , but the F-scale had its highest loading (+ . 29) on the stereotype factor, suggesting that authoritarianism is related to acceptance of a prevailing stereotype rather than related directly to unfavorable evaluation of other groups . (Many stereotypes do include negative traits , and thus authoritarianism 6Because of the correlation between authoritarianism and xeno- philia, these findings describe the majority of United States xenOphiles who are relatively high in authoritarianism. Perlmutter (1957) suggests that there are also xenophiles low in authoritarianism, perhaps rela— tively common in developing countries, whose interest in other countries mflects an alienation from their own culture and a search for self rather than a reaction against domestic authority figures. Perlmutter (1954a) found that United States students who gave themselves no negative traits in self-descriptions were less likely to eXpress a desire to travel to Europe than those who assigned at least one negative trait to themselves . 7This discussion refers to the two factors which accounted for the_largest amount of variance. Other factors were found involving traits which were both evaluative and consensual. vould in my 51m amides.) These orthontarianism an id stereotypes var Variables of to other aspects femtiated cogniti annoy, intolerar. of good and bad, ri insensitivity to 3 rated to descril ICZElgn nations, or item nations mat 52 would in many situations indirectly relate to acceptance of unfavorable attitudes .) These findings suggest that the relationship between authoritarianism and attitudes toward other nations will vary, as norms and stereotypes vary, from situation to situation. Variables of cognitive style and cognitive structure associated with other aSpects of the authoritarian personality are simple and undif— ferentiated cognitive structure, categorical thinking, need for con— sistency, intolerance of ambiguity, a tendency to see things in terms of good and bad, rigidity of thinking, inability to change mental set, insensitivity to subtle cues, and stereotypy. These variables may 133“} I I expected to describe the way an individual organizes his thoughts about {I} foreign nations, and the way an individual organizes his thoughts about; 1 foreign nations may be expected to relate to his attitudes toward them" Proposition 2A3. 3 — Individuals who are relatively low in authoritarianism (or closed—mindedness or concreteness) are lflIIIIrIlmnist and neutral on development, and (3) developed and anticommunist. The third cluster was subdivided by the third factor into those with and Without Spanish cultural influence. Japan was seen as similar to the United States by the more educated and as similar to the communist 8An exception to this neglect: is Stephenson (1967, £31 12:12:35, 160‘157). His Q—sort indicated, among other things, that as females respond to other nations differently. However his samplewas too small (n=9) to do much more than suggest directions for additional research. anticommunist fa development and S additional factor suple the four tinotions were ma rot fall into any sanple listed his United States, on Similarity are writmsted wi n"'PItSentimg eig} 1911) and Wish, 1 , he asked to as tint scale. Th. the (l) politi m-less illport W5 Eastern). We Vim-am < “I“ by Politic; mil relatively 60 reuions by the less educated reSpondents. For the academic sample, Robinson and Hefner found similar factors explained judgments of similarity; however, the communist— emmicommunist factor was third in importance, following economic vaelopment and Spanish influence, and there was some evidence fOr an emkfitional factor distinguishing African and Asian culture. For this swmfle the four clusters of the earlier sample became six as more dis— tinctions were made between the underdeveloped nations (”Red China" did not:&fll.into any of the clusters). Where 60 percent of the academic smmfle listed Russia as one of the three nations most similar to the [muted States, only ten percent of the public sample did so. (Robinson, 1967a, reports that U.S.—Philippines similarity was reported four times, amiLLS.S.R.-Cuba similarity six times, as often as U.S.—U.S.S.R. similarity in the public sample.) Similarity judgments of nations by United States college students erracontrasted with those of foreign students (seventy—five students arguesenting eight countries) in the studies reported.by Wish (1970, 1971) and.WiSh, DeutsCh, and Biener (1970). The United States students were asked to rate the similarity of pairs of twelve nations on a nine— pdhu:scale. The factors which appeared to describe the resulting data -wcna(l) political alignment and ideology, (2) economic development, amhmless important——(3) geography and culture (generally Western ‘Kmsus Eastern). The students who expressed relatively hawkish views (mnthe Vietnam conflict were relatively likely to judge similarity mmraby political alignment than economic development, and the students Widnrelatively dovish views were relatively likely to emphasize commie develop The aim] States were meas s'milarity that Mug] a nation analysis of diff m semmtic diff Mental influen Similar, except billing developrre thme factors: m“, and power. WWW fact 5illdlarity. The Ifimam doves th Walt for subj mdS‘ME‘Ieloped c United St mm in a stx mmdjflfinsione Mal m8pon: (2) “lltuml Sta m 5- Asi 61 economic development in their judgments. The similarity judgments of foreigi students in the United States were measured in three ways, through the sane rating of pair similarity that the United States students used (similarity rating), through a nation—sorting task (similarity sorting), and through analysis of differences in the traits they ascribed to pairs of nations on semantic differential scales (derived similarity). The factors found in the similarity rating data were political alignment, economic development, and two factors of "culture, geography, and race" which together distinguished nations with European, Spanish, African, and Oriental influences. The results for the similarity sortings were similar, except that the second dimension was better described as com— bining development and power. For the derived similarities there were three factors: political alignment, development and internal satisfac— tion, and power. In all cases the political alignment and economic development factors were the most predictive of ratings of over—all similarity. The development dimension tended to be more salient to Vietnam doves than hawks, more salient to males than females, more salient for subjects from developed countries than for subjects from underdeveloped countries . United States undergraduates also rated similarity of pairs of nations in a study by Sherman (1973). His analysis resulted in a seven-dimensional solution that correlated .73 with the subject's original reaponses. The seven dimensions were: (1) political stability, (2) cultural stability, (3) Middle East political alignment, ('4) African E- Asian, (5) Vietnam political aligmrent, (6) quality of 0f this study ant “mats in the < tion were peopj In dealin “It just what ch became fl‘finy of 62 economic relations with United States, and (7) African .Y§.' South American. Sherman found that political stability and cultural sta« bility were correlated (+.88 and +.61) with the deveIOpment dimension of Robinson and Hefner and that Middle East and Vietnam political alignment and quality of economic relations with the United States were correlated (-—.89, +.70, and +.70) with their communism dimension. He also found close relationships between his solution and that of Wish _e_t__a_J;., although his solution was more differentiated than theirs. In one other study of this type, Jones and Ashmore (1971) had United States undergraduates sort a list of nationalities and ethnic groups by similarity. The dimensions of similarity they report are ChristianunonChristian, dark skinned—light skinned, dominant—sub— ordinate, economically advanced—economically underdeveIOped, and Western culture—nonWestern culture. In part, differences between the results of this study and the preceding ones may be due to the fact that the concepts in the other studies were nations but those in this investi- gation were peoples . 9 In dealing with lists of real nations, it is difficult to find out just what characteristics are influencing judgments of similarity because many of the characteristics covary among the nations of the 9Some of the differences between the solutions of Robinson and Hefner, Wish et al. , Sherman, and Jones and Ashmore, may be due to the lists of nations used and the methods of analysis as well as to subject differences and differences in the rating methods. In Sherman's Solution for instance, the seven dimensions are correlated with each other in varying degrees. Differences also reflect arbitrary choices made in naming the dimensions , although the three more recent studies used ratings by separate samples to validate these choices. imam rather 1K1 so on. The hashing subject eking men to relatiomhip, if If such a relati attitudes and pe favorability and ”ill be examined Propositic attitude 1 M A nunber Witim by s “mm-Gyms in Scales 01‘ rating “f fawvable am mi“ Exanplt amide and Van Ma and Kama 63 world. The economically advanced pecples of the world tend to be European rather than African, light-skinned rather than dark—skinned, and so on. The findings reported above might be put into perspective by asking subjects what makes them consider two nations similar or by asking them to rate similarity of fictitious nations on the basis of controlled descriptions. Though at first glance several of the dimensions on which nations are judged to be similar or different seem to have clearly favorable and unfavorable poles, additional evidence is needed to establish their relationship, if any, with differences in attitudes toward other nations. If such a relationship exists, there must be correspondence between attitudes and perceived favorability of traits and between perceived favorability and these dimensions. The first of these two relationships will be examined first: Proposition 282 - The favorability of an individual's attitude toward a given nation will be positively related to his perception of the favorabiiity of the traits he sees that nation as having. A number of studies have provided general support for this proposition by showing a positive correlation across subjects (across nation-dyads in the case of Buchanan and Cantril, 1953) between attitude Scales or ratings of liking and scores representing the relative number of favorable and unfavorable traits ascribed to the stimulus nations or groups- Examples are Abate, 1969; Buchanan and Cantril, 1953, pp. 53—57; Bastide and Van Den Berghe, 1957; Selltiz, Edrich, and Cook, 1965; and Sinha and Karma, 1967. A possible exception is the finding of Riegel, 1953,fl1at fine fe of Belgians who h eptions of Unite Bennett, and T H‘ sported the pro apply equally to evaluative traits hides tonard Fren In studies sens to be relat MES, on the 0 Wall favomb' neEative trait as mien of Katz an “Bits elated ne ml) Embers, bu Memmes. A Weakness isthfit they have inn trBits for P Muller condit that taken mee “mm a diffen Yet We km mm for a ‘ Mt differentn on 53, that the feelings of warm friendliness toward the United States Belgians who had studied here were not related to favorable per— tions of United States culture and foreign policy. Gardner, acott, and Taylor (196 8) and Gardner, Wonnacott, and Feenstra (1970) ported the proposition generally and demonstrated that it may not ly equally to all evaluative traits by showing that most but not all uative traits loaded highly on the same factor as a scale of atti— es toward French—Canadians. In studies using bi—polar scales, the mean favorability of traits to be related to favorable attitudes. In adjective checklist dies, on the other hand, there is evidence that the covariance of r—all favorability with attitude is an artifact of the effect of ative trait ascriptions. Hartsnough and Fontana (1970), in a repli— Lon of Katz and Braly, found that ascription of negative evaluative .ts related negatively to preference for association with ethnic up members, but that ascription of positive traits did not relate to erences. A weakness of most of the studies supporting Proposition 2B2 nat they have failed to validate the evaluative meaning of partic- traits for particular subjects rating particular stimuli under cular conditions. They have instead relied on a priori assumptions ve taken mean favorableness ratings for the traits from the same am a different sample. Yet we know that individuals differ in the evaluative meaning nave for a given trait, and that a given individual may see a differently in different contexts. Veroff (1963) found that tnican students scribed to the L' that foreign stuc' in did not agree (1972a) reports C situres will var Eilen traits. Se trons tend to l 3553," and "conse :iiie "angSiwi trait nitings we] in if they were {lnepicansn they idnot. And Ch: Ween aftTitlldes When foilflt to t] whet] to r] Subj: tend 00m Subj. slig- Pref Amfim. 51 is I “then, R0131 an We that (ii 65 rican students differed in their opinions of whether traits they all cribed to the United States were good or bad. Morris (1960) found at foreign students agreed that the United States is materialistic t did not agree on their evaluation of this characteristic. Tanaka 972a) reports data demonstrating that individuals from different tures will vary widely in the evaluative meaning they have for en traits. Saenger and Flowerman (1954) found that (l) anti—semitic ons tend to have higher values for "aggressiveness,” "ambitious— s," and "conservatism" than do non-antisemitic persons, (2) traits e "aggressive" and "mercenary" were rated more negatively if the Lit ratings were done after rating "Jews" on an adjective checklist n if they were done first, (3) when subjects applied a trait to ericans" they tended to rate the trait more positively than if they not. And Child and Doob (19%), looking at the relationships ween attitudes and traits applied to the respondent as well as to pecples of other countries , concluded: When all the traits are considered together, it is found (a) that approved traits tend to be attributed to the citizens of preferred countries, regardless of whether these traits are attributed by the subjects to themselves; (b) that disapproved traits which the subjects do not believe to characterize themselves tend to be attributed to the people of non-preferred countries; (0) that disapproved traits which the subjects believe to characterize themselves show a slight tendency to be attributed to the people of preferred countries . A review of the studies above leads to the conclusion expressed authen, Robinson, and Krauss (1971) that there is at least some ance that different direction in stereotypes relates to different native content. But this conclusion is clearly not adequate. Mt Strongly n Proposit: 'ven fon Except f. 66 e problems of varying trait value expressed above require more stematic research. The competing theories about how separate trait aluations combine to form an over—all evaluation , which have emerged m studies of impressions of people, need to be tested with nations d pecples as stimuli:L0 In addition, research is needed to see what traits or charac- istics are seen as good when applied to nations. This is a matter identifying the "certain attributes" in Proposition 2B3: Proposition 283 - An individual‘ s attitude toward a given foreign nation will be a function of his perception of the degree to which that nation is characterized by certainw attributes . This proposition encompasses Proposition 2B2 and goes beyond by specifying, in the subpropositions which follow, the attributes t strongly related to attitudes toward other nations: Pmposition 2B3.l — An individual's attitude toward a given foreign nation will be in Jart a function of his Emeption of the degree to which that naiion is? char— acterized by a relatively high level of economic and technological deveIOpment and a relatively high standard of living. Except for political alignment, which will be discussed in ition to Proposition 28”, this attribute appears more frequently loIt has been hypothesized that traits may relate to a relatively edictable Gestalt impression (Asch, 19%), or that evaluative char- .ristics may combine in a more or less linear way (Pishbein, 1965). studies surveyed relating to Proposition 2B2 have all assumed the er, although combined trait favorability has been measured through diverse measures as the ratio of favorable to unfavorable remarks, difference in the number of favorable and unfavorable adjectives ked, and the average favorability of traits. thnothers in visited and not pp. 32, 38-14”) Pfefen to live ' united States. Of Switzerland, time oomtries' this: the answer “Bite the (Dmitri cleaply Ielate t nations were 001] Mid be noted 67 an others in studies of why subjects like one nation they have never sited and not another. Three general methods have been used to dis- iver what attributes relate most closely to favorable attitudes: (l) titudes toward different nations are compared, and researchers infer Josteriori the reasons for the choices; (2) subjects are simply (ed why they prefer the countries they do; and (3) correlations new a series of attribute ratings and attitudes are compared. Using the first of these methods, Buchanan and Cantril (1953, 32, 38—44) found that when people were asked what country they would fer to live in, those who did not name their own country (they died pecple in Europe and North America in 1948-19u9, and 37-48 per— t of the responses from the countries where fighting occurred in ld War II named nations other than their own) usually named the ted States. They interpret the choices of the United States (and lwitzerland, Canada, and Argentina) as reflecting a perception of :e countries' relatively high standards of living. In contrast with , the answers of the same sample to a question calling for them to the countries they felt most and least friendly toward did not rly relate to economic standards , except in that underdeveloped ans were consistently not named as friends or as enemies. (It id be noted that inferences from reSponses that name nations are 7. Many conceptually distinct attributes-—1ike race and tech— ;y-—-are interrelated in the real world, and alternative eXplan— [S of nation choices are often possible.) Lambert and Klineberg (1967, pp. 120—125) asked children why chose particular nations as their most and least favorites. Bantu, ‘ mttocbso. Japanese, and favorable trait; ind, motioned three other vam' leadership," mig 68 Japanese, and Brazilian children were likely to mention wealth as a favorable trait; however, the respondents from other nations tended lot to do so. Respondents in all countries studied, on the other and, mentioned poverty as a reason for choosing a particular nation s least favored. Schwartzman and Mora y Araujo (1966) asked subjects from three outh American nations and from Norway to rank twenty Latin American ations on prestige, then asked them to rate the importance that vari— 18 criteria had had in their ranking. For all four subject national— :ies, the four most important criteria were "industrialization," ligh average education," "literacy," and "scientific development,” . . . ll .1 of which relate closely to economic and technological development. mer used a similar method with United States college students and und that "living conditions” was considered less important than Dee other variables. The variable considered most important, "world adership , " 12 might also involve economic develOpment. ”The traits rated, with the average rating for the four subject :ionalities (possible range 0—H), were industrialization (3.39), high arage education (3.07), literacy (3.0”), scientific development (2.95), “capita income (2.73), standard of living (2.62), political stability 51), economic stability (2.48), independent foreign policy (2.38), @nization (2.24), strongly organized working class (2.21), represen— ilve Political system (2.18), extensive middleclass (2.00), Size 37), White population (0.1+1), and leadership in sports (0.25). 12 e main criteria most frequently reported were 'jworld leader— P" (26 percent),"govermnent system" (16 percent), "ethico-moral (13 cent), and "living conditions" (8 percent). . Ratings of nations by the groups reporting each of these8iis main criterion correlated with each other between +:66 and +. . ilarly, the differences in dominant factors of stratification M ”Gen the different national groups studied by Schwartzman and 91‘: Y ljo (1966) had relatively little influence on the prestige rating ' traditional Indi increasing the 1 “than or not p Mist Host of Vil'iables. Before pe mmiS’tently to [Elatimship e . 69 The most useful studies for evaluating the proposition are those which relationships of various perceived attributes with attitudes measured. The dimensions of perceived similarity found by Wish 71) were correlated with ratings of nations as "good," with subjects' 'Lcations of the nations they liked, and with ratings of how similar 7 were to the subjects' ideal countries. These three variables elated +.56, +.ESl, and +.50 respectively with the economic develop- : dinens ion . It might also be possible to surrmarize the data on this propo— on by saying that modern nations are looked upon more favorably traditional nations . Indeed one study (Brouwer and van Bergen, , cited in Hawkins, 1969) found that movies showing modernity in ‘/ a made attitudes toward India more favorable whereas movies showing Ltional India led toward unfavorable attitudes. But this is taSing the level of abstraction, and what is needed is data on Ler or not particular aspects of modernity and economic development Ct most of the attitude variance associated with these general bles. Before perception of a given attribute can be said to relate Stently to favorable nation—attitudes, it must be shown that the 'Lonship exists for subjects who ascribe and who do not ascribe Ttr‘ibute to their homeland. If this criterion is not met, one >nclude that perceiving a particular attribute relates to atti— When in reality it is perceived similarity with the homeland on tribute that relates to attitudes. Data from subjeCJCS Of a single ality are useful in distinguishing these two kinds of relationship 7 economic devel Demeptions re Widenoe for t Pmposi fomi of the ‘ Proposi foreiE of the 70 tly if both perceptions of attributes and perceptions of attribute milarity have been measured; otherwise perceptions of subjects from .untries differing on the attribute must be analyzed. Since this is »t always done, distinctions between these two types of variable are rt always clear. Economic development appears not to relate to simi— Lrity; it is valued by citizens of deveIOped and underdeveloped puntries alike. Political attributes , on the other hand, though a :w may be universally valued, are of the second type: it is similarity .th the homeland that predicts attitudes toward foreign nations. Beyond the similarity variables (see Proposition 28M) and :onomic development variables, there is no clear pattern of attribute :rceptions related to nation attitudes. There is , however, some idence for the following subproposition8= ‘7 Preposition 2B3.2 — An individual's attitude toward a given foreign nation will be in part a function of hlS perception of the nation as peaceful. Pmposition 2B3.3 - An individual's attitude toward a given foreign nation will be in part a function_of hlS perception of the nation as independent of other nations . PrOposition 2B3.” — An individual's attitude toward a given foreign nation will be i113art a function of 1118 perception of the nation as democratic. Pmposition 283.5 - An individual's attitude toward a given Emign nation will be in part a function of 1118 perception 9i the people of that nation as white. Buchanan and Cantril (1953) attributed choices of Switzerland, den, and Argentina as countries where respondents would like to They also found e as reflecting a preference for neutral nations. t their respondents more often felt friendly than unfriendly toward ‘ the nations that likely to feel 1 smaller than the apreference for by mum in E dents in all the describe dislike Benet and Blah afavomble ima! peaceful, These The Chil< to say they disj The Latin AHEPi< med Hindemith hp jUdging the 1633 What. “fibdteis (1969) : We of mat of Others. She “inlay with Stability (Whig ilso ”313198th "MEI‘" the thi smilapities da “he. —i— 71 re nations that had been neutral in the war. Respondents were more kely to feel friendly toward neighboring countries if they were aller than the respondents' own countries, and this may also reflect preference for unthreatening nations. Similar values were expressed children in several nations (Lambert and Klineberg, 1967). Respon— nts in all the countries studied used aggressiveness as a term to scribe disliked nations and used peaceful to describe liked nations. lnot and Blancard (1955) found that French villagers tended to have Favorable image of peoples~-like Belgians and Swiss-—they considered lceful. These studies seem to support Proposition 283.2. The children studied by Lambert and Klineberg (1967) also tended say they disliked certain nations because they were "dominated." Latin Americans studied by Schwartzman and More y Araujo (1966) ed "independent foreign policy" as a moderately important criterion judging the prestige of nations; the Norwegian sample saw it as 5 important. Other evidence for Proposition 283.3 is less direct. :e's (1969) subjects saw "world leadership" as important for judging itige of nations, and leadership may be expected to imply independence thers. Sherman (1973) found that "cultural stability" correlated tively with ratings of attitudes toward nations, and cultural ility (which was also correlated with economic development), may represent a kind of independence of external influence. And er" the third factor in the analysis of Wish's (1971) derived .arities data, correlated positively with two of three attitude mes . Sellti traits ascril traits whose of their home practices su< the unfortum that W out the worl< “3th is de hey will hat Moray Arauj< ”55 one of t] rating the p; Withjl eValuations , Percent of t] vetted 0n Pal by me. (N. the United 8' thm Whities. 72 Selltiz _e_:c__a;l_. (1963, p. 23) found that the most approved traits ascribed to the United States by foreign students (and the traits whose approval was least related to the students' perceptions of their homeland sharing the same traits) described democratic social practices such as equal opportunity, freedom of speech, and care of :he unfortunate. This is consistent with the finding of Tanaka (1972b) :hat democrag and freedom are evaluated positively in cultures through- >ut the world. Different peoples may disagree on whether a given ountry is democratic, but if they do perceive it to be democratic, hey will have a more favorable attitude toward it. Schwartzman and am y Araujo (1966) found that perceived representative government as one of the criteria Latin American students considered useful in iting the prestige of Latin American nations. Within the United States , race plays an important part in 'aluations of people. Triandis and Triandis (1960) found that 77 reth of the variance in social distance scores to stimulus persons ried on race, religion, nationality, and social class was predicted race. (Nationality predicted only one percent.) Consistently in a United States, non—white ethnic groups are evaluated less favorably In whites. Social distance measures toward various nationalities various times (Bogardus, 19%, 1959) have shown great consistency ranking north European groups most favorably, non—white groups st favorably, and southern and eastern European groups between the extremes. A similar pattern, but less consistent (especially in Case of Japan), emerges from adjective checklist data in 1933, L, and 1967 (Karlins, Coffman, and Walters, 1969). Jones and $9th (19 71) afactoP 51ch to each other. There i Smilarity var ring "“OD'Wh shill recently negatively eve has tended to stew other HE ”l’hEFiCansa Ir than BLACK F to value YEW by Koreans am to actuate t} evidence of wt LShedeh, YUE high, though F ghehmenon. " nationalities "ate hay refit as development has on the pa It high hh being see "hr ' heme (C( 73 lmmme (1971) found color, and dimensions correlated.with color, as factor accounting for perceptions of some ethnic groups as similar eafircfiher. There is some reason to suppose that color operates as a 'larity variable, with whites liking "white" nations and nonawhites king "non—White" nations. But within the United States, at least til recently, Negroes have tended to agree with whites in assigning atively evaluated traits to "Negroes," and the concept "Negroes" s tended to be associated with unfavorable traits in data from quite few other nations (Brigham, 1971). Tanaka (1972b) found that Iericans, Indians, Kbreans, and Japanese hold a.negative evaluation lard BLACK RACE, while Germans, Italians, Finns, and Indians tend value YELLOW RACE.negatively. WHITE RACE is negatively valued only Kbreans and Hong—Kong Chinese. Generally, non—white Asians tend evaluate the white race more highly than their own. . . . There is dence of white supremacy as conceived by both whites and non—whites. Sweden, Yugoslavia, and.Mexico, evaluation of BLACK RACE is uniquely 'n though no immediate explanation is possible fOr'this unique mmenon." Some of the data.Showing preferences fOr lighter—skinned -onalities may reflect a value fOr race-similarity; some of the imay reflect correlations between skin coloriand such variables levelopment and independence; and some of the data may reflect a on the part of most people toward those with European ancestry. It might be added that the apparent concern of many nations being seen as peaceful (blaming conflict on aggression of others), :ratic (controlled elections, constitutional guarantees, etc.), ard independen‘ egg), and the the variables i seen as relate Proposi attitud to the mat mm H Reseam' existence of a hilarity at El“ Perle r tended also to Tri‘Ople Perceir to be seen as rd adlUStrrren t hall (Wipe t his friends Greek Subj e Cts 1230M Stat to like other he Dem‘elltior isms Edna and the with (the A‘: this Kim J c' 7L} clindependent (emphasis on distinctive culture, military power, tc.), and the racial pressures within many nations, suggests that he variables listed in Propositions 283.2, 283.3, and 283.4 are widely een as related to favorable nation—images. Proposition 284 — The favorability of an individual's attitude toward a given nation will be positively related to the degree of similarity he perceives between that nation and.his own nation. Research on person perception has frequently demonstrated the istence of a similar relationship between affect and perceived 'larity at the interpersonal level. Fensterheim and Tresselt (1953) Lmd people perceived as having values like those of the perceiver nded also to be seen as potential friends. Byrne (1961) fOund that rifle perceived as having similar attitudes to the perceiver tended be seen as having favorable traits such as intelligence, morality, d.adjustment. Mann (1958) fOund that.Negro and White members of fll.groups tended to see group members of their own race as desirable :ure friends. Triandis, Vassiliou, and Thomanek (1966) fcund that ek subjects preferred to be friends with pecple similar to themselves social status. Newcomb (1966) found that university students tended like other students whom.they saw as sharing their values, attitudes, perceptions. Isaacs (1958, p. 6) comments that differences between India and Etand the United States elicited favorable responses in some 'icans (they fOund Asia romantic and exotic), negative ones in IS (they feund differences fearful and distasteful). Inconsistencies ids kind appear throughout the data relevant to Proposition 28H. the“ and K1 rations, found lired and thos. this Pattern. 3mm nation lirel‘l to say i the both diss elities' Jaho seam tende shilal‘ to SCO they liked Ind The dis htemmfiflg Wh Ch a given alt rial (19633 :hsu'Sh the t h variables t h the United semi/s1 0f th :r ~.l3, with herring the e tried hem +‘ tathims 0f teehique. Th 75 ert and Klineberg (1967), comparing fourteen year—olds from.e1even ions, fcund a general positive relationShip between the nationalities ed and those perceived.as similar. But there were exceptions to 8 pattern. Japanese children tended to dislike both dissimilar and 'lar nationalities, and American children, though they were especially 1y to say they liked people because they were similar, tended to both dissimilar (Chinese, Indians, Africans) and similar nation- ies. Jahoda (1962) fcund that elementary school children in :land tended to express liking for the countries they perceived as lar’to Scotland, but the younger Children in his sample often said '1iked India and Africa because there are lions and.tigers there. The discussion of Proposition 283 brought out the difficulty of rmuning Whether it is possession of a given attribute or similarity given attribute that best eXplains variance in attitudes. Selltiz t. (1963, pp. 227—230)made the most systematic attempt to dis— ish the two types of influence. They studied the ascription of 'ables to the homeland and the host country by foreign students e United States. Correlations between similarity of ratings and val of the United States position on the traits ranged from +.56 3, with 27 of the relationships positive. Part correlations, ' g the effect of the rating of the United States on approval, from +.30 to ~.l3, with 28 of the relationships positive. About irds of the coefficients were reduced by the part correlation que. The highest part correlations were between approval and activities centered within home," ”importance of financial s in life," and ”strength of friendship ties." Correlations of beliefs about ranged from .0 mating the eff .02 to .76 wit correlations . 1 76 iefs about the United States and approval of the United States ged from .07 to .77. Corresponding partial correlations—-elimi— ing the effect of perceived similarity on the traits-~ranged from to .76 with about a third of the coefficients lower on the partial lations . 13 Examination of these correlation coefficients revealed that on about half of the items the students' approval of the United States was strongly influenced by their beliefs as to the position of the United States on these characteristics, with perceived dis-— crepancy between the United States and the home country having little or no influence. . . . These items included all those referring to social practices that might be thought of as coming under the heading of democracy. . . . On most of the remaining items, approval of the United States was influenced to some extent both by beliefs about the United States and by the amount of discrepancy perceived between the home country and the United States, but neither of these exerted a very strong influence. These items included all of those dealing with friendship and family patterns , several dealing with behavior and goals of the people of the country, items dealing with economic patterns , and one referring to foreign policy. attempt to compare the two kinds of variable should be repeated ther kinds of variables and other samples of reSpondents. There may be cultural differences in the emphasis subjects place 'larity. Reusch and Bateson (1968, p. 106) have suggested that l3Part correlation is a statistical technique for estimating the lation between two variables (in this case similarity and liking ious traits) with the influence of a third variable removed from ne of them (in this case the influence of perceptions of the States removed from the similarity scores). Partial correlation tatistical technique for estimating the correlation between two les (in this case perceptions and liking on various traits) with fluence of a third variable (in this case similarity to the United ) removed from both. See McNemar (1962, pp. 165—168). he hnerican v. others. Perce reacting to Ne anniher of pr prejudice and ierence in the reported by Be behavior style [661 imam a :hey hold. Tr although they The dat W the effe tieii‘ i‘iOpld w‘ 77 e American value for equality leads Americans to want to resemble ers. Perceived difference makes Americans uneasy and, at least in acting to Negroes, "the premise of equality is upset, and therefore umber of precautions have to be taken to rationalize the difference; ejudice and discrimination are the end results." A cultural dif- rence in the relationship of perceived similarity and affect was Dorted by Berrien (1969), who studied perceptions of characteristic iavior styles and concluded that "the less friendly the Japanese 21 toward a target country, the less contrasting is the stereotype 3y hold. The American data are not as clear in the last reSpect, 'hough they tend to support the opposite inference." The data of Buchanan and Cantril (1953) lead to a proposition ut the effects of perceived similarity on political attributes: Proposition 2814.1 —— The favorability of an individual's attitude toward a given nation is positively related to the degree of similarity he perceives between that nation and his own nation in terms of political alignment. Similarity of political alignment can refer to past or present al alliances or apparent friendships, or to shared ideologies and on goals. Buchanan and Cantril (1953, pp. 38—4Ln) found that the mentions as most—and least—liked nations in their study went to Jnited States and the Soviet Union. "'Likes' and 'dislikes' in category are about evenly balanced; i.e. , the 'Bi—Polar World' ms to influence about as many reSpondents to like one people as slike another." Respondents in this survey also tended to like World War II allies and to dislike their World War II enemies. tendency to select an impending rather than a concluded conflict was nore apper miners." In 0th. students dumb enemies low, . regaid to nos found that Am eOmnist that The po ""191 stude hilarity Va m "good" a Hated .55 w "Meal ali and .50 with Pmpos "0n, the Ten as the I\‘lvel‘s inflict to h Them We) IElig hither than T prsfe"Me to (his) recogn 78 as more apparent among the losers—-Germany and Italy—-—than among the In other relevant studies, Gundlach (1944) found that college udents during World War II "tended to rate our allies high, our emies low, and our nationality minority groups intermediate with gard to most virtues or traits. And, more recently, Willis (1968) und that American students assigned less favorable traits to mmunist than to noncommunist nations and peOples. The political alignment dimensions found for United States and ign students by Sherman (1973) and Wish (1971) probably represent Middle East political alignment correlated .61 'larity variables. h "good" and .96 with ”I like"; Vietnam political alignment cor— Lated .55 with "good" and .61 with "I like" (Sherman, 1973). .itical alignment correlated .56 with "good," .61 with "I like," i .50 with "similarity to ideal" (Wish, 1971). Proposition 284.1 may also relate to the mirror—image phenom- i, the tendency of peoples in conflict to see each other's nation the reverse of their own (and thus the tendency for pecples in Flict to have similiar views of "the enemy"). There is some evidence that similarity on many other attributes .ce, religion, social class, etc.——may relate to nation attitudes. er than try to list all such variables, it has sometimes seemed arable to look for a common element in all of them. Newcomb 3) recognized this problem and suggested a common element: There is a common notion about interpersonal attraction, to the effect that it varies with similarity, as such: Birds of a feather flock 79 together. It is not a very useful notion, however, because it is indiscriminate. We have neither good reason nor good evidence for believing that persons of similar blood types, for example . . . are esp— ecially attracted to each other. The answer to the questions, Similarity with respect to what?, is enormously complex . . . I shall therefore content myself with the guess (for which fairly good evidence exists) that the possession of similar characteristics predisposes individuals to be attracted to each other to the degree that those characteristics are both observable and valued by those who observe them-~in short, insofar as they provide a basis for similarity of attitudes . Carrying Newcomb's proposition to the international level, it >ecomes 2 Proposition 2814.2 — The favorability of an individual‘s attitude toward a given nation is positively related to the degree of similarity of attitudes and beliefs he perceives between the pecple of that nation and the Eople of his own nation. Rokeach (1968, p. 80) argued that perceived similarity of :titudes has more influence on liking than similarity of race in .tuations where both race and attitudes are known. Support for this mes from studies in which both race and attitude similarity are ried, with the latter being found the better predictor of affect yrne and Wong, 1961; Hendrick, Bixenstein, and Hawkins, 1971). me (1969) summarized studies in this area and concluded that the ieral relationship between perceived similarity of attitudes and :raction exists, and that "both belief and race affect attraction, I that the abstract question of the relative power of the two vari- es is a meaningless one" since the choice of measures will shape results of studies comparing their influence. Also Byrne et al. (1969) denbnstr of similar atti beyond the coll dasses. Byme dc beyond Western ethic groups r to apply to the t0 see if it ap It may b hides and attit ai‘iitudes assoc tore Visible Va MOW, Where independently, The Iese reference point It is also POSS With himself De Therefore be: "mosh W 1969) demonstrated that "a linear relationship between the prOportion f similar attitudes and attraction is a phenomenon generalizable eyond the college student" to different occupations and social asses. Byrne does not , however, report any evidence of generalization yond Western culture. Though the support comes from studies of hnic groups rather than nations, Proposition 284.2 can be eXpected apply to the nation-attitudes of Americans , but research is needed see if it applies to the images held by foreigners as well. It may be that in experimental situations perceptions of atti— des and attitude similarity explain most of the variance in nation— itudes associated with characteristics like race and culture. The re visible variables, however, remain influential outside the lab— itory, where attitudes and overt characteristics do not vary lependently. The research on person perception does not imply that the erence point for similarity need be the individual's own nation. is also possible that the individual will compare the foreign nation ihimself personally. An alternative form of Proposition 281+ might efore be: Proposition 2Bu.3 - The favorabilig of an individual's attitude toward a given nation is positively related to the degree of similarity he perceives between that nation and himself. Perlmutter (1951a), for instance, found that the desire of :1 States students to travel in European countries was positively .ated with the similarity of the characteristics they perceived the typical pet to themselves. similarity of 1 "ideal selves.‘ earlier in this since subjects they used to de Perhaps predictive if - to homeland. 1 reference 90in innit] COI‘rela home britives the m Country J "is non (1966) that S t Slime of th Palationship w pmPost atti’tud m; 0f e Seveml hit an indivi n x be faVOrebl :1 Etiltude tC 81 the typical people in those nations as having and those they ascribed to themselves. It also correlated positively to a degree with the similarity of the traits ascribed to the foreigners and to the subjects' "ideal selves." The conclusions of Child and Doob (1943), discussed arlier in this chapter, also give some support to Proposition 284.3, ince subjects tended to apply, not only approved traits, but traits ey used to describe themselves, to preferred nations. Perhaps Propositions 284.1, 284.2, and 284.3 would all be more redictive if they referred to similarity to self rather than similarity o homeland. More research is needed to determine when the self is the ference point and when the nation is the reference point for simi— arity correlated with affect. Merritt (1972) suggests that "The more favorable the student erceives the attitudes of nationals of host country I to be to his >me country J, the more positive will be his attitudes toward country " This point is comparable to the interpersonal finding of Newcomb .966) that students' liking of others was positively related to their timate of the others' liking for them. We migit expect that such a lationship would generally apply to nation attitudes: Proposition 285 —- The favorability of an individual's attitude toward a given nation is positively related to his estimate of the favorabilfty of the attitudes of the people of that nation toward his own nation. Several alternate propositions could also be offered, suggesting : an individual's attitude toward another nation is relatively likely ~e favorable if he perceives that the people of that nation (a) have ttitude toward his homeland similar to his own (a derivative of Proposition 2] (as digit be ' attitude tower Mmmgtl 0P(d)have a1 Similar to his evidence that mmnmmma Swwmsue< Ride"Similari- mad by the I States) for 3; WIN t0 0( Others' attiti SOHE 51 Com from the in his StUdy 1 Mia their sel "91 "m p. twilito agIE In IY-lse 6L" (1963, a a gee to me \ 1h £11,901 \ a Vldual ”.916 396 hit] 82 Proposition 284.2) , (b) have a favorable attitude toward him personally (as might be the case with a foreign student), (c) have a favorable attitude toward pecple like him in his homeland (_e_.__g_. , an American Negro might like Nigeria if he thought Nigerians liked American Negroes), or (d) have an attitude toward people like him in his homeland which is similar to his own attitude toward such people. Though there is evidence that perceived attitudes of others are influential in determ— fining nation—attitudes, there is little or no research which clearly supports one of these propositions over the others. Attitude and atti— tude-similarity are usually confounded by the tendency (at least experi— enced by the most commonly studied group, foreign students in the United itates) for similarity and favorability of others' attitudes toward the omeland to covary. And most studies do not look at perceptions of thers' attitudes toward subgroups within the homeland. Some support for the importance of the similarity variables mes from the interpersonal findings of Newcomb (1966). The students his study tended to like those whose descriptions of them coincided th their self—descriptions, even if those descriptions were unfavor— Le: "All persons, at all times, are liked according as they are lged to agree with oneself about oneself ."14 In research on foreign students, Morris (1956, 1960) and Selltiz 11. (1963, pp. 236-238) measured perceptions of "status loss," the es to which the students perceive the host country as ascribing lliAccording to Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967, p. 86), ndividual has a need to discover, through communication, that other .e see him as he sees himself. less prestige that-especie perceptions c the United St students, am and attitudes Perlmi impressions c statenents, n iEhiS, op mal Shilap. The ”019 favomb] :11“me ably, EiVing did “0t Seem Raised AHEm' "milled to y and sperm 5 Silion 235; t"1‘7 to be is natiOn BE P101306 its to be 83 ess prestige to theirehomeland.than they ascribe to it. Morris fcund hat——especially for students highly "involved" with their'homeland—— rceptions of status loss correlated negatively with attitudes toward e United States.15 Selltiz tested three different samples of foreign toents, and fcund the same negative relationship between status loss d attitudes for two of the three samples. Perlmutter and Shapiro (1957) asked American students for their ressions of typical Americans and typical Europeans making no atements, making pro—European statements, making pro-American state— nts, or making statements that America and Europe are in some reSpect 'lar. 'Ihe European making a pro—American statement was ascribed a he favorable stereotype than the European making no statement, and a European making a preruropean statement was seen even less favor— gg giving some support to Proposition 285 (although the pr0position i not seem to apply to Americans' impressions of Americans who ised America). The most favorable stereotypes, however, were ribed to Americans and Eur0peans who made statements that Eur0pe America are similar, suggesting still another variation on PrOpo— .on 285: (e) an individual's attitude toward another nation is more 1y to be favorable if he believes the people of that nation see nation as similar to their own. Proposition 2A4 suggests that a differentiated.nation-image is .y to be associated with a moderate attitude. There is evidence 5Perceived status loss was also correlated negatively with per- :istatus of the homeland, so this relationship may in part be due arelationship postulated in PrOposition 2A6(A). inChapter II] nore different to relate to 1 night seem the nation-attitu elusion. The isoften simpj Opposite: hopes: given I System. [9% Because Sane time as : Nation about ( b3 dj-SCUSSEd ; 00shitive dyn- FOP H0: esMilly set though Seeing 1790me to ‘ boot likely a $317917 de; 84 napter III that images based on more information are likely to be differentiated. Since salience of a nation to an individual tends slate to the amount of information he has about the nation, it t seem that salience would be associated with relatively moderate on—attitudes. At times these relationships do support that con— ion. The kind of information associated with salience, however, ften simplistic and evaluative, and so most of the data support the site: Proposition 286 - Insofar as an individual's image of a given nation is a relatively salient part of his belief gistem, his attitude toward that nation is likely to be very favorable or very unfavorable , rather than moderate. Because a nation tends to be salient to an individual at the time as it is salient to his society and to his sources of infor— >n about other nations. This kind of influence on attitudes will Lscussed in Chapter IV. But it also exists in part because of the .tive dynamics of the individual. For most pecple at most times, most foreign nations are not .ially salient attitude objects. In the United States, for instance, h seeing himself as an American rather than a foreigner may be tant to an individual's identity, his Opinion of Norway or Burma t likely to involve his ego, and such opinions are not likely to 3113137 defined. When other nations are perceived as enemies of the 1nd, or as allies against the homeland's enemies, this apathy 1 other nations tends to be reduced, and relatively definite ides develOp: 85 Since Americans tend to exhaust their emotional and intellectual energies in private pursuits, the typical approach to problems of public policy is perfunctory. . . . On questions of a . . . remote nature, sudh as foreign policy, they tend to react in more undifferentiated ways, with formless and plastic moods which undergo frequent alteration in response to changes in events. The characteristic response to questions of foreign policy is one of indifference. A fereign policy crisis, short of the immediate threat of war, may transform indif— ference to vague apprehension, to fatalism, to anger; but the reaction is still a mood, a super— ficial and fluctuating response. . . . However, when threats from abroad become grave and immediate, Americans tend to break out of their private orbits, and tremendous energies become available for foreign policy (Almond, 1960, pp. 53—54). iver (1972, cited in Sherman, 1973), in a simulation of inter— relations, found that the number of salient dimensions of n decreased under conditions of stress (simulated war). This tent with the hypothesis of Sherif, Sherif, and Nebergall at involvement of one's identity with an attitude object n more definite attitude and in a greater latitude of rejec— ZOnflict is likely to increase an assimilation-contrast such that perceived differences with friends are minimized .ved differences with enemies are exaggerated (Avigdor, cited .8, 1971, pp. 110—111; Sherif and Hovland, 1961). artley (1967) cites a study in which Loveleen Bhatia asked 1 Pakistanis (presumably ego—involved) and Americans (pre— 38 ego—involved) to use their own categories to sort state- t Indians and Pakistanis. Contrary to the prediction of arif, and Nebergall, Americans did not differ in the number Les they used, and the Americans actually had larger lati— 3jection and noncommitment and similar latitudes of acceptance. Assuming t1 other nations are for them of diffel support to this p1 ceived knowledge a negatively with h< negatively with 1i lined nations. Cc relationship, alsc High Pres umed Knowledge 86 Assmfing that subj ects' perceptions of how much they know about nations are at least in part indicators of the relative salience em of different nations, studies of presumed knowledge lend some to this proposition. Grace and Neuhaus (1952) found that per— knowledge about nations correlated positively with liking and ely with hostility across most nations but that it correlated ely with liking and positively with hostility for the least hations. Cooper and Michiels (1952) found a similar curvilinear >nship, also for United States college students (see Figure 2).17 High cu $1“ a) H 5 § 3 U) 8 m Low LCM Preference High Figure 2. Curvilinear Relationship of Preference for Nations and Presumed Knowledge of Nations Found by Cooper and Michiels (1952). _ There was also in these studies a general tendency to report ledge about liked nations, with the reverse of this tendency nly at one extreme of the distribution. Cooper and Michiels tigated the relationship between preference for and presumed Buchanan and Cantril note HEY be known, 6 or hostile Father t} the host liked an__d : in Asia and Africa: and American respon‘ either as liked or ( similar findings fl’t This chapter ships between a per- ncl orientations t0 beliefs about parti nation-attitudes . other nations are n hitive system. His t ;0 I onstanee, under his . ‘ ~dttltud€S tOwaI C0‘JII‘L‘oies . 87 chanan and Cantril (1953) fcund that neighboring nations, about whom Hey be known, and with whom.re1ations are likely to be friendly hostile retherathan indifferent, are relatively likely to be among most liked ang_1east liked nations, and that underdeveloped countries Asia and Africa, which presumably were less salient to their.Bur0pean American reSpondents than their>neighbors, were not mentioned er'as liked or disliked. Bernot and Blancard (1955) reported '1ar'findings fronhtheir study of Frendh villagers. C. Causes of Relationships between Perceptions and.Attitudes This chapter evaluated a.number'of propositions about relation— )8 between a person's attitudes and his otherabeliefs, emotions, orientations to foreign nations and peOples. It seems clear that Lefs about particular nations do correspond in a number~of ways with .on-attitudes. It is also apparent that beliefs and attitudes about ranations are not unrelated to the rest of the individual's cog— e system, His personality and his attitudes toward his homeland, ' stance, under some circumstances seentto be better‘predictors of ttitudes toward foreign nations than his beliefs about these ries. The general predisposition to reSpond favorably or unfavorably foreign nations is related to personality variables, to behavior Edge of sports, and fcund it not to be curvilinear. Fortnation- des, they fcund that actual knowledge was not closely related to fence (r =+.33) or to presumed.knowledge (r = + .47), but that the rtelation of presumed.knowledge with pre erence was +.78. in interpersonal would expect that on their basic 8} any but the most acteristics woul< iuages of foreigu person's affecti‘ uould seem that : images 0f nations Since the cede the develop] 05 the child, an. ative, the genen attitudes to devu iii? ll . L L StemOLE/De: h relationship has. Yet an in nations, to See tel ' . atively 81‘ Uihor.‘ ._ HIV . g :til‘flmteS Which mtlnetims do ' EMMSm, agghe c: variables eXt out L M L0 belief 88 interpersonal contexts, and to attitudes toward the homeland. We uld expect that, fOr most people, these characteristics would take their basic shape befbre the individual had forned attitudes toward but the Host salient nations, and that fer most people these char— eristics would be more central, more salient, and more stable than ges of foreign nations. Insofar as we can say that one aspect of a son's affective and cognitive system determines another part, it 1d seem that it is usually differences in these variables that shape ges of nations, rather than the other way around. Since the general orientation toward other nations tends to pre— e the development of distinctions between other nations in the growth the child, and since that general orientation is essentially evalu— ve, the general tendency would seem to be for beliefs congruent with itudes to develop. Buchanan and Cantril (1953, pp. 55—56) conclude : "Stereotypes are less likely to govern the likes and dislikes een nations than to adapt themselves to the positive or negative tionship based on matters unrelated to images of the people concerned.” Yet an individual is likely to make distinctions between foreign ons, to see some as relatively similar to each other, to see some latively similar to his own country, and to prefer them to each in varying degrees, and he is likely to do this in terns of several ' utes whidh may vary relatively independently of each other. Such ctions do not seem to be explained by such variables as authori- 'sm, aggresiveness, and patriotism. The following chapters look iables external to the individual in an attempt to see how they e to beliefs and attitudes toward other nations. In so doing, they also shed addit other nations influe beliefs. 89 ey also shed additional light on the question of when beliefs about her nations influence attitudes, and when attitudes influence liefs. noes The pres aperson has ab on a conceptual ”BY covary With that might be c (that i5, belie telationships b Nation and his with the in me DOSsibpe mlati. nations and alt. tiOnshipS heme. tilieh, aCCOI‘din Eltfitunes . This Qha: CHAPTER III ACCEPTANCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT FOREIGN NATIONS The present examination of relationships between the information rson has about other nations and his preferences for them is based conceptualization of three different levels of infbrnation that :ovary with attitudes. Chapter II examined relationships involving night be called internalized or accepted, subjective information : is, beliefs) and attitudes. It showed that there are some regular ionships between the information a person accepts as true about a n and his liking of that nation. The present Chapter is concerned the infbrnation to which the individual is exposed. It considers ole relationships between exposure to infbrnation about other 3 and attitudes toward them, and it also considers possible rela— 1ips between exposure to infbrnation and the various variables according to the propositions in Chapter II, may relate to nation— des. This chapter begins with a discussion of the sources of informa— bout other countries which may influence attitudes and with a of research dealing with the effects of these particular sources. :ter part of the chapter discusses the ways in which various , like prior attitudes of the individual, may deterndne the 90 effects of expo ticular kind of 1. 8299 covering the ef T0 63k individu about other com limited unless I amps; HDS‘C 0; An excep- Mods, is the exceptional inv< first Could telj theLn imAges. ( Ame: not 61ch Unde ever 1)ij mom Stor mtj 91 :s of exposure to a particular information source or to a par— 1r kind of information. A. Sources of Information about Foreign Nations and the Effects of Exposure to Them 1. Reports on Influential Sources. A direct approach to dis— hg the effects on attitudes of exposure to particular sources is : individuals what sources are influential in shaping their beliefs other countries. The usefulness of this method is severely ad unless depth interview techniques are used to elicit careful s; most of the research reported here has not used this method. An exception, which demonstrates the need for the more careful is, is the study by Isaacs (1958) of a sample of Americans with :ional involvement in foreign affairs. He found that these men at could tell little about their images of Asia and the sources of images. Only in extended interviews did it become apparent that . . there are in fact all sorts of scratches on American minds about Asia——associations, images, notions, ideas, information, attitudes gleaned and acquired in fragnents over time from childhood or under the more recent pressures of contemporary events. To our appreciations of these events we bring, many of us, the wispy products of the class- room, church, Sunday school, remembered bits out of storybooks and magazines, cartoons and photographs, notion pictures, neWSpaper headlines and columns, impressions gleaned from friends or acquaintances. SUI33.ects (pp. Lt7ff) recalled influences from such sources as comic mvies, radio programs, The Book of Knowledge, The National Geo- > contact with foreigners in the United States (e. g. , Chinese laundry 3, foreign students) and—-especially salient for many—-contact with American mi The relat countries in sch his sample was h their schooling . ASia in American School influence; and Ktineberg (1' influences menti: ““919 (in inter recalled in inte: ”me? Of years. Lambert a] In g1 Pare for - Yeah but : book: 53 Se soun and < is a as e] at a; to t] with ”C1011 Predt r“ Bi t _ :iOIEteS-ghtga: :32?“ 0f West ( We of info] erican missionaires . The relatively rare mention of information learned about other 'es in school was conSpicuous in Isaacs' data, especially since 1e was highly educated:L Most of Isaacs' sample completed chooling a number of years ago, and it may be that neglect of American schools prior to World War II is a special case. influences are frequently mentioned in the 1959 data of Lambert eberg (1967). It is possible, however, that many of the school ices mentioned by the 10-year-olds and 14-year—olds in their t (in interviews conducted in their schools) would also not be i in interviews given after they had been out of school for a 3f years. ambert and Klineberg (p. 37) report that In general, television, movies, and to a lesser extent parents, constitute the major sources of information for the six—year—old American children. For the 10— year-olds, television and movies are still important, but school-connected sources such as courses and text— books begin to be cited while parents become negligible as sources. At the 14-year level, school—connected sources are predominant, along with books, magazines, and other mass media. Personal contact with other pecples is a minor factor. . . . Television and movies predominate as chief sources of information about the Negroes of Africa at all three age levels. . . . In contrast, for example, to the Indians, about whom there is a striking increase with age in citation of school—connected sources, informa- tion about the Russians and the African Negroes comes predominately through the mass media. — Eighty-eight percent had completed college, H0 percent had Isaacs also cited Church (1939) as reporting that only 13 West Coast high school seniors in 1923 mentioned school as f information about the Japanese. The ten other with some var: mmmm< relationships information at and movies, b< personal soun Al n< O‘ m Other 5 S(Woes are m attI‘ibuted the newsPapers, a} tarts With Am that newspapei illthe L03 A“! some mpoPte Nikon (1956, hm that the 80 W38 as in 93 other~nationalities sampled showed a similar pattern of sources, me variations representing differences in availability of tele— or in Opportunity for contact and some representing particular nships between nations. In general, for the 14—year—old children, tion about other nations came from impersonal sources——television 'es, books and magazines, and school textbooks——and not from sources like parents, friends, and teachers: Apparently, parents, schoolteachers, and friends do not often communicate abcut fereign nations to children over 10 years of age, or if they do their comments are not well remembered (p. 160). ther studies also have found that mass media and other impersonal are most influential. Kerr (19u3) found that British subjects :ed their stereotypes of the United States and Russia to books, are, and movies (and, in the case of the United States, to con— th American servicemen). MacKinnon and Centers (1958) report Spapers were most influential in shaping the beliefs of people as Angeles area about Russia; less than ten percent of the sported being influenced by conversations about Russia. And L956, pp. 96—97) surveyed United States college seniors and at they rated impersonal sources more frequently than personal . . . . 2 influencing their outlook on world affairs. e sources Chosen by at least five percent of the sample as ir five most important were newspapers, 62 percent; college 1 percent; magazines, 53 percent; newscasts, H8 percent; 8 with friends, 47 percent; ideas of parents, 35 percent; percent; lectures, 28 percent; contacts with foreign students, ; travel abroad, 17 percent; military service, 15 percent; ers, 14 percent; contacts with foreign visitors, 13 percent; Other dat core from studie asked Latin Ans] intonation ab01 ventioned especz' vovies. Maleg States about the States before o< both local and : ”it peepie fro: television, and There is. nations COHES m. ItEdit. This 1d] caution. The s Sweets and 10, to the“; and th. nation. It 80m mm] fmm b0: WIEtely What 9” Other data on sources which are thought to shape nation images from studies of foreign students. Loomis and Schuler (1948) Latin American students in the United States about where they got tion about the United States when they were at home, and they ned especially the influence of both American and Latin American Maslog (1971) asked Filipino and Indian students in the United about their sources of information about Asia and the United before coming to the United States. Generally the print media, ocal and foreign, were rated as most influential, though contact cple from abroad (foreigners and returned nationals) and radio, sion, and movies were also important sources.3 There is, therefore, some evidence that information about other 3 comes mainly from impersonal sources, and especially from print This kind of a generalization must , however, be approached with 1. The studies reported dealt mainly with relatively educated :s and looked mainly at their images of nations especially salient 1; and the questions used may not have always elicited full infor— It somehow seems more respectable to say you learned about a from books rather than from movies, and it‘s easy to forget ly what your parents told you as a child. al interests, 13 percent; movies, 11 percent; high school, 8 and church, 7 percent. Other studies involving sources of world affairs and nat ion— s include Lambert and Klineberg (1959) and Gorden (1962). 3Foreign radio broadcasts were rated as important by only H2 of those surveyed, and local movies by only 39 percent. Tele- as not accessible to most areas in India. Seventy percent of le rated contact with foreigiers as important, and 77 percent ntact with returned nat ionals as import ant . 2. E. education ha avovmt of ed' ables associ in the follOI Pmpo: hewi “- Propo: he wi * nat101 H PIUpo: knovl ‘\ The w: MS of fon ”9 listed t: supported by nitions may 3 iJlfothiOn, of hmleoige Carr van; ,1st d i Pational affi 1W 1eV91: him leVel o: Dement; . flirt intereg {Oi e «athe to < 95 2. Effects of Education. Whether or not people think that :ion has influenced their attitudes toward other nations, the : of education a person has does tend to predict a number of vari— associated with nation-attitudes. Two such variables are included : following propositions : '\ L“\ \\. Proposition 3A1 -— The more education a person has, the more he will tend to be interested in foreign nations and pecples. Proposition 3A1.l — The more education a person has, the more he will tend to emse himself to information about foreign nations and pegales . Proposition 3A2 — The more education a person has, the more knowledge he will have about foreign nations and peoples. The word education in these propositions refers to the number of >f formal schooling the individual has had. These propositions Lted together because they tend to support each other and to be ed by the same evidence. The possession of knowledge about other may be taken as an indicator of interest and of exposure to ion, and exposure to information may be taken as an indicator edge and (assuming information has been sought) of interest. antril (1967, pp. 182—183) cites a 19Lt3 survey in which pecple ed if they were more interested in domestic affairs or in inter- affairs. Domestic affairs were named more often for all educa— evels, but the number answering international affairs increased 1 of education completed: grade school, 36 percent; high school, t; college, #2 percent. Proposition 3A1 does not, however, say rest in foreign nations and pecples increases with education to other interests. This may be the case, but more of the variance in int in domestic aff Several education is C] (triesberg, 19L Robinson found affairs inform Presumal People Depress ted people, hov evens that the that schooling ‘59 as well as titrated P€0pl< was POSitively news in the he with friends 8] Edge) and to cl 96 Pianos in interest in foreign affairs increases together with interest domestic affairs. Several surveys of the United States public have found that [cation is clearly the best predictor of lmowledge of other countries iesberg, 1949; Free and Cantril, 1968, pp. 60—61; Robinson, 1967a).” inson found a correlation of +.‘+5 between education and a world airs information score. Presumably the higher world information scores of more educated ple represent in part memory of facts learned in school. More educa— peOple, however, also tend to do better on questions about recent its that they could not have learned about in school, indicating : schooling relates to knowledge indirectly through interest and media as well as directly. Thus Robinson (1967a, 1967b) found that more ated pecple tend to pay more attention to world affairs (education positively correlated +.31 and +.3Ll with self-exposure to world in the newspaper and with face—to—face discussion of world news friends and work associates, both predictors of world affairs lmcwl— ' and to draw world affairs information from relatively sophisticated 5 es . m ”These studies, of course, do not measure knowledge in general, ather knowledge of a particular kind of information which is both I known and easily tested. Typical items would ask for the name 2 Prime Minister of India, for the continent where Brazil is ed, or whether or not Poland has a communist government. 5Robinson (1967a, p. 28) used a configurational analysis to redictors of world affairs knowledge. The resulting groups, in of increasing knowledge, were (I ) less than high school graduate, 3 less than $7500 per year, non—white; (II) same as (I) except (III) less than high school graduate, earning more than $7500 Simi of educatic determining the mass me world affa.‘ He notes tl tively SOpl individual: honed in vell in 002 tion about broader re: tinny Curm If : tion in m t0 find th. impound 97 Similarly, Hero (1959b, p. 13) notes that ". . . years and level f education seem to be the most important demographic variables in atermining the probability of attention to international affairs in ie mass media. The greater the number of media to which one looks for >rld affairs, the greater the likelihood that one went to college. " 3 notes that education is especially predictive of exposure to rela- .ve1y SOphisticated sources of world affairs information. Also, idividuals who attended better quality colleges, individuals who fjored in the social sciences or humanities, and individuals who did 11 in college are especially likely to expose themselves to infome— on about world affairs. Again, this seems to be largely a part of a oader relationship between education and exposure to information about 1y current affairs issues. If relatively educated people differ from the rest of the pOpula~ >n in their interests, media habits, and knowledge, it is not surprising find that they also differ in their general attitude toward foreign ions. The most frequently documented difference is expressed in position 3A3 . Proposition 3A3 —- The more education a person has, the more fayorable will be his attitude toward foreigi nations in general . year or high school graduate earning less than $4000 per year; (IV) L school graduate earning more than $4000 per year; (V) some college, ollege graduate with blue—collar job; and (VI) college graduate with e collar job. Groups I, II, and III said they got most of their d affairs knowledge from television, followed by radio, neWSpapers, magazines. GrouPs IV and V got most from newspapers, then television, 3, and magazines. Group VI got most from newspapers, then television, zines, radio. Thre First, Lant that older foreign pet comm pat! or even a 1 Sec associated negatively lennson, j to be inte: ities are 1 tie (Queen. these Stud “has other peOp homey1r Sfliehce 0 iii and 2A Thl ethic min relationsh Wits or is?! here i We (is ii'Mfwh 98 Three kinds of inference give support to this proposition. t, Lambert and.K1ineberg (1967, pp. 185—190) fcund some evidence older (and thus more educated) children had more affection for ign peoples. For American Children the trend was linear; the more on pattern was an increase from age 6 to 10, then a leveling off van a partial drop in affection to age 14. Second, a number of surveys have demonstrated that education is ciated positively with internationalism1and.world—mindedness and tively with isolationism.(Fensterwald, 1958; Free and Cantril, 1968; ison, 1959). College seniors are more likely than college freshmen a internationalistic; and majors in the social sciences and human— 3 are more likely than majors in other fields to be internationalis— IQueener, 1949; Garrison, 1961; Singer, 1965a). The scales used in 2 studies do not specifically ask about affect toward other groups, they do measure variables sudh as willingness to associate with *peoples which would be expected to relate to favorable affect; hey relate negatively to variables like authoritarianism.and nce of nationality which in turn relate negatively (Propositions 1d 2A5) to attitudes. Third, studies of attitudes toward particular groups, usually 2minorities within the United States, have tended to show positive .onships between education and favorable attitudes, although the s are not wholly consistent. Purdue (1959) fcund white upperclass- re less likely than freshmen to stereotype Negroes. Bayton and (1947) fcund.Negro college students had a more positive stereo- ?whites (and a less positive stereotype of Negroes) than Negro high school 5 on etlmic gm to reduced p] to reduced 51 cited in Hart positively re and Anderson that educatic to negative 1 fistudy in a (illiterate, and attitudes but what the; Vie“ 0f thei Additj evidense of 1 Effects of pa rfictions, It 1957; Davis, L" “heath nitious. 99 school students. Harding e131. (1969) after reviewing research hnic groups in the United States concludes that education relates duced prejudice (_i__.§_. , more favorable attitudes) but not necessarily duced stereotyping and discrimination. Murphy and Likert (1938, in Hartley, 19%, p. 119) found that grades in college were ively related to generalized tolerance of other groups. Reigrotski nderson (1959) found for Belgian, French, German, and Dutch subjects education was a predictor of relatively favorable ratios of pos itive gative traits ascribed to Germans and Italians. On the other hand, ly in Ghana (Jahoda, 1959) found no relationship between education :erate, elementary school, elementary school plus) and stereotypes titudes: "Many illiterates knew precious little about whites, at they did know and feel did not differ substantially from the of their educated fellows." Additional support of rather doubtful worth , since there is no :e of lasting change, comes from pretest-posttest studies of the ; of particular courses dealing with subjects like international ins, race relations, and anthropology (e_.__g_. , Brooks, 1936; Bardis, |avis, 1963; Singer, l965)£.S Scott (1969) found that a course arative government resulted in increased differentiation of 6Curiously, Singer (1965a) found some indications that instruc— were relatively high in world—mindedness produced less change nts' world—mindedness scores than did instructors who were the index. rn for infl associat study il be less they hat some ex the ins“ Thus Bl Policy Politic lotions 1958 d1; effects the H01 like e( likely ilitims 100 Support for Propositions 3A2 and 3A3 is not necessarily evidence influence of information on attitudes . To some extent the changes :iated with education may represent maturation, as suggested by a 7 in which the members of a college freshman class were found to ass dogmatic and less stereotypic after four years, whether or not had stayed in college (Lehmann, Sinha, and Hartnett, 1966). To extent it may be the social interaction in college rather than nstruction and study which has the most influence on attitudes. Blau (1953) found that students at Cornell shifted their foreign 5! opinions in the direction of consistency with their general ical orientation, apparently because of selective personal assoc- ns. (Those who had few social contacts in college tended to change during college. )7 It would seem reasonable to offer another proposition about the :s of education, to the effect that the more educated a person is, me likely he is to rank nations accurately in terms of variables :conomic develOpment and political alignment, and thus the more he is to have nation—attitudes based on the reality of other 3. There is, however, little evidence for such a proposition. m 7The variety of activities in college which might be influ~ is shown in data from Wilson (1965, p. 102) on the campus ties which students at Pennsylvania State University thought LCEd their world outlook: books, magazines, neWSpapers, 52 per— ersonal contacts with foreign students, M8 percent; foreign ”6 percent; courses, 38 percent; radio and television, 37 5 Speeches and forums, 32 percent; contributions to relief drives, ant; exhibits and bulletin boards, 20 percent; clubs and organ— 3, 6 percent; athletic events with foreign teams, 6 percent; and >ation in Special events like United Nations Week, 5 percent. in one rel attitudes little dii ted and nc which char asystemc Similar e1 was true 1 'no Opinic C0liege-a longer in “8893ng cated gm] hermen- MO: iii/Olved . aOi,lEge,e time Way SOCietieS Wain have10pm 3e . mild, t 101 one relevant study, Richman (1972) used survey data to compare itudes toward Russia for the period from 19u2 to 1945. He found le difference in the pattern of Opinion change for college—educa— and non—college-educated Americans and concluded that world events ch change public attitudes toward Russia apparently do so through stem of governmental, media, and interpersonal mediation that has 'lar effects on all pecple's opinions, regardless of education (it true that college-educated reSpondents were less likely to give a opinion' answer). Richman also noticed one conspicuous difference: ege—educated Americans remained favorable toward Russia a month er in the period immediately after World War II than other Americans, ,esting to him that other influences may actually have made the edu— d group less responsive to a real change in relations between mments. Richman draws a tentative conclusion from Hero (1959a): The differences between educational groups are greatest for analytical, reality-testing behavior, somewhat less for information, still less for interest, and least of all for general feelings or attitudes on foreign issues. Most of the preceding discussion of educational effects has ved data on the difference between college-educated and non— ge-educated Americans, and it therefore needs to be qualified in ways. First, education may have somewhat different effects in :ies where it plays a different role, or where other means of com- .ting national and international information are less developed. Ping countries, in particular, might differ in these respects. , the effect may not be linear across the whole system of educa- College may represent a point of special articulation in the effec diffe coile iitei SOHE mti it? lite tie ‘i Gist 102 ern of change, and increasing specialization may result in divergent ects, as suggested by the studies cited in which students majoring in ferent fields responded differently. Finally, these studies fail to Show that there is, within the ege educated group, a small subgroup that tends to be highly rested in and informed about foreign affairs. This group, including college professors, journalists, government officials, and.business— makes up a small preportion of the population, but it differs in efs, attitudes, and differentiation from.the general college—educated dation more than the college—educated differ from the less educated inson and Hefner, 1967a; Rogers, Stuhler, and Koenig, 1967). 3. Effects of Exposure to Mass Communications Media. Proposition 3AAL — An individual who E relatively interested _in_ foreign nations will tend to be exposed to more information about foreign nations in the mass media than one who is not . In part the relationship expressed in Proposition 3AAL may be an act of the relationship between education and interest expressed position 3A1. Relatively educated people, fOrireasons that do ecessarily relate to interest in foreign affairs, are relatively y to attend to Channels that carry more foreign affairs informa— sudh as television newscasts, news magazines, and educational broad— g (Hero, 1959b; RObinson, 1967a). That the relationship between interest and exposure goes beyond ifact is suggested by the fact that relatively educated people re likely than others to report that they read all the fereign the neWSpaper (Robinson, 1967a). Interest leads to exposure 103 , as demonstrated by McNelly (1961), exposure leads to expression increased interest and of willingness to be exposed to even more ormation on the topic. In reviewing literature on selective exposure to supportive ormation, Freedman and Sears (1966; Sears and Freedman, 1967) con— de that de facto selectivity occurs frequently, but that it often be explained without reference to avoidance of dissonant information. (1969-70) mentions a finding of Lazarsfeld that a series of pro— about minority groups were most likely to be watched each week the members of the groUp covered that week. This can be interpreted showing selectivity in accordance with interest , but it may also >lve the seeking of consonant information. It might tentatively be :ested that the effect of the relationship in Proposition SAM is ctive, with those who generally think other nations are important hem getting confirming information, and those who have a more ocentric or isolationist point of view failing to be exposed to ntially disconfirming messages. If interest and eXposure are both related to education, and ition is related to internationalism (Proposition 3A3) , we may " at least a statistical relationship between media exposure and at ionalism: Proposition 3AAl . 1 — Individuals relatively high in exposure to information about foreign nations in the HESS media will be relatively likely to have favorable attitudes toward foreign nations in general . 10” Again, the data supporting these relationships are largely drawn from the United States and Western Europe. Especially where national governments exercise more control over foreign news in the media, .3roposition 3AH.l might not be supported; in fact, the inverse rela— tionship might occur. In one study in which it was possible to isolate influence of edia exposure, Himmelweit, Oppenheim, and Vince (1958) compared iritish children who were and who were not able to watch television the BBC). They found several differences that relate to this propo— ition. Television children were a little more likely to name a ountry other than their homeland when asked where they would like to ave been born, they were more likely to disagree with "My country is Lways right," and they tended to make more objective and fewer evalu— :ive statements about other pecples . Knowledge, measured by quest ions 1 world geography, was related to access to television, especially for e younger and less intelligent children. However, especially for the unger children, access to television related to acceptance of stereo-— pes common in the media, of the gay and witty French, of the arrogant i vicious Germans. Exposure to a message does not imply its acceptance, and thus 2 effects of mass media on attitudes toward other nations depend on :ir credibility to the individuals who are exposed to them: Proposition 3A5 — An individual's beliefs about a given foreign nation will be a function of his exposure to specific information in the mass media about that nation and of the credibility to him of that information. 105 By itself, this proposition doesn't help mudh in the prediction ?attitudes toward other~nations. Chapter II demonstrated that the iationship between beliefs and attitudes is not a.simple one. Part B :the present Chapter’will look in more detail at the way existing titudes and beliefs influence credibility and interact with new infor— tion. About all that can be said at this stage is that, depending on ch factors as prior beliefs and attitudes, credibility cues in the ssages, and social situations in whiCh messages are received, messages the.mass media are often but not always seen as credible, and that perceived as credible they may produce Changes in beliefs and atti— ies about foreign peoples. Credibility and acceptance are sometimes fcund even if the media olved are themselves foreign to the receiver. Thus a survey in zil (Brazil Institute of Public Opinion, reported in Klineberg, 1950, 102-103) asked, "Do you think American people really live as shown the movies?" Thirty—seven percent answered 'yes' and 50 percent oered.'no.' Klineberg also reports a study showing that BritiSh >01 children believed American movies gave a true picture of American 2(Heindel, 1937). The Indians and.Fi1ipinos studied by Maslog 1) generally felt even after coming to the United States, that all mass media they used, both domestic and foreign, gave reliable rmation about other nations. On the other~hand, Latin American ants (Loomis and SChuler, 1948) thought befOre coming to this :ry that U.S. movies gave a distorted picture of American life, dier*their stay in this country they felt this even more strongly. e (1968) fcund.that.American television shows were thought by 106 viewers in South America, western Europe, and.Japan to give a favorable impression of the United States. .Across the six countries sampled, an awerage of 40 percent thought.American life was as it is presented on television. Twelve percent thought it was probably better'than it appears on television; 23 percent thought it was probably worse. And Ekmcne (1960) fcund that U.S. films were seen as reflecting favorably on the United States in England, west Germany, and Italy, but not in France. In an early study of'mass media influence, Peterson and Thurstone (1933) fcund that images of Germans produced by a movie lasted as much as six months, possibly sustained by interpersonal communication about the movie. Likewise 60 percent of the initial attitude dange produced by a Iovie about the Chinese still showed up on a post—test 19 months later. the type of change, of course, depends on the specific content. Thus Brouwer and Van Bergen found that movies about India produced favorable or Infavorable attitudes in children, depending on whether modern or tradi— :ional aspects of India were emphasized. McNelly (1961) found that exposure 0 news stories about previously unfamiliar foreign tOpics resulted in .ncreased polarization of semantic differential reSponses, suggesting that agardless of content,mass media exposure may function to increase the .mber'and strength of beliefs individuals have about other nations. The conditions under which messages about other nations are kely to be believed are discussed in Section B of this chapter; how— er, special mention may be made of two studies concerned particularly th the credibility of mass media messages about other nations. Seward i Silvers (1943) presented United States college students with simu— Ied neWSpaper articles about either a United States victory or a 107 United States defeat in fighting with Japan, attributed either to United States or Japanese military sources. They concluded that three effects influenced subjects' ratings of belief: "(a) a tendency to lieve one's own government rather than the enemy's; (b) a tendency o believe good news rather than bad; (c) a tendency to believe news dverse to its source rather than favorable to its source. " In other study, Gladstone and Taylor (1958) found that threatening ssages attributed to Khrushchev and Malenkov were believed more by ubjects with lower scores on belligerence and on tendency to feel hreatened. f Information about foreign nations and peoples in the mass media onsists both of explicit, purportedly factual, statements (like the tatements of a newscaster) and of more or less incidental information hat may be drawn by the receiver from such sources as pictures of ther countries and fiction. The preceding paragraphs indicate that, 3 might be expected, the latter type, unless it contradicts what is msidered known, is often received uncritically, that receivers do >t give much consideration to the safety, qualification, and dynamism ’the source (the dimensions of source credibility identified by Berlo, mert, and Mertz, 1969—70). Cronen (1973) found that beliefs about 8 American Indian attributed to the traditional stereotyped media rtrayal tended to be salient (ig. , mentioned early in an association at), yet weakly held, suggesting that beliefs accepted uncritically this way may be held only as long as they are not contradicted by sages evaluated as more factual. Explicit statements, on the other d, may be evaluated more critically, as in the Seward and Silvers 108 FldY. In some cases resistance to mass media messages may be fairly rplete (3f: Allport and Simpson, 19146). General studies of the effects of mass communications on beliefs . attitudes (e.g. , Klapper, 1960; Weiss, 1969) will not be reviewed e. In general, research on mass media and nation-attitudes is con- tent with these surveys. What pecple learn about other countries the mass media is influenced by their trust and confidence in the foe, their personal frames of reference, and the reactions of others their society (Robinson, 1967, p. 14). Thus mass media are likely to / a major role in teaching people the views of distant peoples that, Iail in their society, and they may reinforce existing political :ntations toward other nations, but--except in the case where there :xtensive eXposure to messages originating in another nation——they less likely to play an independent role in changing attitudes toward r nations. Insofar as an individual's beliefs are influenced by the mass 51, a number of subpropositions for Proposition 3A5 might be derived Propositions 2B2, 2B3, 2B4, and 285 to the effect that individuals be relatively likely to have a favorable attitude toward a given >n insofar as they are exposed to information in the mass media ating that that nation is economically developed, aligned with . homeland, e_t_c_:_. Another limitation on the effects of mass media on images of 'peOples is stated by Cherry (19 71, pp. 8-10): For though this fast—expanding network increases our 'knowledge-by—reporting,’ it adds little or nothing to our 'knowledge—by-encounter. ' And there are worlds of differences between sharing experiences with others 109 . and reading about them in the news- papers. . . . ie says the mounting volume of international news makes us have >ersonal attitudes toward Biafrans and Chinese, but only as classes, :ypes, abstracts, or as "things." The following proposition is drawn "rom Cherry's statement as one deserving of investigation: Proposition 3A6 — Insofar as an individual ' 8 image of the pecple of a given nation is drawn exclusively from mass communication media, he will tend to see them impersonally and as conforming to a single (or a few? types. It has sometimes been suggested that intensely negative atti— 1des toward other pecple are only possible if the others are seen cm a distance . . . A naive person can feel quite genuine hatred for an anOnymous group, against 'the' Germans . etc. , and may rail against them in public, but he 531.1 never dream of being so impolite when he comes face to face with an individual member. . . . It is not surprising that real friendships between indi— viduals of different nationality . . . are even more beneficial. No one is able to hate, whole—heartedly, a nation among whose numbers he has several friends (Lorenz, 1967, p. 273—279). indeed this is the case, it is especially important to test Propo— :ion 3A6 by comparing the effects on nation—images of long-range unication and communication that is more likely to emphasize the onal characteristics, and the universal humanness, of other pecples. 4. Social Influences. Proposition 3A3 described the relation— between education and internationalism or world—mindedness . In United States individuals high in internationalism tend to differ those low in internationalism in a number of other ways as well. 110 ey are more likely to be young, to be female, to have foreign born rents, to be Jewish or not affiliated with any church, to be morats, to be higher in income, to be professional, and to be from =3 Northeast or the West Coast.8 Except insofar as these characteristics relate to education (and knowledge) ,9 they do not appear to represent effects of information attitudes toward other nations. All of these variables, however, : related to interaction patterns and, presumably, to Opinion leader— p and reference to groups. Thus indirectly these variables, by eating the direction of the social pressures which will influence individual, may determine the messages about other nations to which 0111 be eXposed and the ways in which he will respond to them. 8Levinson (1957) studying students at Harvard University, found :rnationalists were more likely to be Democrats than Republicans, : likely to be Jews than Protestants, more likely to be Protestants , Catholics, and that they tended to go to church less frequently. and Cantril (1968) in public opinion data, found that interns- alists were likely to be younger, to have higher incomes, to have essional and business occupations, or at least white collar oyment. Singer (1965) studying college undergraduates, found that mationalists were relatively likely to have no religious affilia- , to either be Democrats or to have no political affiliation, to be 1e, and to have foreign born parents. Queener (1949) found inter— nnalists more likely to have internationalist parents, to have foreign— parents, to be Jewish or Protestant, to be young, to earn a living professional or a laborer, to be female, and not to be from the South. (1968), in the best survey of data on the correlates of intern nalism, reports that internationalists at present are relatively y to be young (even controlling on education), to be female (insofar ternationalism is related to dislike of war), to be Jewish, to be , and to be from outside the south. Fensterwald (1958) found ationalism lowest in the mountain and plains states, and suggests may be due to the presence of immigrants rejecting Europe, to the ity of geographic isolation, and to economic self—sufficiency. us (1959, p. 41) found that southerners generally had greater as to all national and ethnic groups except Negroes. 9Demographic correlates of knowledge of other nations are 111 Proposition 3A7 - A given individual's attitudes toward other nations and peoples will be positively related to the most common attitudes among the pecple of his own nationality with whom he interacts . This proposition can be taken in several ways, since the attitudes of an individual and a group may covary across nations, across time, and across perceptions of particular traits. It may imply, for instance, that the degree of consensus among a given group of people about other pecples will be directly related to the amount of interaction between members of the group. The actual data available do not include direct easures of interaction and tend instead to support, as we have seen, the view that consensus is highest in groups defined by particular con- 'i gurat ions of demographic variables . Proposition 3A7 is close to what Christiansen (1959, pp. 76—78) tates as "the reference group hypothesis," the idea that the individual's ation~attitudes, like his other attitudes, will tend to conform to those fhis group: "As a rule attitudes toward outgroups seem to be more atermined by contact with prevalent attitudes in a person's social -lieu than by contact with the outgroups." People normally tend to milar to the correlates of internationalism. Robinson (1967a) in a rvey of the Detroit area public found those with more world affairs owledge tended to be white- collar rather than blue—collar workers, te, higher in income, and non—southern. In contrast with the inter— ionalism results, however, younger pecple and women were below Page in knowledge. Free and Cantril (196 8) report that those with internationalism were likely to be young, male, urban, relatively in income, and veterans. In a study of British school children hnson, Middleton, and Taj fel, 1970), those with more knowledge of er countries were relatively likely to be boys rather than girls, dle class rather than working class. Kriesberg (1949) reports that the United States men tended to know more about foreign affairs, as those with relatively high incomes, those living in urban areas, and 8e living on the east and west coasts. 112 test the validity of their categorizations of others in three ways: by recourse to an ultimate criterion of reality, by consistency, and by social consensus (Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin, 1962). Festinger (1954) hypothesizes that objective means will be preferred, but that if they are not available, social consensus will be influential (and that opinions based neither on objective means or social consensus will be weakly held). Thus it would be expected that, in the usual case where there is little "objective" information about another nation available, , individuals would be 1iJ<61y to conform with their own groups or with >ther reference groups insofar as the opinions in question are salient :0 such groups. Potentially this social pressure may be strong enough :0 prevent the acceptance of new information from other sources: Where each person believes as he does about a given country because 'everybody else' shares the same beliefs, the communication may run counter to a social reality that leaves no ground for legitimate differences of opinion (Janis and Smith, 1965). anis and Smith note that resistance to messages about another country ay be due to (a) the strength of group sanctions, (b) the amount of 2011p consensus, (c) the degree to which the subject has internalized 1e group norms, and (d) the salience of the group. There is some evidence that pressures to conform do influence ition~attitudes. Gorden (1952, cited in Lane and Sears, 1964) had bjects state their opinions on Russia privately, then publicly. ShtjiI-seven percent expressed a different Opinion in the public situ- Iion. Fifty—four percent expressed an opinion closer to the group m3 and 33 percent shifted away from it. Gardner and Taylor (1968) i1 English—Canadian subjects listen to messages either supporting or Si Si 5:." (fl 113 ntradicting the prevalent stereotype of French—Canadians under nditions of group pressure (manipulated through confederates) either pporting or contradicting the stereotype. Both variables influenced a subsequent stereotype ratings, demonstrating that social pressure y potentially either reinforce or reduce messages and existing ereotypes. Outside the laboratory, however, reference group influences are t always apparent because most foreign nations are not particularly , lient attitude Objects to the reference groups to which most indi— duals belong. It is well then to qualify Proposition 3A7 with the llowing subpmpositions: Proposition 3A7. l — The more salient attitudes toward a given nation or people are to an individual's reference groups , the more his attitudes toward that nation or pecple will be like those of his reference groups. Proposition 3A7.2 - The more salient a reference group is to a given individual, the more his attitudes toward other nations and pepples will be like those prevalent in the reference group. Combining these subprOpositions with the preceding discussion, could say that social influence on an individual's nation—attitudes be strongest when he is without Objective information about other ions but is strongly attached to a group that, as a group, does have Dng opinions on other nations. In lieu of actual data allowing comparison of individuals' erence group attachments, interaction behavior, and nation—attitudes, 'ould be helpful if groups relatively high in consensus on attitudes rd particular pecples could be identified. The difficulty is that — 5 _._~ ‘1 . — _ 114 the group fer Which consensus is measured may not be the group with vmfich social pressure is associated. High consensus may occur'When there is little group mediation to counteract a prevalent media message, cu‘it may occurias a result of confOrmity; low consensus for a sample may occur when members of the sample are strongly influenced by different reference groups. Scott (1965) notes that possible groups providing norms for international attitudes, in addition to schools and communication media, include families, political parties, and religious institutions.lo Boulding (1959) suggests that in developed countries traditional images of other countries exist and are passed on through the family group in childhood. In develOping countries, on the other‘hand, such traditional images may not exist and images of other countries may come from.elites. It would be expected, then, that people in less developed countries ould show more consensus in their images of distant pecples. Two plications of the Katz and Braly research provide apparently contra— 'ctory evidence on this point. Berreman (1958) fcund that college tudents in the Philippines showed more consensus than the American tudents studied by Katz and Braly, presumably because the educational stem was their main source of infOrmation about foreigners. On the her hand, Prothro and Melikian (1954) fcund less agreement among.Arab dents in Lebanon than among the American students.ll 10He notes that ”it is generally in the interest of such agents develop fairly simplified, undifferentiated image structures." Thus ference group influences typically lead to simplicity as well as to fermity. . 11The latter study was at the relatively cosmopolitan American Varsity of Beruit, and so the Arab subjects might be expected to have win, .1 “. _.. 115 Consensus may also be an indication that a given foreign nation 5 salient to the group sharing common beliefs and attitudes. If this s the case, more consensus would be expected for attitudes toward amiliar nations. Most of the available evidence supports this expec— ation. Taft (1959) found a positive relationship between familiarity nd consensus across groups rated by Australian subjects. Vinacke 1956) found that consensus on traits ascribed to various national and acial groups related positively to estimates of the probability of rect contact with the groups. Katz and Braly (1947) found less con— :nsus in traits ascribed by Americans to Chinese and Turks than to re familiar groups. Cobb (1949) found consensus in California udents' stereotypes of Japanese—Americans related positively to their niliarity with members of the group judged. Group influences may act in the direction of favorable images of eign pecples, or they may act in the direction of unfavorable images. there is no consistent relationship between conformity (or con- sus) and attitudes. On one hand authoritarianism, which involves a of conformity, is related to prejudice for middle-class subjects. he other hand, after World War II working—class veterans who were liated with social groups displayed less prejudice than those pre— ly exposed to less social control (Bettelheim and Janowitz, 1950). ews of research (Taft, 1959; Brigham, 1971) have indicated that ensus is not clearly related to preference for other nations. re contact with the pecples judged, but there is no obvious rela— hip between their agreement on traits and the likelihood of their ct with the particular peoples judged. 116 ositive relationships between consensus and preference tend to dis— ppear when the effects of familiarity are controlled. There is, however, some evidence that ascription of favorable raits is related positively to consensus (Karlins, Coffman, and Walters, 969). This, together with the factor—analytic distinction between ttitudes and stereotypes (Gardner, Wonnacott, and Taylor, 1968; Gardner, lor, and Feenstra, 1970), seems to indicate that social influences '11 have more influence on some aspects Of an image than on others. ether this is because particular aspects of the image are salient to rticular reference groups or because individuals tend to accept only rtain kinds of information on other nations from such gIOUps is not ear.” Likewise, social influence appears to influence the nation— ages of some people more than those Of others (Gardner e331. , 1972). Two studies have looked specifically at the effects of inter— tion dealing with foreigi nations. Deutsch and Merritt (1965) pothesized that the stability of images in the face of changing events st be due to a "two-step flow" of influence. They predicted and found it stability of pro—Soviet sympathy would correlate across nations h the strength of their internal pro—Soviet communications networks. y suggest, however, that attitudes toward less salient nations will be the subject of much interpersonal communication, and will 12Lambert and Klineberg (1967, pp. 162-176), found that children—- ecially ten-year—olds——of a given nationality were likely to show more “ensus in evaluative terms and less consensus in descriptive terms in ribing nations they liked than in describing those they didn't like, reason for this is unclear, but it also suggests that such different of consensus need to be distinguished in future research. 117 :herefore tend to be unstable. In most of the preceding discussion, it has been impossible to 'stinguish the effects of differences between groups in education, media sure, and familiarity with other nations fromithe effects of inter— rsonal interaction and social influence. The difficulty is illustrated the other study which looked at relevant interaction. Robinson 967a) fcund correlations Of from +.30 to +.45 between education, sure to world news in newsPapers, world affairs knowledge, and ported face-to—face discussions with friends of world news. 5. International Travel. InfOrmation received through schools, 8 media, and interaction with compatriots is generally indirect or "ated infOrmation. It tends to be transmitted verbally, and it 1dS to simplify the reality of the nation—Object. In contrast with hated information is the information which is attained through ect contact with fOreigners, either through travel to a foreign ntry or through contact with fOreign travelers in one's own country. 1 of the infOrmation attained in this way is non—verbal and concrete, much of it is likely to be of immediate import to the receiver. There has been a great deal of research on the effects of direct act on nation—attitudes, and some of that research is summarized in pages which follow. Unfortunately, most of this literature deals only one of the many kinds of contact, the experience of foreign ants, in particular the experience of fOreign students in the d States. The most important distinction between types of travel, as far fluence on nation-attitudes is concerned, is expressed in the 118 ollowing prOpos it ion: Proposition 3A8 - Contact between individuals of different nationalities will Be related to their attitudes toward each other's nations only insofar as the contact involves shared experiences. This proposition says, in effect, that travel changes attitudes 1y if it leads people of different nations to get to know each other ther through working with each other or through develOping friendships. 's is the basic assumption of Angell (1969, pp. 22-23) that travel is uential only if it involves "transnational participation," with velers taking roles in institutions of the host country, combined the idea that close friendships seem to significantly affect atti— es. Support for this prOposition comes from evidence that the foreign ’airs attitudes of United States students returning from study in nce, but not those of United States students who just traveled in nce, differed from those who did not travel (Pace, 1959; cited in all, 1969, p. 40-41). Adinaryan (1957) found that Indians who I Europeans casually did not differ much in social distance toward >peans from Indians who knew no Europeans at all, but that those with e friendships with Europeans showed less than half as much social ance to them. Mere travel, as Opposed to "transnational participation" is n tourism. In 1967—1968 78 percent of all United States passport >ients indicated personal reasons and pleasure as their main reasons raveling (Brein and David, 1971). Though, as the proposition s, such travel does not have the same effects as other kinds of 119 ntact, there has not been enough research to indicate whether it has her kinds of effects. Boorstin (1961) laments the fact that travel become a commodity, where "a well—planned tour saves the tourist m negotiating with the natives when he gets there." Cherry (1971, . l70ff) suggests that such travel is likely to emphasize differences een peOple, and to conform to tourists' expectations. It may be t travel without extensive contact has its own kind of influence on ion—images. At least the matter deserves more attention than it 3 received. In the paragraphs which follow, contact refers to direct contact, rolving shared experience, between peOple from different nations. ess Specified, the effects of contact discussed are those on the velers rather than those on the nationals of the host nation. Such contact occurs for various official reasons—-foreign study, Peace Corps, religious missions, business travel, military service ad, diplomatic missions, participation in international organizations , (see Angell, 1969, pp. 23—26)-——and for a variety of conscious and scious personal reasons which may also influence the kind of infor— on they receive and their acceptance of it.13 13 . . . Byrnes (1965) developed a typology of motivations for United 5 technical assistance personnel abroad: (1) professionally ted, (2) oriented to interpersonal and social approaches within the role, (3) interested in the administrative process of technical tance, (4) mainly concerned with a job and security, and (5) 1y concerned with adventure. Pool (1965) grouped participants in Xperiment in International Living by their motivations: (l) , (2) chance to test ability to cope, (3) status enhancement, and ance to satisfy instinctual impulses. Merritt (1972) summarizes indicating that the decisions of foreign students to study abroad their choices of country and institution to study in) are based on 'ety of factors: "Students interested in studying abroad seek to 120 ses and motivations for contact presumably influence the indi— ual's exposure to particular kinds of information about the host try and his interpretation and acceptance of such information. 1' Within the contact experience different sources of information available, as three studies of foreign students derronstrate. Basu Ames (19 70) found that Indian students in Los Angeles felt they rned most about the United States "though the friends that they e, and especially through the mass media: television, radio, and movies." Most of them reported attending movies regularly. They very little contact with American families. Mowlana and McLaughlin 59) also found mass media to be influential. Foreign students in United States listed sources that had significantly influenced .r attitudes toward this country while they were here. Sixty—six ent mentioned contact with Americans , 51 percent mentioned news— rs, 49 percent television, 46 percent magazines, 25 percent instruc- , 20 percent foreign publications, 19 percent other foreign students, L5 percent foreign newspapers.” Eide (1960b) reported on Egyptian, Lize any or several of a variety of values, some of them perhaps ' perceived." An example of this is the study of Indian students mbert and Bressler (1956). Each of them indicated in some way he felt impelled to extend himself in playing three active roles in the United States: the student, the tourist, and the unofficial sador." Such varying motivations obviously create differences in ays in which travelers will respond to information to which they (posed. l4 . . . . . Though contact was rated most important in 1nfluenc1ng attitudes, media sources were rated more important in terms of general use. ences in eXposure to various media were associated with nationality >ean and Latin American students used print media more), time in ited States, and field of study. 121 dian, and Iranian students who were asked what sources influenced heir knowledge about the aspects of the host country they knew best. e most common answers were personal experience and observation (63 ercent), social contacts, leisure activities, and informal conversa- ion (62 percent), private traveling (41 percent), special studies and ks (71 percent), and mass media (40 percent). The implication Of these studies is simply that contact is not st exposure to a particular kind of information. It is instead sure to a new set of sources. The individual traveler must choose e sources to vinich he wants to be exposed, and he must integrate in .s own mind sometimes contradictory messages from different sources. .fferent individuals do this in different ways, and so it is necessary look at how they adjust to their whole contact eXperience in order begin to understand the beliefs and attitudes which result from it.15 The study of foreign students' (and other travelers') experiences :hin the host country has typically dealt with the variables of Pugtment, satisfaction, and interaction behavior. The paragraphs ch follow deal with the predictors of these variables and with the ationships between these variables and attitudes toward the host try. Unfortunately clear distinctions between those variables have always been maintained, either in measurement or in theory. The 5Most studies of the experience of travelers focus on inter— onal contacts. It would be useful if some researchers would look ow travelers interpret and respond to particular content in the country media. Schild (1962) studied the means by which foreign ents learned about the host culture and concluded that for scope of ing, personal observation was best, that for effectiveness of ing, participation was best, and that for ease of learning, eXplicit icat ion was best . 122 rd adjustment, for instance, seems to imply a dynamic process whereby a traveler changes in response to characteristics of the host society, t adjustment is frequently measured by asking the traveler about his :isfaction. Satisfaction does not imply change. The most satisfied iveler may be one who feels no pressure to change, either because he in a situation that has been arranged to give him little difficulty because he is confident enough of his own culture that he sees no son to modify it. Likewise interaction with host nationals is some— es assumed to be an indicator of adjustment, and favorable attitudes 1rd the host country are sometimes taken to be indicators of satis— :ion.16 For most transnational participants there are changes in satis— :ion during the contact period, and there seem to be parallel changes ehavior. Some researchers have suggested that there is a regular ern of stages in the adjustment of the visitor to his travel experi— (1) an initial "spectator" period in which the traveler observes lost society without really attempting to participate in it, (2) a a of trying to adapt to the problems of living in the host society, 1 a fairly difficult and unpleasant process, (3) a stage in which raveler has "come—to—terms” with the host society and found a rn of life within it,and (4) a pre—return stage in which he is rned with the problems of readjustment to his home society (Scott, pp. SOff; M. B. Smith, 1955). 16For a discussion of a variety of studies relating to adjustment, ein and David (1971). 123 The Changes in satisfaction and related variables as the indi— Mal passes through these stages have often been fcund to suggest the ‘ mlof'a U-shaped curve, representing relatively high satisfaction ly and late in the period of contact with someWhat less satisfaction between (SE: Merritt, 1972, Generalizations 3.1 and 3.2; see Figure >r'an illustration of the general fOrmxof’sudh a curve). Coelho 38, p. 39) found that Indian students who had been in the United :es from 3 to 36 months were more likely than those in the United 'es fer‘more or less time to make unfavorable comments about the ed States. Byrnes (1963) fcund that the frustrations of United States employees overseas tended to peak near the midpoint of their tour. sch and.Won (1963) fcund that AID participants were more likely to ass satisfaction with their training program.and their social experi— ; in the United States just befOre departing f0r’their homeland than High Country and Attitudes toward the Host Country Adjustment to the Host :3 Arrived. Point in Sojourn Departure Figure 3. The General Form of the U-Curve of Foreign Student Adjustment Over Time. 121+ arlier in their tours. Lysgaard (1965) interviewed returned Norweigian ulbright exchangees and found that they expressed more satisfaction if heir United States stay was under six months or over 18 months than f it was of an intermediate duration. Singh (1963, pp. 119—115) found at satisfaction of Indian students in Britain tended to follow a U— aped curve which reached its highest level (and a corresponding low vel of "emotional strain") for students who had been in Britain two three years (for those away from home longer satisfaction began to Cline again). Morris (1960, p. 105) found a U—curve of favorableness ward the United States for foreign students in the United States for rious lengths of time, and it also began to decline a second time for ose in the United States over four years. Becker (1968), however, found J—curve for attitudes of European students and an inverted U-curve for titudes of Indian and Israeli students in the United States toward a United States. As Brein and David (1971) point out in their summary of research adjustment, though the general tendency is for satisfaction to follow '—curve, Specific factors lead to variance between individuals in 'r overseas experiences. Among these factors are the culture of the eler, the differences between his culture and that of the host try, his knowledge of the culture and language of the host country, interaction with host nationals, his personal goals, and the par— lar situation in which he finds himself. Eide (1970a) reported that in a study of students going from 6 countries to each of three other countries , more variance in tment was associated with the country of origin (United Arab 125 public, Iran, or India) than with the host country (United States, 'ted Kingdom, and West Germany). Most conSpicuously, Indian students rted fewer problems and less need of assistance in coping with 'ustment problems. They changed less than the other students during ir sojourn, and expressed less desire to import the culture of their t country to India. Eide speculates that this national difference be due to differences in experience at home with cultural pluralism, ideologies regulating acculturation, and in status in the host try of the homeland and its culture. Morris (1960, pp. 78—97), ver, found no significant relationships between satisfaction vari— es and foreign students' perceptions of the status accorded their ion by the host country. Subjects who were relatively involved with 'Lr own nation also reported less satisfaction and less contact with : nationals. Gezi ( 1965) found better adjustment in the United :es for Middle Eastern students if they perceived that Americans d their homelands favorably. In particular travelers who are visibly "foreign" tend to report satisfaction. This may be because of racial discrimination, real ' ed, as well as because of cultural difference. Thus Taj fel and (1965; cited in Kelly and Szalay, 1972) found for foreign students itain that " generally, the darker the color of the student , the complimentary he was about Great Britain (and the United States) ’8 eXperience with his host country." Morris (1960) found that s with a foreign (or nonwhite) appearance tended to report less action and less contact with host nationals . According to the tute of International Education (1961) 77 percent of African 126 ents in the United States report experiencing racial discrimination. Assuming India.to be.relatively unlike these host countries :urally, Eide's results appear to cast doubt on the generally accepted :osition that "the greater~the cultural differences the greater is likelihood that barriers to communication will arise and that mis- arstandings will occur" (MiShler, 1965). Apparently both Character— Lcs of the home culture and.differences between the home and host :ures play roles in determining satisfaction. American Fulbrighters :he Middle and Far East are less likely than those in EurOpe to >rt satisfaction with their experiences (JacObson, Kumata, and .ahorn, 1960). Forstat (1951) found that foreign students frcnn Lda,.Norway, India, China, Turkey, and Venezuela ranked in that order nleast to greatest number~of'problems reported.by themehile studying Urdue University. Selltiz 33.2}: (1963, p. 156) fcund little erence in adjustment associated with country of origin, but did that non-European students in the United States were more likely to :mesick. Foreign students report a variety of problems during their sojourn, at (1951) fcund the prOblems most frequently mentioned were finding ble dates, being permitted to work by immigration, and speaking in .A survey of African students in the United States (Institute of national Education, 1961) found that they initially reported ms with communication, food, and adjustment to the host country‘s life. Later*in the stay the most common problems were financial llties, discrimination, homesickness, and academic problems. (1965) found that the greatest difficulties of American ICA 127 ees abroad were in adjusting to the United States organizational . and to the work behavior styles of host nationals. As might be expected, previous foreign travel, prior knowledge : host country, and fluency in the language of the host country :em to reduce the severity of problems and simplify adjustment. factors do compensate for cultural distance. Deutsch and Won found that AID participants who said they were fluent in English elatively likely to express satisfaction with their training ms and their social experiences in the United States. Basu and 1970) refer to a study by Peterson and Neumeyer in which prior dge of the United States was found (with financial situation) to ecially useful in predicting adjustment. Morris (1960) found oreign students who had had previous foreign travel were likely a higher satisfaction, more contact with host nationals, and to are favorable attitudes toward the host country. On the other Eyrnes (1965), in his study of U.S. I.C.A. employees, found high .tion fulfillment and high satisfaction tended to characterize n their first tours abroad. For his sample language fluency to satisfaction only for those who went to French or Spanish ; nations. hough some of the variance in satisfaction with travel experi— associated with the nationality of the traveler, there are iividual differences in satisfaction between travelers of the Lonality. Singh (1963) found that upper—class more than middle— ian students in Britain were relatively unlikely to experience mimination and to have trouble making friends with the British. 128 aneral, the middle—class students had more adjustment problems this may have been because they were older, 2393). Kelman and Bailyn (1962) studied differences between students ent up and who went down during their stay in the United States Leir rating of the opportunity for living a good life in their home— The "up—raters" tended to have made plans fer their return home to traveling. They seemed to fear being attracted to the United 5, to resist new experiences, and to look for the negative side of Jet country. Mere than the "down—raters," they were likely to say it was easy to adjust to life in the United States. Up—raters nm—raters did not differ in terms of sex, age, nationality, or )us travel. McClintock and Davis (1958) in a somewhat parallel report that ”the direction of change in the importance of ality in the self-percepts of foreign students tends to reflect aunt of interaction in and the general attitudes held towards the Those who tended to place less emphasis on nationality after 5 in the United States generally expressed more satisfaction with ;ojourn. Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1966), in a study of American students found that younger students tended to express general satis— in response to favorable social experiences and perceptions of l gnoflth. Lysgaard (1965) found moderate positive correlations measures of personal-social satisfaction and professional— >nal adjustment for Norwegian Fulbrighters. She particular situation in which the traveler finds himself :0 influence his adjustment and satisfaction. In general greater 129 faction is reported by sojourners in situations where there is a r probability of interaction with host nationals. Singh (1963), stance, found that students living on their own, as opposed to g in dormitories or with British families, experienced relatively notional strain. Many of the factors just discussed relate not only to satis— n but to amount and type of interaction with the people of the untry. Interaction with host nationals is the best single pre— of adjustment to the host culture. Thus Gezi (1965) found that, ddle Eastern students in the United States, the best single pre— ‘ of adjustment is the "meaningfulness" of their interaction with ans. Jacobson, Kumata, and Gullahorn (1960) found that the action of Fulbright grantees related positively to the number of sional contacts they had abroad. The most extensive studies of relations between social inter— and adjustment are those of Morris (1960) and Selltiz $11: 17 Morris (p. 38) used three measures: volume of contact with ns (reported proportion of free time spent with them), range of (the variety of Americans they interacted with), and depth of (close friendships reported with Americans). Volume of contact itively correlated with range and depth, but range and depth were nificantly correlated with each other. Range, depth, and volume 1ct were correlated with general satisfaction with the sojourn .— 7For summaries of other research on this subject, see Brein and 971) and Selltiz et al. (pp. 149—155). __— _-m;__u‘__.i , +.LL0, and +.30 respectively. Selltiz et al. (pp. 150—159) found, a few inconsistencies for certain groups of students, a generally tive relationship between adj ustment-«academic, social, and emo— a1~—-and "each of two measures of social relations—-one an inter— on score, based on the student's report of participation with icans in various situations and activities, the other his report ose friendships with Americans."18 Selltiz et al. note, however, that It is not certain that . . . more extensive or more intimate social relations lead to easier adjustment or more enjoyment. . . . In all probability, social relations and adjustment reinforce each other, with social relations easing adjustment, and greater adjustment freeing the student to enter more fully into social relations. 8If attitudes are related to adjustment, and adjustment is related teraction, it is possible to go back another step and look at pre— rs of interaction. Selltiz et al. (1963, pp. 60-122) found that the predictor was the student's national—cultural background. Europeans acted more than other foreign students with Americans, perhaps in >ecause Europeans tended to be younger, etc. Other personal char- Lstics, including facility with English,"'iv'é’re of relatively little 1 predicting interaction. The particular situation in which the :n student found himself did predict interaction. Life at small :es tended to involve more potential for interaction, and led to more ction (see also Selltiz, Hopson, and Cook, 1956). Students living mitories with American students, or sharing rooms with Americans, rprisingly, reported more interaction (but not necessarily more friendships). Singh (1963) found that the social class of Indians tain influenced their interaction, with upper-class students finding ier to make friends, while middle-class students interacted more ther Indians. He suggests that the students with the greatest llties in adjustment were those with high social need and low social Morris (1960, pp. 72-77) found that foreign students in the United were more likely to report contact with Americans if they had prior 1 travel, if they didn't look foreign, if they were low on "involve- rith their own nation, if they reported little difficulty with ~., and if they reported little academic difficulty. Basu and Ames found for Indian students that their scores on the F—scale of author— ism predicted their contact with Americans before ( -.1+2) and after coming to the United States. 131 Regardless of the direction of influence, satisfaction with the >journ seems to be associated with the amount of interaction with host ticnals. Interaction may be assumed to provide the traveler with a rticular kind of information about the country. Though there is ttle detailed information on what is learned through interaction, it uld probably involve more understanding of the personal values, nblems, activities, and interpersonal relationships of the pecple of a host country than would be attained from mass media, detached :ervation, or other sources.19 In varying degrees foreign students and other sojourners tend to elop attachments to host country individuals, groups, and organiza- ns. At the same time they may maintain, or even increase (as in group studied by Lambert and Bressler, 1956) attachments to groups none, to fellow travelers from their own country, and to other eign students" in general.20 Often (as suggested by Beals, 1957) 19Chances are that the traveler will interact most with pecple are somewhat similar to himself in interests, education, and per- age and social status. Foreign students would tend to interact, instance, with students and faculty in their own field of study. 20H. P. Smith ( 1955) studied United States participants in the iment in International Living. He found that those who changed in the direction of increased world-mindedness and decreased centrism differed only in that their prior attitudes were more rvative, suggesting that the effect of the experience was to move toward the group norm. Ibrahim (1972) found that students from Arabia (where the government is pro-American) were more pro— :an and less pro—Russian than other Arab students in the United ;, but that the longer they stayed in the United States, the more attitudes resembled those of other Arabs. Useem and Useem (195M) that less than one-fourth of returned Indians had been discrim- L against but more than three-fourths had heard of their friends discriminated against. Antler (1970) found that foreign medical nts in the United States who were relatively high in interaction 132 sojourner will experience conflict between his attachments to home— try and host~country reference groups. The effect of contact on tudes will certainly vary with the way in which the individual nciles the sometimes—conflicting influences of these two kinds of s. The discussion in the preceding pages should serve to indicate contact is a complex variable, involving a variety of sources and nences on the traveler. It is not surprising that different 51ers respond differently, in terms of attitudes toward the host ry. Selltiz SELJEL' (1963, p. 162) note that on almost every ion some foreign students change in one direction, some do not e, and some change in the opposite direction. Despite this var— it is possible to offer a number of propositions about the general : of contact on nation—attitudes. A discussion of variables which t fer differences in attitude change associatedvdth the contact ence follows the discussion of these general propositions. Proposition 3A9 — Contact through travel with another Ination will result in increased knowledge about that nation. It is obvious that the traveler cannot avoid learning something he nation he visits. The question is, What kind of knowledge acquire, and this issue has not been studied systematically. and Schuler (19u8) found improvement over one year in Latin -—_ air countrymen and relatively low in interaction with Americans :0 be more nationalistic. All fcur of these findings are .ve as to the possible importance of contact with compatriots. 133 rican students' scores on a test of information about American 1lture. Selltiz et__a_l_. (1963, p. 188) found gains by foreign students information on social and economic matters in the United States and creased understanding of United States thinking on various social sues. Gruen (1959) noted that German students in a year in the United ates learned about more "intimate" subjects like discrimination and eatment of the aged in the United States, subjects that they had not arned about at a distance. It may also be that travel provides more imate knowledge in another sense. It provides relatively detailed ries of particular (and ordinary) sights, individuals, and events, ind of information that is not always available through other nnels. Beyond this it is difficult to generalize, because data tends to 1 with changes in beliefs rather than changes in information. In 1 changes it is never entirely possible to separate what has been ned about the host country from changes in attitude toward the host [try. Some examples: Gruen (1959) found that most of German ents' perceptions of America did not change during a year in the ed States. Veroff found that African students after one and a half in the United States saw Americans as more insincere and materi— ic, but did not change their perceptions of Americans as intolerant ' dustrious. Selltiz e_t_;al. (1963, p. 186) found that foreign nts in the United States Were likely to come to see Americans as energetic, friendly, and equalitarian, and more practical and ardized. Isaacs (1961; cited in Angell, 1969, pp. 78—79) found Americans who went to Africa on the Crossroads Africa program were 1311 re likely to see Africans as intelligent, industrious, honest, expres— ve, uncomplicated, warm, submissive, uncivilized, and extravagant, d less likely to see them as hostile, anti—white, militant, savage, olent, and immoral.21 It might be expected that the travelers' beliefs about the host untry will come to approximate those of host nationals, eSpecially ntrolling for the evaluative component in these beliefs. Assuming at host nationals have relatively accurate knowledge of their country, in agreement would lend support to PrOposition 3A9, but it is more :urate to describe this phenomenon differently: Proposition 3A9.l — Contact through travel with other nations will result in increased agreement with the non—evaluative beliefs about the host country held by test nationals. hough this might be expected to result from an eventual partial ulturation to the host country, there is not much evidence that it urs during a relatively short sojourn. Travelers are more often pared with their non—traveling compatriots than with host nationals, the evaluative element is not always separated out. Kelly and Lay (1972) compared the associations to such concepts as communism, my) equality, progress, and United States of roughly comparable >les of Koreans in the United States, non—traveling Koreans, and traveling Americans. They found little similarity in the associ— ns of the three groups for United States. Across all the terms 211-1e summarizes these changes by saying the subjects were more 1y to characterize Africans with adjectives that were "modern— ring," "non—modern-—admiring," and "non—modern paternalistic," likely to characterize them with terms that were "modern— atening" and "non—modern—threatening." and 135 e was no simple main effect-~in some cases the non—traveling icans and non-traveling Koreans were most similar—~and they hypoth- ;ed that the complex changes they fcund may represent the development xsubculture of Koreans (or fOIeigners) in America. Proposition 3AlO — Contact through foreign travel, when the traveler has a favorable attitude toward the host country, is positively related to perceiving the host country as similar to the traveler's own; contact through foreign travel, when the traveler has an unfavorable attitude toward the host country, is negatively related to per— ceiving the host country as similar to the traveler‘s own. This proposition is drawn from Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963): Given similar attitudes, proximity and frequent inter— action tend to increase the degree of positive sentiment. With slight dissimilarity of attitudes a mutual assimilation seems to be produced, converting originally disparate values into common values, resulting in an increase in positive feelings. With strong dissimilarities, however, proximity and fre- quent interaction are likely to result in a greater clarification of the divergences and in a conflictful sequence of interaction-~followed, perhaps, by mutual antipathy and dissociation. More generally, however, it would seemlthat changes in attitudes l perceived simdlarity during the contact experience tend to el each other and, presumably, to influence each other. Thus and Schuler (1948) found that Latin American students coming to [ted States expected to find a culture basically different fnmn wn. gative, and they ended up perceiving even greater differences y had expected. H. P. Smith (1955) found that Americans who n England with the Experiment in International Living became >rable to England and perceived it as more like the United During a year in the United States their attitudes became 136 es, while those who went to France and Germany became less favorable perceived less similarity. And Cobb (19H9) found that students in fornia who knew Japanese—Americans were relatively likely to ascribe ts to them which were both favorable and similar to those they rded other Americans. As the discussion of Propositions 3A8 and 3AlO indicates, contact tes to change in beliefs, but not always in the same way. Not ‘isingly, attitudes toward the host country also change in different , and it is difficult to isolate a general effect of contact from 2 Some studies have found a positive relation— various changes.2 between contact and favorable attitudes (Bjerstedt, 1952; Reigrotski derson, 1959), others a negative relationship (Loomis and Schuler, Herman, 1970). Some studies have found little significant change titudes (Gruen, 1959; Watson and Lippitt, 1955), or have found that elationship varied with the country visited (H. P. Smith, 1955), characteristics of the traveler (§;E°a Singh, 1953, pp. 88—91), or :he measure of attitudes used (Selltiz et_al,, 1953, p. 188). ;uently no general proposition about contact and the favorability itudes toward the host country is offered here. Under specific ions contact seems to relate positively to favorable attitudes, e of these conditions are specified in Propositions 3A13, 3Alu, m > 'aAdditionally, Amir (1969) notes that investigators have often ituations in which they expected (and hoped) to find positive ”Therefore, if most studies appear to prove that contact ethnic groups reduces prejudice, it does not necessarily follow as results are typical for real social situations.” 137 i 3A15 . Mishler (1965), summarizing several studies, says that fer :hange scholars the pattern of attitude Change is not so much toward zorable attitudes as toward a more complex and differentiated image the host country. Proposition 3All — Contact through foreign travel is positively related to having relatively differentiated attitudes toward the host country. There is a fair amount of evidence for this proposition. nce Proposition QAH relates differentiation to moderate evaluation, 3 may in part account for the lack of consistent findings on direc— 1 of change.) Apparently the detailed information which is received the contact situation is in part information about variance——between Lviduals, between traits, and between different situations. The esponding differentiation in attitudes (and beliefS) may become rent in several ways, including subjects' own self—perceptions {ELgL h, 1963, pp. 88—91: "In general the students felt that by coming ritain their attitudes had become more balanced, more realistic, Iore clearly differentiated . . ."), a reluctance to make generali— me, and a tendency not to have extremely favorable or unfavorable :udes toward the country. Selltiz Eiiéi: (1963, p. 188) fcund that foreign students after r in the United States were more likely to qualify statements of opinions about the United States. On the other hand, H. P. Smith ) failed to find the same tendency in Americans who were in the 138 xperiment in International Living.23 Rose studied attitudes of French ubjects before and after eigit weeks in the United States and found no eneral change in attitudes. His subjects tended to ascribe fewer sitive and fewer negative adjectives to Americans?” The process of differentiation is illustrated by a study in ich subjects rated concepts like English—Canadian, French—Canadian, udent and teacher singly and in group—role pairs (Aboud and Taylor, 71). Predictably ethnic group was most influential in ratings of ose outside of the subject's own group, while role was more influ— J, tial in rating members of the subject's own group. Subjects with ntact with the other group were more likely to use role stereotypes 1 rating its members, suggesting that contact leads to a recognition differences between members of another group. In other studies, Kelman (1965a; Kelman and Ezekiel, 1970) oked at broadcasting specialists from sixteen countries who studied 1 traveled in the United States on a four month program. Images of a United States became more differentiated for 17, less differentiated P five, and about the same for five.25 Triandis (1971, pp. 101+ ff) —-———___ 23There is a possible conflict between Proposition 3All and the non feeling that returned travelers act as if they were experts on countries they visited, but it may also be that in some cases the ject with a differentiated image is led by confidence in that image by a particular social situation to make generalizations. 21+.Angell (1969, pp. 78—79) sees the fact that Isaacs' (1961) jects checked 23 percent more adjectives after their trip than before evidence of increased differentiation, but this could as easily resent an increased willingness to generalize about Africans. 25Kelman and Ezekiel (pp. l85ff), compared those who had high 139 Its that Triandis and Vassiliou (1967) and Triandis et al. (1988) d that Americans' images of Greeks, with increased contact, tended become "more differentiated and more ambivalent." Herman (1970) d that American Jewish students in Israel increasingly distinguished een Israel (to which they were favorable) and Israelis (to whom they less favorable). Isaacs (1958) found that those in his sample extensive experience in India were likely to report mixed or dif— ntiated attitudes while those without such contact were likely to leariy favorable or unfavorable; those with brief experience were rmediate in differentiation (p. 329). He also asked about Asia as tential danger to Americans, and fcund in general that Individuals with minimal or no contact with Asia or Asians distribute themselves over the entire range, occupying all of the ultrapessimistic ground and a small corner of the optimists . . . Individuals with Asian experience are wholly absent from the ultrapessimistic extreme, but only pecple with India or Southeast Asia experience appear among the optimists. . . Individuals with China background are absent fromlboth extremes (pp. Suff). Proposition 3A12 — Contact through foreign travel is pgsitively related to the average favorableness of the individual's attitudes toward other nations. Though contact does not consistently produce favorable attitudes d the host country, there is some evidence that it may change the ler's general orientation toward his nation and the world. The ition is perhaps overstated, because the expected changes would 1y be relatively moderate. The assumption is that attitudes w change scores toward differentiation. High and low differen— do not seemrto have differed on differentiation prior to arrival. 140 ward foreign nations in general are in part a function of the indi- dual's orientation to his own nation and culture (see Proposition 5). Exposure to another culture is likely to reduce ethnocentrism, 1 reduced ethnocentrism is likely to affect the way in which all 'eign nations are perceived. Useem and Useem (1955) note that most returned Indian students e become somewhat able to transcend their cultural biases, and that y show a tendency to see "one human family." Watson and Lippitt 55, pp. 51—52) found that Germans studying in the United States me less nationalistic, more internationalistic. Coelho (1958) 1d that Indian students who had spent at least a year in the United es were relatively likely to give a two-sided presentation of rnational issues. And Iisager (1949) fcund that of the students attended an international fo1k high school in Denmark, H9 percent me more internationalistic, 6 percent less internationalistic, and arcent did not change over a period of about four months. All 2 studies indirectly support the proposition. In one contrary , H. P. Smith (1955, 1957) fcund no influence on world—mindedness ocentrism associated with participation in the Experiment in ational Living. The following paragraphs deal with ways in which the pre—sojourn teristics of the sojourner, the particular characteristics of journ experience, and the experience of returning home all e the effect of contact on his attitudes toward the host country. Pre—sojourn factors which may influence the traveler's favor— s to the host country have been discussed by several authors. 141 ck (1971) suggests that . . . We could predict that attitude changes in the direction of international accomodation will be greatest when: Participants undertake the transnational inter- actions on their own initiative; they are highly attracted to the countries of their fellow participants; they are adolescents or young adults (roughly between the ages of 11; and 25); they perceive the transnational experience will not create political, economic, or social problems on their return; and they enter the transnational situation with adequate communication skills. 3 (1956; cited in Basu and Ames, 1970), . . . found that some of the important factors in the formulation of attitudes of foreign students about the United States were: a) the person's self-esteem, b) how firmly his pre-existing attitudes were anchored, c) the cultural distance between his country of origin and his host country, d) the status of the international relations of his country of origin and other countries of the world. - (1969, pp. 44—47) found that attitude change was often influenced :itudes prior to travel, the sophistication of the traveler, and ulitical alignment of the nations involved. And Merritt (1972) esizes that "the greater the similarity between countries I and greater is the likelihood that a student from county J, studying t country I will have a positive attitude toward country I's system." Such factors are summarized in the following ition: Proposition 3A13 - Contact through foreign travel will be pgsitively related to attitudes toward the host country, insofar as the individual who travels (ED has initially favorable attitudes toward the host country, (b) is pre— Lared to interact with nationals of the host country, and (Q is not rigid in his attitudes toward the host country. Initially favorable attitudes, according to Proposition 3AlO , related to a tendency to see the host country as similar to me home to posi1 tion of to inte initial natione opemes oountr anchor or inc (19%} HOSI I betw. Ema to 1 00m effe 1%? land, and this, according to Proposition 2B9 will be related 'tive attitudes. In addition, favorable attitudes and a percep- similarity may make the traveler’more favorably prediSposed ract with host nationals (see Proposition 3A15). Insofar as 1y favorable attitudes may represent reduced ethnocentrismland ism (see Propositions 2A5, 2A5(A)), they may also represent an s to favorable interpretation of information about the host ; in DuBois' terms, conflicting attitudes may be less firmly (1. Initially favorable attitudes do not always relate to continued ased appreciation of the host country. Loomis and SChuler for instance, fcund that Latin American students Who changed a.year*in the direction of disliking the United States tended 3 been more favorable on arrival than those who Changed in the ion of liking the United States. Such contrary findings (if they : due to ceiling effects in measurement) may relate to the gs of some persuasion researdhers that more attitude change is ad, under conditions of high credibility, when the discrepancy 1 the views of the subject and those advocated by the source are zt.26 Information through direct Observation might be comparable >rmation fromra.high credibility communicator~in particular : situations. Another factor*which might be involved in negative : of positive pre-arrival attitudes might be the extent to whidh ._ 26Results of research on discrepancy effects are not entirely rent. See for instance Karlins and Abelson (1970, pp. 126—127) :rif and.Hovland (1951). these advan of t} tatic be t} time: thei the they mac At to has 143 attitudes are based on unrealistic assumptions. One reason ed for the initial decline in mood represented by the first part U—curve is that travelers often have unrealistically high expec- s which are quickly confounded by the contact experience. It may t the travelers with the most unrealistic prior attitudes some— "over—reac " and respond to discomfng experiences by changing attitudes dramatically to the other extreme. African students in 'ted States, for instance, tend to find discrimination worse than xpect (Institute of International Education, 1961) and they may to this discovery by changing their attitudes. The second part of the proposition suggests that travelers who pared to interact are most likely to develOp favorable attitudes . reler can be prepared for interaction in the sense that he wants :eract with the pecple of the host country, in the sense that he .e social and linguistic skills necessary for smooth interaction, the sense that either he has had experience in contact with n cultures before or the cultural difference between the host y and his own society is relatively small. Preparation for inter- does not directly relate to favorable attitudes; instead it seems ilitate interaction, adjustment, and satisfaction during the early of the interaction experience. Morris (1960, pp. 98ff) found rior foreign travel related negatively to favorable attitudes but vely to measures of satisfaction and of interaction with host 318. The third part of Proposition 3A13 is consistent with Proposition ich states that authoritarianism is negatively related to favor likel belor to s; resee thet high not will host part to ; his favc t0< tom adf ESE :Luu rable attitudes toward other countries . The authoritarian is less y to accept information favorable to groups to which he does not g. The relationship of self—esteem with openness is not as easy cify. On one hand there is the occasional finding in persuasion that persons with relatively low self—esteem tend to change attitudes more readily than those with more self-esteem. This suggest that the traveler low in self—esteem, especially if he is close contact during the sojourn with others from his own country, be more open to information leading to a favorable image of the country. On the other hand, nationality is likely to be a salient of his identity while he is abroad, and national status is likely ay a part in determining his self—esteem. If he is confident of lational status and self—esteem he may be less threatened by able information about the host country, and he may find it easier :velop good relationships with host nationals. Warwick's (1971) stion that younger travelers are eSpecially likely to develOp ive attitudes may also be consistent with this proposition since, things being equal, younger persons may be relatively open to fleas and to influences toward attitude change. The pre-arrival characteristics of the traveler interact with teristics of the experience itself to determine his attitudes l the host country. In this process the two general variables, ment (or satisfaction) and interaction behavior seem to be ally significant . Proposition 3A1“. - The sojourner's satisfaction with his experience in the host country will be jositively related to the favorability of his attitudes toward the host country . of Merr Conside 0f adjL that n: other. PD. 72- with ge Satisfi- facti 01 Rather FeCeiv. may be lthrm- be rel. eal‘lie; U‘Shap: 1H5 This proposition is consistent with two of the generalizations ."Ierritt (19 72): 3.2 The foreign student diSplaces his general mood in the form of attitudes toward host country I and its p0pulat ion . 4.4 The better the student from country J adjusts to the social system of host country I, the greater will be the degree of improvement in his attitudes over his prediSpositions toward country I . sidering the amount of research that has been done on the variables adjustment and on attitudes toward the host country, it is surprising : more is not known about how these variables are related to each 2r. Studying foreign students in the United States, Morris (1950, 72—77) found favorableness to the United States correlated +.3L+ L general satisfaction with the United States stay and +.u8 with sfaction with the academic experience. There is no necessary relationship between adjustment or satis— ion and the absolute amount of information gained by the traveler. 2r satisfaction would seem to indicate that the traveler has .ved the information that he needs. The proposition, therefore, e thought of as indicating that the traveler who has attained the nation he needs to function comfortably in another culture will Latively favorable to that culture. Proposition 3A1L+ also receives support from the fact, presented r, that both adjustment and favorable attitudes tend to follow a ed curve during the sojourn. Proposition 3A1H.l — The favorability_ of the sojourner’s fititude toward the host country Will be in part a function of the stage of the sojourn he is in; his attitude will tend :9 be more favorable if he has been in the host country from :wp to four years . The inflectic sojourn, return d2 difficuli ologioal attitude times do fiable p they do the effe view of Eefleral: neasuri centred View of Should ti o. timers “Bagun 1H6 TWO to four years is only an approximate range. The actual .tion points of the U-curve depend on the absolute duration of the n, on the duration of the sojourn relative to the anticipated 1 date, and on factors which make acculturation more or less :ult. The greatest significance of this proposition is method— :al. Most of the available data on the effects of contact on ides represent changes between two measurements made at different during the sojourn. Unless these measurements represent identi— 3 points on the U-curve-—the beginning and the end of the sojourn-— do not justify comparison with other studies nor conclusions about ffects of contact in general on attitudes.27 From the point of of the theoretician, this problem makes many of the existing alizations suspect, but it also yields the hope that studies ring attitudes at more points in time might resolve some of the adictions in results between existing studies. From the point of of the practitioner, this prOposition suggests that such studies :1 not be used to infer what attitudes will be at a third point in In particular (as will be discussed a few pages hence), practi— rs concerned with post—return attitudes should make post—return rements . h— 27 . . . . . . The difficulty 18 illustrated by an unpublished study in which resent author measured the attitudes of Fulbright scholars toward lited States after they had been in the country one week (attitudes Lready changed at this point) and again after one year. Generally 1des went from highly positive to moderately positive, a change Jould be consistent (l) with the U—curve hypothesis (complicated a fact that after one year some subjects were at the end of their and others were in the middle of a longer sojourn), (2) with an Lesis that contact leads to moderate attitudes, or (3) with an [GSiS that contact leads to dislike of the host country. close fr. istics i (1963, with h standi term , heport Wore j hm 5 "Saw with . 1H 7' Proposition 3Al5 - The amount of interaction the soj ourner has with host country nationals will be positively related to the favorability of his attitudes toward the host country. Merritt (19 72) distinguishes between amount of interaction and friendship and between different aspects of the host character— in his generalizations about the effects of interaction: 4. S The greater the amount of interaction between the student from country J and nationals of host country I, the greater will be his knowledge of the social system of country I. 1+.6 The greater the amount of interaction between the student from country J and nationals of host country I, the more likely it is that he will have a positive attitude toward lower level character— istics of country I's social system. Lt . 7 Interact ion between the student from country J and nationals from host country I is unrelated to his attitudes toward higher—level characteristics of country I's social system. LL. 8 The greater the likelihood that the student from country J has a close friend among the nationals of host country I, the greater will be the likelihood that he has a positive attitude toward country I 's social system. In research relevant to these generalizations, Selltiz et al. pp. 200—208) found that foreign students who interacted most st nationals tended to have more information about and under- g of the host country, to think about it in less stereotyped and to feel more favorable toward it. Foreign students who d close friendships with host nationals were also likely to have formation about the host country. Morris (1960, p. 73) did not gnificant relationships between attitudes and interaction 8, even though interaction was positively related to satisfaction e sojourn and satisfaction with the sojourn was positively related tc dildmn «' cahoers ( tooaxd 15 found the were p055 Gemans. with ethI distance of +.62 ‘. American _|..-r—1|.—J— l P'r—l favorab and hi] th int 0f cam (0 not and F1, ix’ttEPa Contac Stemo Contac emItic attito 1H8 to favorable attitudes.28 Hofman and Zak (1969) found that n at a summer camp in Israel who interacted most with other (including Israelis) tended to have more favorable attitudes Israel. Stouffer e_t___a_l_. (1949; cited in Allport, 1958, p. 255) hat the attitudes toward Germans of American soldiers in Germany sitively related to the solders' frequency of interaction with Rabushka (1970) found that subjects in Malaysia who mixed hnic groups other than their own were relatively low in social e to other groups. And Basu and Ames (19 70) found a correlation between the amount of interaction of Indian students with ns and the students' attitudes toward the United States.29 Proposition 3A15.l — The amount of equal-status interaction flie sojourner has with host country nationals will be positively related to the favorability of his attitudes toward the host country . T— Amir (1969) suggests that contact is most likely to lead to -le attitudes when it takes place between individuals or groups of 28 . . The effects of interaction for foreign students would depend t on the attitudes of those they interact with. Goldsen, Suchman, liams (1956) found that American students at Cornell University eracted with foreign students were likely to be in the mainstream us life and to be generally content with American society. 29Studies of interaction between ethnic groups within a society consistently result in favorable attitudes. For instance, Saenger werman (1951+) found for United States college students that slight tion with Jews reduced stereotyping but not hostility. Friendship with Jews reduced hostility. Contact with Italians increased yping. Moderate contact with Italians reduced hostility, but high increased it. Amir (1969) reviewed studies of interaction between groups and concluded that the relationship of interaction and es was contingent on a variety of intervening factors. 00W Sula attit act 1' then start stat sist who thar Stat on] ind the of the Wit 149 ble status and when it takes place between groups cooperating pursuit of superordinate goals. Similarly, Gullahorn and >rn (1960) note that interaction is likely to produce favorable ks when the participants are similar in status, when they inter— a non—competitive situation, when they share common values, and eir interaction is task-oriented. Equal status may be taken as referring to mutual respect for the of the other's nation or it may be taken as referring to the of the individual. In the first place the proposition is con— with the finding of Morris (1960, p. 90) that foreign students eived Americans as seeing their country as lower in status :ey did were relatively unlikely to be favorable to the United and with the ”sensitive area com lex” of Indian students des— P by Lambert and Bressler (1956, p. 72—79).30 Status on an [ual level is apparent in Isaacs' (1958, pp. 75, 109) finding ntact with Chinese in China was associated with positive images Chinese whereas contact with the Chinese in America (at a time st Chinese in America were relatively low status) was associated ages of the Chinese as an inferior people. This proposition lates to Merritt's (1972) generalization that ”Positive attitudes iost country I vary inversely with the intensity of racial, or other prejudice perceived by the foreign student to be 1 toward him by residents of country I.‘' —— 0Indian students were sensitive to and defensive about the tr presumed beliefs of Americans that India was basically ’and superficially Westernized, that India was an undesirable in which to live, with an undemocratic social structure, and olitical base for-nationhood. Be with anot the othe: expected experien and atti be likel antact. 1 oountry tent di; one o folloai Byrnes experie in Ha Lippitt stayed six no] the U- and mo attito Uhitec' 150 Berelson and.Steiner (1969) suggest that contact or experience another group leads to a fairly strong and important image of ther*group for*the individual. If this is the case, it would be ted.that infbrmation and attitudes developed through contact iences*would be maintained in the face of conflicting information ttitudes from.other*sources. The returned traveler thus would kely to maintain the image of the host country acquired through .C‘t. There are a number of reasons why attitudes toward the host ry change fellowing the traveler's return. There may be readjust- difficulties; Gullahorn and Gullahorn (1963) suggest that the U— : of adjustment tends to become a W—curve with a decline in morale :wing the return to the homeland (see also Brein and David, 1971). as (1955) fcund that at least half of the ICA employees he studied 'ienced a letdown on returning home. Travelers Who Change most 1g their sojourn are likely to experience the greatest difficulties adjustment (Gullahorn and Gullahorn, 1963; Eide, 1970a; Watson and tt, 1955). Watson and Lippitt (I955) fcund that Germans who :d one year'in the United States, as opposed to those Who Spent 'onths, had more positive attitude change (this is consistent with l—curve hypothesis), greater difficulty in readjustment on return, 'ore of a tendency to regress after returning to their pre—contact :udes. Riegel (I953) similarly fcund that the attitudes toward the :d State of Belgians who had sojourned there tended over time to e like the attitudes of other Belgians. G1 diey wou' United 81 critiCiZe and McKn to expre audience ficult i tend to P change i the com little < that in tapers . odicals this br (1960) Hhintai Smith ( in Inte 815 pg] 0-) the: Still 1 With 151 ruen (19 59) found that German students in America expected that d find it difficult to express favorable attitudes toward the tates on returning to Germany. They felt other Germans would e them and think they had been "taken in." Bennett, Passin, 'ght ( 1958, p. Lt3) note that returned Japanese students tended 88 different opinions about the United States to different 3. If the returnee is in a social climate that makes it dif— ?or him to voice honestly his new attitudes, his attitudes will change in the direction of the contrary opinions he does voice. {iegel suggests that the attitudes of returned soj ourners may >ecause they are cut off from communication with the people of itry where they sojourned. His Belgian subjects maintained :ommunication with America. Useem and Useem (1955) also note :erpersonal communication of returned Indians with the West >ff rapidly, although they continue to read more Western peri- than associates who have not traveled. In some cases, however, :ak in communication does not occur. Gullahorn and Gullahorn round that returned American Fulbright professors were likely to . extensive contact with their foreign colleagues. And H. P. .955) found that Americans who went to Europe on the Experiment national Living increased their correspondence with Europeans ent (and those who went as tourists increased theirs 200 percent) ' return. He found (1957) that some of this correspondence was intained five years after it began. elltiz and Cook (1962) suggest that the image of the host can improve after return as the minor irritations of everyday E life retu] wears indi. ahou Uses Tn: 152 e forgotten. Similarly Useem and Useem (1955) suggest that for d Indian students the effect of being devalued by their hosts ff, leading to a drop in ethnocentrism after their return to Ientatively, the following proposition is offered as a hypothesis 3e duration of contact effects after return to the homeland: Proposition 3A16 — The effects of contact on the direction of attitudes toward the host counterfll tend to dis— appear over time following the traveler's return to his loneland; while the effects of contact on knowledge of the 'lOSt country and on differentiation of attitudes toward E_h_e host country will tend to persist. this proposition is consistent with the conclusion of Useem and L955, pp. 139—135): . We find that there is no intrinsic connection between knowledge of foreign ways and endorsement of them; that is, how well the foreign—returned are informed about the West has little cause-and—effect relationship with how much they approve of Western patterns and vice versa. . . . Although being informed in itself does not assure good will or friendly feelings, it does dissolve prejudices derived from half-truths and provides a social con— text within which the individual events can be judged. Our premise is that from a long-range point of View understanding in the form of some comprehension of the reasons is more significant than factual knowledge and that, in turn, realistic knowledge is more important than approval. nd that the foreign—returned in India had gained in knowledge, nding, and sympathy for the West. cntact occurs between travelers and host country nationals , ay be expected to affect the images each holds of the other. ssacs' (1958) finding on images of the Chinese suggests, 153 rences between those who travel and those who stay at home may the effects of contact on the traveler and host quite different. notes that host nationals tend to code the behavior of foreigners ms of nationality, even though travelers are not usually repre— tive of their own nationality and though individuals may act rently when traveling than they do at home (because of a loss of ence group control). Prothro and Melikian (1955) studied changes .e Lebanese image of Americans resulting from contact with Americans. . changes differend somewhat from changes which result from contact Americans in the United States. Effects of contact on the non—traveler, like the effects of con- on the traveler, can be expected to relate to the amount of inter— n and to status differences. Except when the contact was produced .litary occupation or large scale immigration, there would generally adjustment problem for the non—traveler, and this might leave him to acceptance of favorable information about the traveler's nation. e same time, the non—traveler's prior attitudes, especially toward nt nationalities, will remain anchored in on-going reference group ionships and in continued exposure “to his nation's media. In 31, therefore, information attained through contact by the non— Ler will not be related to a favorable change in attitudes. B. Acceptance of Information: Predictors and Consequences 1. Functions of Nation~Attitudes. Exposure to an information 2——to schools, mass media, interpersonal networks, or to direct It with the people of another nation——is actually exposure to a eerie hoe t Sorre eaolf clan reor: PP. unde 3911 and tie 1514 of messages. These messages will vary in what they say and in y say it. And they will have varying effects on the image. 11 be rejected and have no apparent impact, some will reinforce beliefs, some will make simple additive changes in the image, the image, or introduce doubt, and some will lead to a major ization of the image (Deutscln and Merritt, 1965; Boulding, 1956, ). The discussion which follows is concerned with the conditions nich one or another of these responses will be most likely. It 3 a review of research on the acceptance or rejection of messages 3f information) about foreign nations and their people. Implicit in the preceding paragraph is the idea that the indi— ioes not simply accept all the information to which he is Consciously or unconsciously, functionally or dys functionally, Its and modifies the ideas he receives. In this process of n and modification, his existing beliefs, attitudes, values, ls play a central role. Even if he has never heard of a par- nation, his general orientation toward other nations will :e his interpretation of information about that nation. to understand the selectivity process as it influences input her nations, it is necessary to understand the functions which mages have for the individual. This was the approach of Smith, and White (1956) in their study of ten men's opinions about They assume (pp. 39-44, 259—275) that "at the most general . one's opinion or attitudes serve as mediators bemeen the Hands of the person and the outer envirorment—-the material, and, most immediately, the informational environment of the 155 " In this mediation process, Opinions have three functions: on. ct appraisal, social adjustment, and externalization. In the follow— paragraphs these functions are described and compared with the atti— functions postulated by Katz (1960; cf. Janis and Smith, 1965). Object appraisal is seen as the process by which the individual sses reality for its relevance to his motives, values, and interests. tends to involve on one hand maintenance of an image congruent with F needs, goals, and actions, and on the other hand an image close gh to reality to minimize surprise. Thus it relates to both the Ledge function ("need for understanding, for meaningful cognitive nization, for consistency and clarity") and the adjustment function (imizing external rewards and minimizing punishments“) of Katz. 1, Bruner, and White found that object appraisal needs related to .tive attention to information on Russia and to the ways in which * subjects related information about Russia to their beliefs and to ' own lives. Among the characteristics of the individual which pre— d these patterns were: (1) the pattern of his personal goals, (2) the locus of his important frustrations, (3) the directions of his success, (Lt) the vested interests he may have acquired in particularly satisfying modes of activity, (5) the extended interests he may have in other pecple and groups, and (6) the moral values and ethical principles for which he stands (p. 262). The relationship of information and attitudes is most direct >st evident in the object appraisal function. "Having an opinion Russia is more than being 'for' or 'against‘ Russia: it is a ’ 'perceiving' or 'knowing' Russia by inference from available ation, and with reference to personal values , interests, and g concerns. " But even in this function it is evident that 156 e, attention, and interpretation vary greatly from individual vidual in accordance with their predispositions . 31 The process "rational" in the broadest sense: We are not proposing that the process is a kind of calculus Of interest, wherein the person accurately appraises the relation Of the world to his goals and decides his best line accordingly. . . . It is apparent, when one looks closely at a life, that the formation Of an Opinion does reflect a drive toward rational decision in terms Of one's interest. We are rational according to our lights, but the lights may be dim indeed (p. 265). lity is limited by the need for Opinions which serve the other ns as well. Smith, Bruner, and White found a variety Of ways in which Opinions 3 function Of social adjustment, either to the individuals' nip groups or to the other reference groups . Sometimes they were used in the interests Of conformity or identification, serving to facil— itate or maintain relationships with a group in which the person valued his membership. In other cases they were used to differentiate oneself from a group, even to disrupt a group, or to establish a relationship Of competitive dominance or Of superiority to a group (pp. 267—268). 1Russia in 191+? was a nation—Object Of particular salience and rsy tO Americans . Analysis of attitudes toward most other might have shown less variation between individuals and less n to relevant information. 2They suggest that adjustment tO membership groups will depend the Opinions that are expressed than on the opinions that are areas adjustment to nonmembership reference groups will depend pinions which are actually held. 157 unction overlaps the value—eXpressive attitude function ( "main- g self—identity . . . self—expression and self-determination") 2. It can also involve a relationship between information and des, since the individual may attend to information which he can with the group and since (as in the case Of the individual to whom . was least saliernt) the group may provide most of the individual's ation about the attitude Obj ect (cf. Proposition 3A7). The third function, externalization, refers to the situation a person has reSponded to an external event in a way that is d by unresolved inner problems." This is comparable to what alls the ego—defensive function ("protecting against internal :ts and external dangers"). Smith, Bruner, and White found that subjects' images Of Russia tended to reflect their internal t strivings," that they tended tO condemn in Russians the Dr that they saw as similar to their covert strivings, and that attitudes toward relations with Russia tended to reflect their :ed adjustive strategies (cf. Proposition 2A2). Eysenck (1950) as an example Of externalization: A militaristic or aggressive attitude seldom exists in v_a_i_<_z_u_o_; it is likely to be related closely to some Object or class Of Objects. In thus becoming attached ~~ to a nation . . . our . . . reactions tend to become rationalized into consistent and meaningful systems of ideas regarding the Object in question . Scott (.l958b) suggests that attitudes can be thought Of as g rational and nonrational components in varying degrees . ion about the attitude Obj ect and needs for cognitive con— tend tO lead tO rational attitudes, consciously related to 158 values, and expectations. Lack Of information, and unimportance evant values—~factors Often present for nation-attitudes-—lead rational attitudes based on social pressures and unconscious nces. This is consistent with the discussion above, and it :ts that opinions about more salient nations (e_._g_. , the host y for a traveler) might be more rational and more directed toward : appraisal while those toward less salient nations than Russia show less rational Obj ect appraisal. This discussion Of the functions of nation—attitudes leads to llowing prOpositions: Proposition 3B1 — An individual will tend to hold attitudes toward other nations which simultaneously maXimize the functions Of Object appraisal, social adjustment, and externalization. Proposition 381.1 — An individual will tend to accept information supportive Of attitudes toward other nations which simultaneously maximize the functions Of Obj ect appraisal, social adjustment, and externalizat ion . '35 Scott's article would also seem tO justify a proposition to the that conflict between the three functions is likely to be ad in favor Of Object appraisal to the extent that the nation— 33In a way this proposition says that stereotypes, like atti— have these three functions. The relationship between the two, g to Vinacke (1949, cited in Brigham, 1971) is "that stereo- y serve as verbal express ion Of prejudice, or the rationali— Or projection Of it, or they may eXpress a prejudice partly, stereotype may not be an expression Of prejudice at all. 1y, a prejudice may be apparent in a stereotype, may help e it, or may make use Of the convenient labels, or may itself differently, or be present without stereotyping." 159 is salient and infOrmation about it is available. Certainly absence Of information, attitudes will not be based on infor— } , and it is probably true that stereotypes Of little known groups e relatively projective (Campbell, 1967). But salience is likely positively related tO the need for all three functions. American des toward Russia, fOr instance, prObably reflect more infOrma— more social pressure, and.more projection than American attitudes Rumania. 2. Events and.Changes in NationaAttitudes. PrOpositions 1 381.1 imply that an individual's beliefs and attitudes toward n nations will change (a) as the characteristics Of these nations 2 relevance Of these nations to his goals Change relative to each (b) as his social attachments change, and (c) as his uncon— needs to externalize Change. For a given population, though ilar individuals may change in personality and social attachments, 5 in the nation—attitudes Of a whole population might be thought -ect the strength Of the Object appraisal function in response -d events. More generally, if information about foreign nations 1 role in determining beliefs and attitudes toward foreign nations, be expected that changes in the information about these nations >le to a given p0pulation would be reflected in central tendency ; in the nation-images held by that population. Some changes Of this kind occur, especially during periods in ' elations between nations change dramatically. For instance Ins saw Russians as more conceited and cruel and less brave in [an in 19142 (Buchanan and Cantril, 1953, pp. 55—56). 160 attitudes toward Japanese became less favorable between 1935 2, more favorable between 19% and 1955 (Albright et al., it After the Six Day War Of 1967, Arab students in the United were somewhat more likely to be anti-American and pro—Russian , 1972), perhaps because Of a change in salience of inter— orientation . These examples must be related as exceptional cases, in which tional events have resulted in a complete change in the mass ntent about other nations (see Chapter IV) and a complete in the socially accepted Opinions Of other countries. These conspicuous because they deviate from the more general that Images and events Often persist with little or no substantial change despite spectacular changes in the real world, or messages about such events. . . . Almost nothing in the world seems to be able to shift the images Of L+0 per- cent Of the p0pulation in most countries, even within one or two decades (Deutsch and Merritt, 1965). may temporarily change the salience Of foreign policy and attitudes. Sometimes in response to spectacular events (like and the Hungarian revolt) attitudes may change 10 to 20 * 3U: . . . . Similar changes assocrated With the Cold War and World War noted by Frank (1968) and Seago (19W). Albright et al. , found that their subjects, Purdue University 3, did not change as much during this period in their attitude 'Germans" but did change in their attitude toward "Nazis." , Robinson, and Krauss (1971) suggest that the changes in traits :ed may represent changes on the evaluative dimension only. a "intelligent" Japanese before World War II and the "sly" .ning the war were accorded similar characteristics with dif-— evaluations. 161 , but they tend to return to their previous level after other take the focus Of attention. Deutsch and Merritt describe the response to events with a quotation from Lane's (1962) study of gland voters. Asked about historical events happening in their lifetimes . . . which had an impact on their thinking, their response is a kind Of . . . fumbling unrespon- siveness. History is a flow Of events . . . that erodes a predisposition or strengthens it, or Offers a rationale for it, but does not Offer, without special assistance and more effort than most men can make, memorable changes in orientation. As they talk about school and favored teachers, one sees that education, tOO, has this same characteristic. Influence is glacial, not climatic. d be noted that Smith, Bruner, and White (1956) found that ent individuals appraised Russia in terms Of different goals and ations. It may be that events produce more changes in nation- des than are apparent in central tendency shifts . 3. Selective Processes Influencing Acceptance Of Information cher Nat ions. Proposition 3B2 - Out Of the information about a given foreign country that is available at a particular time, an individual will be more likely tO accept that infor— mation which is consonant with his prior image of the nation than that which is not?!) Acceptance Of information, in this proposition, means that ation is believed, remembered, and related to other beliefs. * 35 . . . . Consonance is usually defined as agreement With or compati- with prior beliefs or attitudes. Smith (1973) found that oscow broadcasts produced the most change in attitudes Of 8 who saw them as better than expected. This is interpreted ing that the selectivity processes may sometimes admit dis- messages if they are consonant with the receivers' hOpes. T W W i 162 ther words, information is said to be accepted to the extent that 3 integrated into the individual's belief system. Where the informational environment regarding a foreign nation nchanging, stability in nation—images may simply reflect acceptance Jailable information. The paragraphs above, however, suggest that 3 may be stable when the supply Of available information is not. could occur if attitudes were not at all related to information, he first part Of this diapter indicated that there are relation- between information and attitudes . Thus it appears that the WJidual must respond selectively to the available information, ing to accept information consonant with his predispositions and 31601: information which might be dissonant. Out Of all the information on a foreign nation that is available 1 individual, he will become aware Of only some, and he will eve and retain even less. Selectivity, thus, is largely a filtering . . - mak m ‘88, Which functions in part to Simplify perceptions and e the 36 ion Of manageable. In addition, selectivity may involve distort . . - ‘ " This rocess mation or even the creation of new ”information. P - ' the ,ltering and modification Of information takes place on —————._ . The . - raisaib . 36This falls within the definition Of 0193,86: :Wlpggestiflg dogmatlér ‘StemOtYP‘e usually has a negative comOWWWWWiWiEat'ion . S Wch :isme implification but a certain deg??? Of 51:81?) p- 125); mdee grOUPS ink about Peoples (Duijker and Frlldafi :hmzing about other Simplification is inevitably a part Of ill 1969) . A 163 t levels discussed in the following paragraphs. 37 Proposition 382 .l -7 Out of the information about a given foreign country that is available at a particular time, an individual will tend to expose hzfinself more to that information which is consonant with his existing nation- iiiage than to that; which is not . First, the individual may expose himself to information selec— , avoiding sources which might provide disturbing information eking out information to bolster his attitudes. Even if an :lual does not deliberately select information sources for con— 3, he is likely tO find that the information he receives tends congenial to his existing attitudes (Freedman and Sears, 1965). Bruner, and White (1956, pp. 2u8—250) report that "sources Of ation on which our men relied . . . indicate that they did indeed nd choose, and it was equally apparent that their selectivity stematic in reflecting preference for one kind of information nother . . ." In some Of our cases, a distinction can be made between line and filler sources: Lanlin, for example, took his line on Russia from Catholic publications, but drew detail in a rather inatten— tive way from the pOpuIar media. Several others . . . had their individual line so well internal- ized that all they sought from their purposeful reading and talk was filler detail—-or challenge. Still others deemed to wander aimlessly among congenial sources without retaining very mucln . 37These aSpects Of selectivity are drawn largely from Janis th (1965), Smith, Bruner, and White (1956), Jervis (1972), 1966, 1967), Holsti (1967), Klineberg (1961+, pp. 90—94), and and Jahoda (19W). In general these concepts have been derived alysis Of case studies. 16H ravel, according to Cherry (1971, p. 3) does little to change ages because we tend tO travel to ” 'see for ourselves' what already been taught to look for." Proposition BB2. 2 - Out Of the information about a given foreign country to which he is exp_o_sed, an individual will be more liker to become aware Of that information which is consonant with his existing nation-image than that which is not. Proposition 382.3 —- Out of the information about a given foreign country to which he is exposed, an individual will be more likely to learn and remember that information which is consonant with his existing nation—image than that which is not. As Freedman and Sears (1965) point out, selective exposure does ways seem to be employed as a defense against dissonant informa— The individual is likely to be exposed to various views of n peoples. But he may never become conscious Of the dissonant to which he is exposed, because his perceptual and memory pro— tend to screen out unfamiliar or unwelcome information. This selective perception and selective retention has been noted 'Ous ways. Bagby (1957; cited in Cook and Selltiz, 1961+) showed 3 differing in cultural content (e__._g:_, a baseball player and a ter) to American and Mexican subjects under conditions Of ar rivalry. Each nationality tended to be aware only of the 'liar content. Bhatia (cited in Hartley, 1967, pp. 99ff) hat when Indian and Pakistani subjects were presented with and Pakistani propaganda under conditions Of binaural rivalry, up tended to recall the material favorable to their own group. and Murphy (1911.3; cited in Eysenck, 1950) asked students to 165 assages about Russia and found that they were relatively likely and to remember material consonant with their previous es. Proposition 3B2.1+ - Out Of the information about a given foreign nation Of which he becomes aware, an individual will tend to treat that finformation which is consonant with his existing nation—image as more salient than that which is not. Selective perception and memory is also apparent in the well— study by Allport and Postman (cited in Klineberg, 1951) in which ts viewed a picture showing a white holding a straight razor, .ng near a Negro, then passed the message to others, with the ation typically being distorted to indicate that the Negro held zor. A third process tending tO preserve existing attitudes is selec~ ttention. Even if the individual is exposed to dissonant infor— he may treat it as nonsalient and give it minimal attention. say he doesn't understand the new information and refuse to out it (a common response in the Mr. Biggatt studies, according er and Jahoda, 1947). He may minimize dissonance through dif— °ation, perceiving the new information as exceptional and thus tradictory to the relatively more general prior attitudes. Or minimize the importance Of the dissonance by according less e to the attitude Object; if his Opinions about Russia are in he may decide that his Opinions about Russia don't matter yway. TO the extent that international relations are regarded alient, individuals will feel little pressure to resolve 16 6 gruities . Proposition 3B2.5 - Out Of the information about a given foreign nation of which he becomes aware , an individual will tend to perceive that information which is consonant with his existing nation—image as more credible than that which is not. Another defense against dissonant information is doubt. When nformation comes in the form Of communication rather than through t exposure its veracity can be questioned. In other words , it may nsidered less credible or less believable. Bronfenbrenner (1961) sts that one reason for the mirror-image in Soviet-American rela— may be the tendency Of people to discount information contrary eir eXpectations. Such discounting Of information may occur in us ways. Evidence may be questioned, or seen as inadequate. The idual is more likely to set high standards for proof when the new nation threatens his existing image. If the new information is in sage attributed to a high credible source, it may be doubted that ally comes from that source. If it is not attributed to a high >le source, the individual may doubt the knowledgeability or the city Of the source. Proposition 3B2.6 — An individual will tend to interpret the informationyhe accepts about a given foreign nation in such a way that it is maxim—ally consonant with his existing image Of the nation. This proposition can also be turned around: an individual will O accept information to the extent that he can interpret it as ant with his image. Thus if messages cannot be avoided or denied, ay still be selectively interpreted (or-—the distinction is not 167 arp one—amisinterpreted), and if messages admit a range of inter- ation, they are more likely to be acceptable to the individual. Selective interpretation involves a variety of kinds of medhan— fOr creating and resolving ambiguity, fOr distorting infbrmation, fOr assigning particular significance to it. Some of these are t in Lambert and Bressler's (1955; 1956, pp. 80-81) discussion Sponses made by Indian students to their experiences in the United es: (1) students tended to be sceptical of their>impressions of ica only When they were favorable; (2) experiences were sometimes ctured so the student could contrive to be a victim.of American ractice; (3) American practice was contrasted with Indian creed; (4) American fereign policy was judged as if the United States had .mited options, and contrasted with Indian policy judged in the .t of the assumption that India's alternatives were restricted. ResearCh on person perception (see Cook, 1971, pp. 49ff; Taguiri, ) indicates a general tendency, in the absence of contrary infor— on, to assume that others are similar to oneself. In responses to rmation about other nations, this shows up as a tendency to judge overt characteristics of foreigners-AmhiCh may clearly not be lar to the judge—~in terms of the evaluative standards and rules nference of the judge's culture. Klineberg calls this ethnocentric eption, ”the tendency to see and judge external occurrences in s of one's particular ethnic or national identification, that is 1y, in terms of the values, wishes, and expectations acquired as Iber of a particular community.” By sudh a criterion difference 3 to be impropriety or inferiority. Interpreted in light of an 168 ocentric frame of reference, objectively non—evaluative information . 38 ake on a consonant meaning. This discussion of selectivity should not be taken as suggesting perception of other nations is a wholly autistic process in which tion is just a nuisance to be coped with. The discussion of s and attitude change indicated that there is covariance of avail— information and belief, and research looking at available informa— and beliefs across a variety of nation—objects would presumably to a similar conclusion . Information sometimes gets through the ctivity process; the question is when it is most likely to do so relatively little distortion. A great deal of research has been done on the factors which ' o o o 39 (mine the success of persuasrve communications, and even more 38The various selectivity processes affect persons involved in mitting information as well as the eventual consumer. White (1966) how these processes can combine to create very different images in rent persons. He lists, for instance, the following sources of mis— ption of the Vietnam situation by American hawks: (1) selective ct of Vietnamese and Americans, (2) slanted interpretation of what ld to Americans by Vietnamese, (3) distortion by the minds of cans in Vietnam, (4) deliberate screening by Vietnamese and 'cans, (5) pressures toward conformity and patriotism in the ‘can media, (6) pressures toward conformity and patriotism among the 'can pecple, (7) conflicting territorial self-images, ( 8) different gs of the word aggression, (9) the assumption of Communist aggres— (10) the assumptibn of American nonaggression, (ll) an image of the as diabolical, (12) an image of the homeland as moral, (13) a e self—image, (11+) military overconfidence, (15) lack of empathy, 16) selective inattention. Of these numbers 7 to 15 are related to centric perception . 39For a concise summary, see Zimbardo and Ebbesen (1969, pp. ). For more details, see McGuire (1969). For suggestions about ome of these results might be applied to changing nation—attitudes, anis and Smith (1965), Kelman (1962), and Klineberg (1950). 169 ch has been done on the factors whidh influence learning. .A ed consideration of this literature is beyond the sc0pe of this In general, both types of research suggest that Change in the and/or~in behavior*will be influenced.by the nature and intensity stimuli (or messages) to which the individual is exposed, by the of discrepancy between the potential new image or behavior and iividual's prior~image or behaviorg by the motivations (or ) of the individual, by his intelligence and personality, by the and emotional context, and.by the feedback (or reinforcement) the individual receives. Some of these factors have been considered elsewhere in this The discussion of authoritarianism.in Chapter II shows one way ih a personality Characteristic may relate to a predisposition apt certain kinds of infermation and to reject others. The high itarian individual would also be expected,more than others, to igh credibility to messages about other countries fromxhis own 3. The discussion of attitude fUnctions in this section relates influence of motivation on attitude Change. The discussion of 'vity leads to the conclusion that the greater‘the discrepancy the new infOrmation and the old attitude, the less likely the ce of the new'infOrmation, although cognitive structure vari— ould also become involved in this relationship. Others of these are discussed in the paragraphs whiCh fOIlow. PrOposition 3B3 — An individual will be relatively likely to accept new infOrmetion about a given foreign nation to the extent that the new infOrmation is relatively unam— biguous and uncontroversial. 170 This prOposition means that the more intense a stimulus, the ikely it is to survive the selectivity process. If the infOr— environment is homogeneous, selective exposure and selective ion will have little effect, and it will be difficult to question lidity of the infOrmation. If the available infOrmation is guous, there will be relatively little room.fOr'misinterpretation. InfOrmation is likely to be unambiguous and noncontroversial two conditions. The first is the condition where the communica— nediaremass and interpersonal—~all tend to promote a given view— (this could be the case in a totalitarian state or in a.nation emergency conditions). The second is where the infOrmation is d as Objective "fact." . If some degree of exposure can be aChieved. . .even a despised communicator may exert an influence in the limited sphere of inducing acceptance of allegedly factual statements. . . When the topic of a communication is unfamiliar to the audience-—as will often be the case in com- municat ions about remote foreign nations and newly emerging leaders-—studies have shown that factual material can produce major changes in political and social images (Janis and Smith, 1965). The acceptance of a single fact may arouse little resistance sult in no immediate attitude Change, but as more and.more facts late, the.existing image may become more differentiated, held ess certainty, and eventually attitude Change may occur. PrOposition 384 - To the extent that the international affairs climate is one of perceived.threat, an indi— vidual'speroeption of aégiven fOreign nationfwill tend to bepolariied and undifferentiated. 171 This proposition deals with the effect of the social and 1al contexts on an individual' 8 reSponse to international infor- The concept of an international affairs climate as collective ; drawn from Lasswell (1965) . Though there is ample evidence 1e climate influences thought about foreign nations , this par- ? proposition must be thought of as an hypothesis to be tested. Pruitt (l965) suggests that pecple see another nation as aning if they see it as capable of harming them and/or as ing to harm them. He suggests that perception of a nation as aning might result in a tendency to make a one-dimensional se to the nation. It may be that a foreign nation is seen as t to the extent that it is threatening (or to the extent that it Dtential ally against a threatening nation) and that the indi— will display a greater tendency to achieve cognitive consistency gard to relatively salient concepts. To the extent that cog- consistency relates to one—dimensional judgments, threat will differentiation and increase the likelihood of a nation being ' Threat also operates to increase 5 toward social conformity and toward media patriotism. It has been noted that individuals in nations which are in t with each other often reciprocate each other's images ”0 The individual who feels personally mistreated or frustrated tively likely to express prejudice (Christiansen, 1959, pp. Bettelheim and Janowitz, 1950). This may be seen as a similar to polarize and stereotype in response to threat. 172 , 1965; Streufert and Sandler, l97l). Russians see Americans, at on some attributes, much as Americans see Russiansfil If Proposition 3Bl+ accurately predicts the effects of threat, 1 also predict that in a climate of threat the selectivity ses will be relatively influential, increasing the chance of ance of consonant information and decreasing the chance of ance of dissonant information. In general differentiated images slowly, reacting to each new piece of credible information, undifferentiated images tend to resist change (and to change ically when they do Change). Sears (1969) summarizes findings on information and political de Change by saying that (a) the relatively informed person, e his predispositions are better thought out and because of t2 selectivity, is most likely to use new information only to ice his predispositions; (b) the slightly informed person is to be influenced most by information, since he has some to information but relatively weak involvement in the issues; ) the uninvolved person will not be influenced by information he will not become exposed to it.72 LJ'lThis has been referred to as the "mirror—image" phenomenon, priate metaphor only if it is remembered that the image a person a mirror is the reverse of the way he appears to others . LQSears makes the process of forming attitudes seem very rational. rast, Staats and Staats (1958; cited in Bem, 1970, pp. tut—1+5) hat when names of nations were flashed on a screen in sequence her words, subjects began to evaluate these nations positively tively, depending on the connotations of the other words in the e. CHAPTER IV AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION ABOUT FOREIGN NATIONS X. Biases in Sources of Information about Other Countries Information has been conceptualized on three levels in this sis. Chapter II dealt with accepted, internalized, or subjective ation—-beliefs. Clearly the information an individual has :ed does predict his attitudes and it may play a role in shaping Chapter III dealt with the information to which an individual >osed. It showed that, despite various selectivity processes, 1vailable information or information environment does influence >eliefs and attitudes. The third way in which information may be >tualized, as factual information, is the subject of the present 2r. , factual information, in the present study, refers to the actual Fl characteristics of the nation (or pecple) in question. Factual ation about a nation as a whole, of course, cannot be accurately ed. Nations are complex and changing phenomena; and individuals fiiven nationality may have little in common with each other. No ”er and no measure can apprehend the nation as a whole, and so no tely objective knowledge of the reality of a nation is possible berg, 1961+). Nevertheless there are, about particular aspects 173 LL 17L} tions, statements which are based on data which makes them rela- y objective. Such statements can be used as rough indices of al information, making possible rough estimates of the discrepan- between subjective and available information about and the true cteristics of a nation—object. Available information, like subjective information, bears no sary resemblance to objective, factual information about the n-object. Galtung and Holmboe Ruge (1965) refer to the "chain of communication" as the process by which world events are perceived e news media and transformed into a media image which is in turn ived by individuals and transformed into their personal images. point out that similar processes of selectivity, distortion, and esis occur on both the media level and the personal level of the If one is ultimately concerned with whether attitudes toward . nations are related to the amount of accurate knowledge he has those nations , it is necessary to ask whether the information to an individual may become exposed accurately reflects the actual cteristics of those nations. The previous chapter dealt with the sources of information about nations to whiCh most people have access. These sources included 8 mass media (including electronic and print media, and including fictional and non—fictional media content), schools and other ° g programs (including teachers, texts, films, and activities), t with pecple of other countries (through casual travel, through cipat ion in another society , and through contact with travelers in own country), and interpersonal communication with one's friends 175 relatives. The pages which follow provide a brief review of ways hich such sources combine to provide for the individual an infor— 'on environment which only partially reflects the reality of other 'ons. As such, they may be viewed as a caveat on the research ady discussed: an individual may have a great deal of information he and others around him consider to be knowledge of a foreign ion and yet have very little information which corresponds with the characteristics of the nation.1 Information source bias has received the greatest attention students of the mass media. To some extent the effect of the mass 'a on nation-images must depend on the amount as well as the kind of ormation about one country to appear in the media of another. Throughout the world the news media devote most of their ention to events within their own nation.2 Between nations the flow information deals largely with information about the most powerful , J‘I'his discussion is comparatively brief because it is not tral to a concern with what information does to the individual. .ause this issue is somewhat tangential and because it is covered in s depth, no propositions are offered in this chapter. The brevity is discussion also reflects the comparative lack of research and hesis on available information on foreign nations. Methods of cribing content are discussed by McGranahan (l95l), but the real lem is a lack of theoretical work on the predictors of such content . Rosengren, l970). 2Schramm (l96LL, p. 59) says that 60 to 90 percent is typical. one exception Angus (1938, pp. 251ff) studied front pages of Montreal Spapers for the l920's and found that only 40 percent of the news Canadian. TWenty—six percent was from Britain, 25 percent from the ted States, and 9 percent from other nations. Cohen (1967) reports foreign affairs takes from five to eight percent of the total news ea in the average United States newspaper. 176 lthy, and technological nations. Schramm (196%, pp. 59-63) cites 961 study of major neWSpapers in 13 diverse countries. In each ntry the bulk of the foreign news dealt with France, the United gdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union (countries which, ng other likenesses, controlled the world's nuclear weapons and the id's major news agencies),3 In the United States, for instance, news the other three countries accounted for two—thirds of the total aign news. In Brazil these countries accounted for 81+ percent of foreign news , but nearby Argentina accounted for only 6 percent . general there is very little flow of news from most of the world's .er, less powerful nations except in times of special crisis or 1strophe. The tendency of information to flow from a few major nations can 1ttributed to a variety of factors. It may represent a rational act—appraisal function: these nations do appear to have diSpropor— late influence on events throughout the world (Galtung and Holmboe :, 1965). Attention to the United States and Soviet Union would seem eflect their current importance, whereas some of the attention to iain and France may be a continued response to their influence ng the colonial era. It is also the case that information on the : develOped nations is easier to gather (Schramm, 196”, p. 63) and : expensive to transmit (Ostgaard, 1965). 3For a discussion of the extent to which certain elites within e nations control the flow of information between countries, see ller (1971, 1972). 177 Elsewhere in this study it has been suggested that the way an .dual handles infbrmation about a nation depends on its salience. : appears that the chance of a given item of information becoming able to the individual also depends on the salience of the nation. asion of a given amount of information about Thailand reflects a rent orientation toward.the.nation-object than possession of the amount of information about Russia, and it should.not be expected information will relate to the attitudes in the same way in both Most of the more detailed studies of nation—attitudes have sed on attitudes toward the elite nations-~this is especially of researCh on contact effects—-and this conclusion suggests that alizations fromuthese studies to attitudes toward less powerful ries Should.not be taken for granted. Within nations there are also discontinuities in the flow of mation about other countries. In general, (a) infOrmation about countries will be diffused less widely in less modern countries will be more likely to reaCh individuals through conversations friends and relatives), and (b) infermation about other countries be diffused less widely in rural than in urban areas (SChramm, p. 69; Fagen, 1966, pp. 82—83).” LiThe unevenness of the flow of information also involves a r of factors, some of which have been discussed elsewhere in this , that predict which individuals within a country are likely to easy access to foreign affairs information. Such factors are ssed in more detail in Hero (1959b). Various demographic vari— -—social class, religion, education, age, stow-relate to pref- as for particular media, to time available‘TCr media consumption, ills necessary for using particular media, and to the ability to d such media as newsmagazines. Hero also notes that the total amount of actual attention to 178 The unevenness of the flow of information about other nations elate to Propositions 3Al+ and 3A4.l, which state that within a n exposure to foreign affairs information in the mass media will lated to interest in and favorable attitudes toward other nations . tively it might be suggested that these generalizations apply 5 nations, and that therefore, other things being equal, pecple 1 countries will tend to show more liking for the few elite nations for non-elite nations. This is a possible explanation of rsition 2B3.l which states that liking will be, in part, a function .e perceived level of economic and technical development of a n—obj ect. Whether it is reasonable to expect better quality of foreign reporting in the mass media is a subject of debate; the difficul- of getting information are great, and it can be argued that in .g minimal attention to most foreign affairs the media are reSpond— o the wishes of the public. But it is generally conceded that the best of the media in most countries give haphazard and over— ,ified coverage to what happens in other countries. 5 m gn affairs news is much less than might be inferred from analyses that cited by Schramm of media content. One survey indicated the average reader spent 35 minutes per day reading the newspaper, nly four minutes reading public affairs news of any kind. Like— although there are a variety of news programs on television, an ated 97 percent of audience man-hours are devoted to entertainment ommercials. 5Exceptions might be some serious books on foreign affairs and public broadcasting, but these reach only a very small percentage e p0pulation in most countries. (Hero, 1959b, reports that the percentage of Americans who read serious books on foreign affairs to have attitudes toward other countries which are best described ternationalistic, cautious, and realistic.) 179 Information about a foreign nation reaches the public through ; media only after passing through the hands of a variety of indi— Lals who may be thouglnt of as gatekeepers since, in various ways , 1 deliberate and.inadvertant, they influence and Shape the flow of >rmation.6 First, reporters must learn about events. It is expensive to Itain fhlltime correSpondents abroad, and so reporters (and camera as) tend to be available only in the most important foreign capitals in areas where there are especially dramatic events in progress. :e therefore tends to be more reporting, especially from non-elite ions, on crises than on theirrbaCkgrounds and consequences. This 3 tends to result in a comparatively limited flow of news from areas :h.are hard to reaCh and/or unpleasant for’reporters to live in. .Many of the nations which are relatively non—salient to the :ern.news media (the relationship of salience and news—flow is, :ourse, circular) are also non—Western in culture, and cultural :ance seriously increases the difficulty of gathering news. Bogart S8), fer instance, studied members of the Overseas Press Club of York. Only 18 percent of those working in Asia, as opposed to >ering, diSplay, timing, withholding, or repetition of entire {ages or components . " For a more complete list of factors shaping the international vrmation which reaches the public, see Ostgaard (1965). See also amm (1961+, pp. 81-—87). 180 ll language. 7 In other ways as well cultural distance may increase difficulty of gathering news , especially in the less modern nations Iurope and Africa. Both costs and cultural difficulties increase tendency of news—gatherers in such nations to rely on government s releases and on contacts with members of the elite, and thus to alop a one-sided and possibly incorrect view of the local situation 3., Welch, 1972; Hauser, 1938; White, 1966). The personal biases :he reporters, in accordance with Proposition 3B2 , will also have influence on the kind of information which is transmitted. A second source of bias occurs in the transmission of news 11 reporter to publisher. Ostgaard (1965) says that since the major 3 agencies are run by Westerners the news they transmit takes on a tern cultural bias. Reports of events in non-elite nations, no ter where they are published, are likely to emphasize the relevance :he events to the elite nations. A third source of bias is the decision—making——by editor and LisherL-abcut what to publish (or broadcast) and how much emphasis give it. Decisions at this stage may intentionally bias the news accord with the views of the publishers and/or in reSponse to out— : pressures (eSpecially in nations where the press is government- :rolled): Both government and mass media can shift their attention to or withhold it from events . they can lend an impression of more or less . 7In most Asian countries ignorance of the local language would not the reporter to contact with the relatively affluent, educated, :ernized segments of the population. 181 salience to an event . . . or they can change the valuation that they place upon events, objects, and processes . . . Governments and communication elites are the managers of public messages about events, selecting out of the mass of competing messages , those that they will transmit, those to which they will give special attention, and those that they will suppress . . . To the extent that governments and mass media influence the flow and content of messages about events, they also play a role in determining the character of private messages about these events (DeutsCh and Merritt, 1965). rious studies have demonstrated that the infbrmation about fereign tions in the newspapers of a given country will tend to reflect the litical relations between the countries involved (see, for example, Sranahan, 1951; Pool, 1951). Kriesberg (1946) found, in an analysis New York Times coverage of Russia from 1917 to 1946, that until rld War II that newspaper encouraged an unfavorable attitude toward ssia through such techniques as paying more attention to unfavorable as, using unwarranted headlines, publishing infbrmation from ques- )nable sources, and using loaded words (9:: the criticism of New York 5E3 foreign affairs coverage by Lichtheimu 1955). Decisions about what to publish also reflect a concern with iience appeal, especially for media concerned with making a profit. iiences seem to prefer news that is simplified, sensationalized, and sonified, and the media tend to respond to these preferences :tgaard, 1965). Bronfenbrenner (1961) suggests that one explanation the mirroreimage in Soviet—American relations may be the tendency the media to publish what their audiences want to hear. Also, news— l: like other people, are subject to ethnocentric perception, uncon- ous selectivity, and externalization processes, and these too might 182 them tend to present a mirror—image View of an enemy. The way in which the biases of the media combine with the per- 1al and cognitive processes of their audience to influence inter- >nal attitudes is not entirely clear. Bertrand Russell (1962, p. has taken a pessimistic view: . . . Now, with the diffusion of neWSpapers and radio, important events anywhere quickly come to be known to most pecple in most civilized countries. The result, however, is not so good as the devotees of enlightenment a century ago would have expected. The news that is most quickly and widely diffused is the news which is exciting, and the excitements most quickly diffused are hatred and fear. Conse— quently, what we learn about potential enemies is not the common humanity which they share with us , but rather their manifold sins and wickedness. Hatred and fear toward possible enemies are feelings natural to man and having a very long history. If they are not to dominate the relations between different communities, the different communities must either be ignorant of each other . . . or, since this is now impossible, the information that .1 is given about the distant communities must not be biased in the direction of causing horror and alarm. But there is at present little hope of such a miti— gation of incitement to hatred. viewPoint is not inconsistent with the generalizations drawn by iard (1965) from a review of research on the flow of international .mat ion : l. The news media tend to reinforceothe status quo and to exaggerate the importance of ind1v1dual actions by big power leaders . 2. The news media tend to present the world as being more conflict—laden than it really is, to emphasize the use of force rather than more peaceful means in solving such conflicts, and thus also, more indirectly, to give the impres— sion that conflicts can be averted more easily by preparing for the use of force, rather than reducing tensions by undramatic means. 183 3. The news media tend to reinforce or at least to uphold the divisions of the world between high status nations and low status nations. Specific predictions about foreign news information that will a picked up and transmitted by the mass media have been listed by altung and Holmboe Ruge (1965) . They argue that a foreign event is elatively likely to become news to the extent that: (a) it takes Lace in a time span of a few days; (b) it is an event of major rportance; (c) it is clear and unambiguous; (d) it is relevant and iderstandable; (e) it is consonant with expectations and prior images; f) it is unexpected; (g) it is related to events already in the news; 1) it contrasts with other events in the news; (i) it concerns elite itiOIlS; (j) it concerns elite groups within a nation; (k) it can be en in personal terms as due to the action of specific individuals; 1d (1) it is negative in its consequences. In their model these rotors combine additively to determine what will be treated as news, 1d so presence of one factor tends to compensate for absence of another. Comparatively little systematic attention has been given to non- :ws media content related to other nations, yet in many cases this >ntent is probably more influential than the news content since; (1) 1 my individuals give most of their attention to the non—news content; M 8 ° ' ' h theses about From this eneral hypotheSis they derived ypo . :lationships betwgen pairs of these variables. Usrng content analysrs ’ 116/08 on various events in Norwegian newspapers they were abdfitiiit ovide support for the following hypotheses: ( 1) TheOmore and (2) Le nation, the higher the tendency to report elite action, the event he more culturally distant the theater, the more relevanh are 131: appear to be." (Their methods of testing these hypot eses iticized by Rosengren, 1970.) 184 2) fiction may not be subjected to the same considerations of credi— ility as non—fiction; (3) non-news content is usually entertaining, nd persuasive messages tend to be more effective if the receivers are istrected by pleasant stimuli; and (1+) non—news content may deal with embers of national groups which are excluded from the news because heir nations are not politically salient. Usually non-news content is consistent with the following generalization (Berelson and Steiner, 1964): "The common stereotypes 3f the society tend to be copied unconsciously in the mass media of Jomnmnication." Support for this generalization is found in a study >f short stories in p0pular magazines in the United States (Berelson and Salter, 19%). The characters in these stories, especially the major characters, were likely to be Americans. Even in the five per— :ent of the stories which took place abroad the main characters were \mericans. Representatives of minority groups (in some cases ethnic acup membership was only implied by their names) "were usually tailored to the stereotypic dimensions of their respective groups" (_e_._g_. , Poles were backward, Irish were emotional). Americans were nigher in status (if other characters were high in status an explana— :ion was usually included in the story). And Americans more than others Jursued "heart" (idealistic or emotional) rather than "head" goals. imythe (cited in Wright, 1959, p. 81) found similar results in a study >f dramas on American television in 1953. If the common stereotypes in a society are related to realities, hen their appearance in media entertainment might be thought of as . relatively unbiased source of information about foreigners. This is 185 the case for three reasons . First , it should be obvious that nough stereotypes may include "kernels of truth" of various sizes, ,7 are shaped by many forces other than the nature of the nation— ect. Second, appearance in the mass media may reinforce a real but ortunate reality. This is an aSpect of what Lazarsfeld and Merton ( ed in Wright, 1959, p. 19) call the status conferral function of : mass media. Third, insofar as realities are changing (as they ally are), media images based on popular stereotypes will tend to 'e obsolete information about foreign pecples (Cherry, 1971, p. 3; Luman, 1966). The circular relationship between media images and >ular stereotypes may account for some of the unresponsiveness of 1ges to events that was described in Chapter III. Vaughn (1961) described the "preoccupation with the false >tic" in films about Africa like Tarzan and King Solomon's Mines. an recent, non—fictional films on Africa tend to focus on old stoms and on wildlife (an aspect of the old in Africa), and to .terate the old theme that Africans need white guidance. The tendency of media fiction to perpetuate old popular stereo~ es is in part unintended. Authors and producers are likely to share : biases of their countrymen, and they are under less pressure than rsmen to try to check on their ideas. But there is also an unwilling- s to upset the audience. Wiebe (1969—70) notes that mass media .ter to a natural reluctance to cope with the other," and Kracauer 49) notes how Hollywood has avoided making films about controversial ions (such as Russia or Germany prior to World War II). 186 Thus for individuals who do not attend to media non—fiction rt other nations and/ or for nations which do not receive much news :rage, the mass media will tend to reinforce popular stereotypes of :igners. But this assumes that the media audience is from the same Lety as the authors and producers of the media messages. This is always the case. Television shows produced in the United States, instance, are shown in many nations (see Browne, 1968). It is aresting to speculate about what American stories about Africa, for tance, do to African attitudes toward America. There seems to be less research on the amount of information on er countries taugnt in school, but it is reasonable to assume that re are biases similar to those in mass communications. The gate— pers~-in this case textbook authors, teachers, curriculum committees, '._.~—wi11 be subject to the same sorts of ethnocentric perception, itical pressures, pressures to simplify and make interesting, con— mity with popular stereotypes, and difficulty of getting information, 1 the flow of information will still be from elite to non—elite ions rather than vice versa. Some research has focussed on school textbooks, and it appears support this generalization. Hsu (1970) notes examples of uncon— ous bias in textbooks (e_,__g. , World War II is said to have begun in 9 Ope). And McGranahan (1951) cites several earlier studies in which 9He also comments on fine exaggerated impression of differences ween the United States and China given by the choice of illustrations the Egcyclopaedia Britannica. The plates on China show poverty and , whereas those on the United States show scenery and famous buildings 18h both countries have both poverty and scenery. 187 xtbooks were fo und to givegthnocent misleadifilereotypicfiescriptions- o . - op. m ie§...€3.£19lE§QEl-E§ . In general American textbooks have . cred non-Western nations (Isaacs, 1958, pp. L+7ff) and, to a lesser gree, most foreign nations. This is consistent with the flow of formation from relative 1y powerful countries , as is the fact that I adian textbooks give more Space to the United States than United ates textbooks give to Canada (Angus, 1938; Burkhardt, 19u7—19u8). - ardt found that American school textbooks gave little space to - Soviet Union and that the information which was included tended to ore and distort a number of important tOpics. Cherry (1971, p. 8) emphasized the differences between "knowl— ge—by—reporting” and ”knowledge-by—encounter," but part of the gnificance of the preceding paragraphs is that this distinction is ten forgotten . 7 ‘1 It is hard for us to realize how little of our information comes from direct experience with the physical environment, and how much of it comes only indirectly, from other people and the mass media. Our complex communication systems enable us to over- come the time and space limitations that confined our ancestors, but they leave us with a greater dependence on others for shaping our ideas about how things are in the world. . . . We have given up much of our capacity to confirm what we think we know. . . It appears that much of the information obtained from others is given the status of reality. This tendency . . . is reinforced by the fact that a large proportion of unverified information is shared by others around us (McLeod and Chaffee, 1972). 3 individual who knows what his schoolteacher and local newspaper say but India is likely to assume that he is well—informed, and this umption may influence his receptiveness to new ideas about India. 188 "Knowledge—by-encounter, " however, also has its limitations, aecause the travelers the host nationals see are not representative of :he pecple of their homeland and because the travelers tend to see only particular asPects of the country they visit. Thus tourists are still :he relatively affluent, and in many countries the main source of infor— mation about particular countries is observation of the behavior of affluent pecple on vacation. Simultaneously, the tourist is likely to spend his time abroad staring at sights and events which have been iesigned with his wishes and preconceptions in mind and which may be Jery atypical of the host country (Cherry, 1971). Other travelers-— students, businessmen, military personnel——also are atypical of their :aountrymen:L0 and are also likely to spend their time in environments atypical of the host country. And for contact as well as for "knowledge-by—reporting," the Flow of information is still largely from elite nations to other elite nations and to non-elite nations. The richer countries receive more :ourists (The United Kingdom received 23 times as many tourists per :apita as Uganda in 1961), and most foreign study took place in the richer nations (SChramm, 1964, p. 65; Angell, 1969, p. 37). The preceding discussion indicates that for most individuals Looking at most countries, there is relatively little information lOThe individual who is fairly typical of his countrymen at nome may become very unrepresent at ive abroad . A thrifty , hard-worker Iay become a spendthrift pleasure—seeker on his vacation. A normally tolerant young man may be come contemptuous of the natives he meets near his military base. And missionaries are noted for acting more religious abroad than at home . 189 :adin available. When this is combined with the evidence in Lapter III that he will tend only to accept part of the information rich is available to him, it is possible to ask whether the average arson ends up with any accurate knowledge about most foreign nations . :. the United States , at least, the general level of knowledge has :nded to be quite low. In 19H2 60 percent of Americans could not vcate Clnina or India on a world map (Isaacs, 1958, p. 37). In 196l+ : percent of the public did not know of a communist government in Lina (Robinson, 1967a). Hero (1968) concluded that "on most . lestions . . . a third to as much as two—thirds may be typed as gnorant, apathetic, or both," and Kriesberg (19mg) came to a similar >nc1usion. SuCh measures may not fully describe what the average American LOWS about other nations. He may not be able to say who Mac is, but 2 will say that the Chinese are "tradition—loving" and "loyal to family .es." To know whether this represents knowledge of China requires >nsideration of whether such stereotypes may be assumed to contain a :ernel of truth. ” It is not necessary for an image of another people to be some- >w related to their actual characteristics. This was demonstrated by 1 Piere (1936; cited in Brigham, 1971), who found that the popular emotype of Armenian immigrants in California was demonstrably false. r is there any reason why stereotypes cannot have a basis in reality. In the absence of sampling and measurement techniques which uld make it convenient to find out if, for instance, the Irish are ugnacious," studies demonstrating that different groups hold similar \/( 190 .tereotypes of a particular nationality provide a partial test of the ikelihood of a kernel of truth. Such agreement often occurs, and there even may be similarity between a group's image of itself and the mages held of it by others. According to Triandis and Vassiliou 1967; cited in Brigham, 1971), "The present data suggest that there .8 a 'kernel of truth' in most stereotypes when they are elicited from 11 e0ple who have firsthand knowledge of the group being stereotyped." hough kernels of truth can and presumably do exist, consensus in scribing a particular trait to the people of a foreign nation cannot >e taken as an indicator of knowledge about that nation. It might be expected that individuals in non-elite nations would Lave more knowledge of the people of the elite nations like the United itates than vice versa, both because of the relative availability of nformation on the elite nations and because of the relative salience >f the elite nations. Lindgren and Tebcherani (1971) gave some support llThis conclusion is hardly surprising; but the data are subject :0 other interpretations. If Chinese and Filipinos in the Philippines gree in their descriptions of each other (Peabody, 1968; descriptions >f a given group were denotatively similar but connotative mirror- mages), it may be because members of each group are aware of and per- :uaded somewhat by the stereotype held by the other group. If similar :tereotypes of the Soviet Union are held in various countries in Western Europe and North America (Buchanan and Cantril, 1953, p. 57), it may be :ecause elites in these nations are trying to justify an alliance ainst the U.S.S.R. If the attitudes of pecple in Ghana toward various ations are similar to those of the British (Jahoda, 1959), it is more .ikely due to related educational systems than to independently developed ation—images. And if Negroes and Whites in the United States agree hat Negroes are "musical" and Whites are "industrious” (Bayton and iyoune, 191+7), it may be because both are exposed to the same white- lominated system of mass communications as easily as it may be that this greement reflects kernels of truth. 191 :0 this by finding that Arab students were more able to predict the responses of American students to a set of questions than American students were able to predict the Arab responses.12 B. Relations Between Knowledge of and Images of Other Countries Chapter II indicated that the particular beliefs an individual nas about another'nation are likely to relate to his attitude toward :hat nation. But this is not a simple additive relationship. Some neliefs are associated with favorable attitudes and some‘with negative attitudes, and.it is impossible to infer from.the number of beliefs an individual has toward a given nation whether he is favorable or unfavor— able toward it. Likewise, Chapter’III makes it clear that the favor— ability of an individual's attitude toward another nation is not a simple function of his eXposure to information about that nation. Inder some conditions eXposure to detailed information will lead to tore favorable attitudes, and under other conditions it will lead to -ess favorable attitudes. There is little reason therefore to predict :hat the amount of accurate knowledge an individual has about another ration will be linearly related to their attitudes. Nevertheless, some researChers have compared scores on tests >f knowledge about given nations with subjects' attitudes toward those l2Abate and Berrien (1967) found that both Americans and Iapanese subjects were more able to predict American than Japanese 'eSponses to a series of behavior orientations. 192 nations.l3 Early studies relating knowledge to attitudes toward ethnic and national groups were reviewed by Nettler (19Ll6) . Correlations ranged from O to +.82. Nettler found moderate positive correlations between knowledge of and favorable attitudes toward J apanes e-Americans . 300per and Michiels (1952) found a rank—difference correlation of +.33 ‘ netween college students' knowledge of different countries and their preference rankings of those countries. On the other hand Goertzel [1972) found that the change in American attitudes toward the Vietnam :onflict between 1965 and 1971 was not accompanied by an increase in Xmerican knowledge of Vietnam. Nettler suggested that some of the low correlations between :nowledge and attitudes might conceal curvilinear relationships. This nossibility is given some support by the finding of Johnson, Middleton, and Taj fel (19 70) that there was a curvilinear relationship between the >references of British schoolchildren for different nations and their :nowledge about such characteristics of these nations as their location, 13These studies have measured knowledge of other countries :hrough "objective" tests (tests where the researchers thought they :new what answer accurately described the nation in question). If :hese studies had also employed measures of the acceptance of subj ec- :ively comparable but objectively false statements, it might be found :hat it is not whether the individual is right but whether he is con— ?‘ident in his answer that predicts his attitudes. In this case the elationship of knowledge and attitudes would appear to exist within :he cognitive system; this would appear to be consistent with the find— ng of COOper and Michiels (1952) that attitudes relate more closely to erceived than to actual knowledgeability. If, on the other hand, only he objective measure relates to attitudes, the relationship will npparently be due to a third variable, such as education or salience, :hat relates to both knowledge and attitudes. 193 population, allies , and famous people. Knowledge and favorability toward other nations are more con— sistently related across individuals than across nation—Objects. That is , individuals with more knowledge of other nations in general are likely to have relatively favorable attitudes toward other nations (9f. Pmpositions 3A3 and 3A4. l) . In general, knowledgeable individuals tend to have a relatively benign and Optimistic image of the world, perhaps because knowledge is related to differentiation (Scott, 1965). Thus Shimberg (191+9) found that poorly informed college students were more likely than other college students to expect the United States to be at war within five years.lu Smith (l9u8) found that knowledge of world affairs was related——in the United States in 1946—-to willing— ness to be friendly with Russia and to let the United Nations control the atomic bomb. Smith (19W) found that knowledgeability about Russia was positively related to Optimism about future relations between the United States and Russia. There also is some evidence that the amount of knowledge an individual has about another country is positively related to the differentiation of his attitude toward that country. In a statement consistent with Proposition 2A4, Scott (1965) suggests that Minimal information about the world will yield a simple, unidimensional cognitive structure, which is most conducive to an ethnocentric attitude of maximum distance from things foreign. . . TO the extent that additional information increases the complexity of the cognitive structure for viewing nations, it will counteract . 1“'Such a war did Occur, so perhaps it is unfair to call those with lower scores on the knowledge test "poorly—informed." 194 the simple, ethnocentric dislike Of the foreign, and affect will come to be differentially assoc- iated with more specific attributes of particular nations. Scott (1962a, 1969) repeatedly found positive correlations bemeen knowledge measures and dimens ional complexity . In studies related to this relationship, Robinson and Hefner (1967, 196 8) found that their presumably more knowledgeable academic sample had a more differentiated view Of nation similarities than a sample of the general public. Schwartzman and Mora y Araujo (1966) found that subjects with more knowledge of Latin America showed rela— tively little variance across nations in their ranking of Latin American countries, indicating that, although they liked and disliked the same nations as other subjects, their images were more moderate and presumably more differentiated. Differentiated, knowledge-based images tend to be flexible and stable. McCrosky (1967, 1969) found that attitudes created by the use of evidence in persuasion are more likely to be retained than attitudes based on other appeals. Ewan and Stotland (1961) found that the amount Of prior information individuals had about a country (neutral informat ion on litt le—known Andorra was introduced in an earlier message) related positively to the stability of their attitudes when exposed to a message designed to change them. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION A. Summary 1. Detailed Summary. This study is an exploration of rela— tionships between infOrmation about foreign nations and attitudes toward them, The discussion in the preceding Chapters provides a summary of existing researCh, and.the propositions in those chapters constitute general hypotheses for future researCh on such relation- ships. Nation—attitudes are an aspect Of images Of fOreign nations and peoples. A.nation—image is the organized representation of a given pation in an individual's cogpitive system, including beliefs, evaluations, feelings, memories, and action—orientations. A nation— attitude is the affective—evaluative component of’a nation—image. Three kinds Of information are dealt with in the present study: (1) Factual infOrmation refers to the actual or real characteristics 9§;the nation (or‘people). (2) Available infOrmation refers to the get of statements about the nation—Object to which the individual is egpgsed, or to which he could easily expose himself. (3) Subjective igfbrmation refers to the set of beliefs about the nation whiCh g3: ipdividual has accepted as true. On the level of subjective infOrma- tion, a person might say that he believes, for example, that the 195 196 Chinese are communists, that the Irish are pugnacious , and that the Wallonians are unpleasant. On the level of available information, it may be that there are messages to which the individual may become exposed—-in schools , in the mass media, in innterpersonal communication, or through direct Observation—-whic1n either directly or indirectly refer to communism in China, to quick—tempered Irishmen, and to par— ticular behaviors of the Wallonians. And on the level of factual information, there will be proportions Of the Chinese, Irish, and Wallonian peoples who are in some degree communist, pugnacious , or unpleasant. A simple model of information effects is that factual informa— tion about a foreign nation is Observed and then transmitted as avail- able information tO the individual who then accepts it into his belief system where it forms the basis of his attitudes toward that nation (see Figure l, p. 37). In fact, things are not so simple. The information that becomes available to an individual will not correspond perfectly with the actual characteristics of the nation it claims to describe. The image of the nation which an individual derives from the information avail— able to him may show little Objective correspondence with the messages in the media. And an individual may have a nation—attitude for which he can Offer little or no informational support. The present explora— tion has been an attempt to specify the conditions which determine the amount and kind Of correspondence, for the individual, of evaluation— affect toward other nations and the three information variables. 197 Chapter‘I concentrated on the dependent variable, the images individuals have of fOreign nations and peoples. SuCh images vary—— across individuals, across nation-Objects, and across time-~in terms of their content and in terms Of their structure. The contents of nation—images are beliefs about the extent to Whidh particular attri- butes describe the nation-Objects. “They may include both beliefs the individual has about "fOreign nations" in general and beliefs about how particular'nations differ from.others. Structural variables are attempts to explain the relationships Of beliefs about other'nations to eaCh otherrand to the rest of the individual's belief‘system, Differences in structural variables——including salience, differentia— tion, and tolerance fOr ambiguity—~are an important part of nation— images in that they influence the way in which available infOrmation will be processed by the individual. MOst research on nation—images has fOcussed on their evaluative— affective dimension, that is, on nation—attitudes. Across subjects of different ages and cultures, and across different nation—objects, evaluation of nations seems to be the.most universal aspect of nation~ images, although the factors whiCh make up this dimension may vary. Evaluation is both an aspect Of the content of images and animportant prodictor of the structure Of the image. .A revieW'Of methods used to measure nation—images revealed a number of difficulties. There is a tendency to rely on verbal reSponses as indicators of attitudes. Since the salience Of the attitude to the individual or the intensity with which he holds it is rarely measured, it is possible that some of the responses represent ”attitudes" that 198 would never have existed were it not for the researcher‘ s quest ion. In addition, different measures have produced different results , suggesting that what appear to be conflicting data on given relation— ships may differ only because the different measures represent different dependent variables . Chapter II looks first at predictors of attitudes toward foreign nations in general . Different individuals within a society will see foreign nations differently. One person will tend to dislike foreigners while another will tend to like them. One person will distinguish sharply between good nations and enemies while another will say that foreigners and non-foreigners both include both good and bad individuals and good and bad traits. Such variation does not seem to result from differences in available information; rather it seems to play a role in determining how the individual will respond to the information that is available. If a particular foreign nation is salient to an individual, he is likely to form a specific attitude toward it which differs from his attitudes toward other foreign nations. For most individuals, however, most foreign nations are not especially salient, and they are likely to re5pond similarly to them (Propositions 2A1, 2Al.1, 2Al.2). A person develops habitual ways of responding to other individuals in interpersonal situations long before he develops ways Of responding to other nations. He learns to make distinctions between ”we” and "they," and he learns to respond differently to "we" and "they.” Some research suggests that there will be correSpondence between the responses an individual makes to friends and enemies in his interpersonal environment and those he makes to friends and enemies in the international 199 environment (Propositions 2A2, 2A2.1, 2A2.2). This may represent a generalization Of the interpersonal responses, or it may represent effects of general personality and cognitive structure Characteristics whiCh influence both domains. ResearCh related to the general concept of the authoritarian personality has consistently fcund that generally negative attitudes toward fOreigners and.minority group members are part of a general tendency to see people in terms of relatively few categories. This may even involve a generally negative and undifferentiated response to the concept "fOreigners" (PIOpositions 2A3.3, 2A3.4). Typically the authoritarian individual is insecure; he feels threatened by others, and he projects blame onto theme—and thus he becomes ethnocentric and dislikes out-groups (Propositions 2A3, 2A3.1, 2A3.2). In addition to being predisposed to negative attitudes, the relatively authoritarian individual is likely to look to authority figures for leadership, and thus his international attitudes may be based on uncritical acceptance Of the vieWpOints expressed by his nation's leaders. Authoritarianism.is related to acceptance of pre— vailing stereotypes and to having a relatively undifferentiated image of foreign nations (Propositions 2A3.3, 2A3.u). Differentiation is clearly an important structural characteristic of nation-images, though its exact influence on attitudes is unclear. Insofar as an individual's nation—images have a differentiated structure, he may accept new infOrmation without distorting it to fit his own prior attitudes and he may hold both favorable and unfavorable beliefs about the.nation—Object. Thus the person with a differentiated nation-image 200 will be relatively unlikely to have a.wholly positive or Wholly negative evaluation Of'a nation (Proposition 2AM). Usually the most important nation fOr an individual is his own country. If he takes pride in his national identity and sees his own country as superior3 he is in effect seeing other nations in relatively unfavorable terms (PrOpositions 2A5, 2A6(A)). In some cases, however, he may see otherncountries as similar~to his own, and generalize his response to his own country to others as well (Proposition 2A6(B)). .Against the individual's general attitude toward other'nations, differential responses become apparent. Differences in nation— attitudes are associated with perceptions of differences between nations in possession of various attributes. PeOple seem to judge nations largely in terms Of their~political alignment, their level Of economic development, and.the main characteristics of their culture (Propositions 2B1, 2Bl.l, 2Bl.2, 2Bl.3). People who see a nation as Characterized by attributes they consider desirable are likely to express favorable attitudes toward that nation (PrOposition 2B2). It appears that the Characteristics which are most generally approved Of, and whiCh are therefore generally associated with favorable attitudes are (a) a high level Of economic and teChnological development and a high standard.of living, (b) peaceful intentions, (c) political independence in reality as well as in theory, (d) a "democratic" government, and (e) a population which is mostly of European ancestry (Propositions 2B3, 2B3.l, 2B3.2, 2B3.3, 2B3.H, 2B3.5). Other generally favorable Characteristics are defined relative to Characteristics the Observer perceives in his homeland. In general 201 people are more likely to respond favorably to nations and peoples they see as similar to their own (Proposition 284). This is especially true for perceptions of political alignment; people tend to like their country's allies and to dislike its enemies (Proposition 2814.1). An individual's attitudes toward a foreign nation are also likely to reflect his perception of the attitudes Of the people Of that country. He is likely to be favorable to pecple he sees as having attitudes similar to his Own (Propositions 288.2, 288.3), and he is especially likely to be favorable to them if he sees them as sharing his favorable attitude toward his own nation (Proposition 285) . Generally Speaking foreign nations are not eSpecially salient attitude objects, and both attitudes toward and beliefs about foreign nations seem to be shaped by other aspects Of the belief system. It is when particular nations become salient to the individual-~for instance when he travels to them or when they become involved in con— flict with his homeland——that he is likely to form relatively defined and polarized attitudes toward them (Proposition 286) . Chapter III begins with a discussion of the effects of exposure to different sources Of information about foreign nations. Individuals, at least in the United States, report a wide variety of sources Of information about other nations , though they are probably also influenced by sources of which they are unaware. Educated respondents are likely to mention mass media most Often as a source of such information. Education, in fact, is a good predictor Of interest in, exposure to, and knowledge of foreign nations (PrOpositions 3A1, 3A1.1, 3A2) . Education appears to have the lasting effect Of broadening the 202 individual's horizons to include the international scene. Education also seems to be associated with a generally favorable attitude toward foreign nations (Proposition 3A3) . Though instruction can produce at least short term reduction of prejudice against other groups, it is possible that it is the social interaction rather than the information presented by instructors which predicts favorable attitudes. Education tends to be a good predictor Of mass media exposure in general and of exposure to relatively sophisticated foreign affairs information in the mass media in particular (Proposition 3AM) . Since education relates to internationalism and to media exposure, individuals who are favorable to other nations tend to be exposed to more foreign affairs information in the media than those who are not (Proposition 3Au.l). However, the effect of mass media exposure on the individual's attitudes toward other nations is a fLmnction of the infor— mation which is available in the mass media and of factors which determine whether the individual accepts that information as true (Proposition 3A5), and these factors in turn will be shaped by a variety of influences. If an image Of another nation does develop largely from exposure to indirect sources like the mass media, it is likely to have a different structure from an image based on more direct sources (Proposition 3A6) . Both because Of their tendency to interact with each other and because Of their common interests and background, individuals belonging to or referring to the same reference group are likely to have similar nation—attitudes (PrOposition 3A7) . This will be especially true if for some reason attitudes toward the nation—obj ect are salient to the 203 reference group and if the reference group is especially salient to the individual (Propositions 3A7.l, 3A7.2) . International travel provides an important source of influence on nation-images for those who participate in it. It has the greatest impact on the nation-images of the traveler who takes on a participant role in the host society (Proposition 3A8) . Such contact occurs for many official and unofficial reasons and involves exposure to a wide variety of sources of information about the host country. Not surprisingly, the traveler gains in knowledge of the host country (PrOposition 3A9) , though much of the gain is in knowledge of detail rather than in knowledge of facts about the country as a whole. The traveler will tend to develop an image of the host country which is similar to that held by the nationals of the host country (Proposition 3A9 .l) . Whether he also comes to perceive the host country as having much in common with his own country is likely to depend on his prior attitudes. Favorable attitudes toward the host country tend to be associated with a perception of the host country as similar to the traveler's own country (Proposition 3AlO). Contact has no clear over—all effect on attitudes toward the host country. Some travelers become more positive, some become more negative, and others show little change in attitude. Contact does, however, lead the traveler to have a more differentiated image of the host country (Pr0position 3All) . The traveler discovers variation in the host nation and is likely to see it as all good or all bad. There is also some evidence that contact is associated with a somewhat more favorable attitude toward other nations in general (Proposition 3Al2). 20L} Differences in the effects of contact on attitudes are associ— ated.with a.number~of variables. In general, the individual Who is initially favorable toward the host country and who is more prepared to interact with nationals of the host country is relatively likely to develop favorable attitudes (Proposition 3A13). Both of these variables may contribute to the traveler's satisfaction with his sojourn and to the extent of his interaction.with host nationals, and these two variables in turn tend to be associated with the development of favorable images of the host country (PrOpositions 3Alu, 3Alu.l, 3A15, 3A15.l). In studying the effects of contact, it is difficult to isolate the relationships of infOrmation and attitudes. The traveler gains information, and develops a more differentiated image, and.this learning experience is usually associated.with Changes in attitude—— toward the homeland and the self as well as toward the host country. After'the traveler's return, his attitudes toward the host country may revert to What they were prior to the sojourn even though the knowl— edge increase is retained (Proposition 3A16), suggesting that this kind of infOrmation gained in contact may have little relevance to post—contact attitudes. Chapter III also looks at the factors whiCh predict acceptance of available infOrmation about fOreign nations. It is assumed that images and attitudes perform several functions for the individual and that out of the information available to himrhe will accept and retain that whiCh helps in the performance of these functions. He seeks to form attitudes which function for object appraisal (assessment of 205 reality), social adjustment (relating to other people), and external- ization of inner needs (Propositions 381, 381.1). It may not be possible to maximize all three of these functions, and thus pressures toward acceptance of relatively objective information may be offSet by other pressures. This explains Why, in the face of historical events WhiCh dramatically Change the kind of information available about a foreign nation, most individuals' attitudes remain relatively stable. A complicated process of filtering and distortion tends to select for the individual infOrmation which will meet his needs (Proposition 382). Though he will sometimes have a need fOr accurate infOrmation about other nations, other‘needs may result in his not accepting suCh infOrmation. Thus the individual is likely to expose himself selectively to sources that tend to give infOrmation consonant to his prior image and to pay more attention to consonant material to which he is exposed (PrOpositions 382.1, 382.2). Out of the informa- tion he attends to he is likely to remember that which is consonant, and to treat it as salient and credible (PrOpositions 382.3, 382.u, 382.5). Messages presenting information whiCh conflicts with the existing image tend to be doubted, to be accepted but not related to other~beliefs, or to be interpreted in a way whiCh reduces the conflict (Proposition 382.6). The infOrmation whiCh the individual eventually accepts tends to be either'that information whiCh is consonant with his existing beliefs or that whiCh, because of its prominence in the information environment and because it is factual and unambiguous, cannot easily 206 be denied (Proposition 383). The rigor of the selection process is a fUnction of the individual's social and.psydhologica1 needs, and these in.turn may be heightened in an atmosphere of international conflict and threat (Proposition 38H). Chapter IV introduces a caveat. The available infOrmation to which an individual responds (or fails to respond) does not necessarily represent the actual characteristics of the nation—Object. And thus, even to the degree an individual's attitudes relate to the information available to himu it is not possible to say that they relate to actual understanding of other nations. While information reaChes the individual through the news media, it has already been subjected to a variety of selective processes. The international flow of news is largely controlled by the wealthiest nations, and tends to emphasize events in these nations and to deal with other nations fromlthe elite nations' point of view. Of the fOreign infOrmation available for publication or broadcast, only some will be selected, and the selection will be biased, either by elite or government pressures or'by a concern with audience appeal. Thus the infOrmation about a given nation to which an individual has access is likely to reflect a bias toward elite viewpoints, an ethnocentric bias, and a tendency to simplify and sensationalize. Fictional material in the mass media may not be subjected to reality testing by the source or by the receiver, yet it plays a major role in shaping nation—attitudes. Generally the images of foreigners Projected in media fiction tend to reflect popular stereotypes, and so they tend to be both over—simplified and Obsolete, possibly but not 207 necessarily containing a.kerne1 of truth. SChools, like the mass media, tend to present a.biased and simplified View of foreign nations. Both educational institutions and mass media institutions act as gatekeepers, controlling the flow of infOrmation about other countries to the individual. Contact, because it allows for direct rather than mediated interaction with another~nation, does not necessarily involve the biases WhiCh Characterize the infOrmation available frcnncther sources (although it Should be noted that mass media and other~mediated sources are usually an important part of the contact experience). But other distortions result fromithe limited experience of the traveler (he is likely to see a particular aspect of a nation and to think that he knows the nation as a.whole) and frcnlthe cultural and personal biases of the traveler. The effects of contact on non—travelers Who interact with the traveler, either in the host country or on his return home, will also be shaped by the non—representativeness of the people who travel. 2. Overview. The present study has been concerned with the relationShip between infOrmation about fOreign nations and attitudes toward themu It should be clear‘that these variables are related, but not in a simple, direct, or linear~way. Available information is largely derived fromlfactual infOrmation, but the limitations and motivations of mediators make the picture which becomes available a very distorted one. This potential for discrepancy between factual infOrmation and available information is suggested by Figure H. \IIIFI I .. .ooflmz cmaoeom cm>ao m Bacon coaanomcH caflmflmzae can coapmsnomcH Hmopomm Eczema mcocmwpomflo Havocpci .3 83mm _ _ A poopcoo poms. Alli. _ Al _ _ , I I I _ 8 _ mxnospmz _ 8 _ _ m. . Hocownmm Alli. m. _ _ a _ Jumped“ _ “w . . s _ _ S . _ mov _ _ _ S M| _ mow _AII|., A _ w _ \i ooapmz _ m. _ mHoozom ” M. _ HmHmrHOh _ R. . l a _ COHHMZ _ 8 cox/aw _ e _ m... _ cmeLom m m “Bonn _ m. _ _ t. _ cox/now agent/ES . r. _ _ m _ m Boas CE. 8. _ q _ H mm H coapgcmcH mHQmHHm>< _ I _ T: Hmdpomrm COHHEEOMCH _ m: _ Munro: _ o _ i _ m .AIIL pocgfiopom T_ w _ ii, _ 1 _ n a. H . u _ _ m _ H a H I _ _ . m _ _ _ e _ m; _ .m _ s meow: mzmz _ _ \ R S . n u a. _. m _ _ x _ u . _ _ 209 Subjective infOrmation is, at least in part, derived from available information, but often other needs are more important to the individual than the need for information, and so his personal picture will differ from.that of another individual in the same infor— mation environment. The selectivity processes which lead to discrep— ancies between available information and subjective or accepted infOrmation are illustrated by Figure 5. Similar processes would influence the nation—images of individuals involved in the information— gathering institutions illustrated in Figure 4. An individual's attitude toward a given nation may be thought of as including two components, his general attitude toward foreign nations and the deviation of this particular attitude from that base— line. Information about foreign nations has relatively little effect on the general attitude, yet the general attitude accounts for muCh of the variance in nation—attitudes. The deviation of a particular nation—attitude from.the baseline seems to relate to an interaction of infOrmational (subjective beliefs, which themselves are shaped by the nation—attitude) and non—informational (suCh as preferences for par— ticular traits) factors. This view of influences on nation attitudes is illustrated in Figure 6. 8. Suggestions for Future Research 1. General Shortcomings of Past Research. The reviev of research for the present study, as discussed in Chapter II, brought OUt a number of inadequacies common to much of the research on nation— attitudes: J‘!‘ 210 soapcz cwaohom cc>aw m poonm Hmooa>aocH man an oopomoo< coaPMEMoecH c>apommnom .ooavmz cmflwhom cm>flw m acorn Hmooa>flocH engoflhmm m >9 Rococo/w mun £0.33 coapmeflomcH m>flobcmnom pep one ooaPoEMOwCH oanmaan>< oomzpon xcommosomflm HnHPCcPOL m .m werman coapmz owflmsom oc>aw m Poona Hmoofl>aocH may on oanmaao>< coaanHowcH Incapmz mo mcoapocom _ _ _ _ _ co as _ _ _ 8 _ 8 _ I T _ .d _ _ a _ a _ a _ a _ _ w _ m _ t m w w I. n 8 _ 8 _ p S _ A _ A _ S o _d e a e a l. _ l. _ S S _ _ _ _|. T. T: e S 1 d 9 A _ o _ T. _ e _ a _ o e u e m l _ S _ w _ _ . T. I 1+ 9 A U _ O _ T. _ W: _ d _ e 1 lo A o l e _ _ e Io_ as _ m. _ H .m _ mo _ wvco_ m _ u _ _m a n r. o _ D. _ _ D. _ o _ s m _ mu _ w a._ no _ J _ m l W“ 1.u a T. _ _ T. D _ l. _ _ m _ fl” _ m a _ w _ w _ A l _ _ _ m. _ w _ _ _ _ U _ S _ S _ _ _ _ _ coaehoemam can woanmpaflm Mo mommooopm Hmoofi>aocH Low coopaeH< oMMmmoz one mo mcapmahoeomsmcu 2ll .COflsz cmamsom co>flw m o9m30p woouapv< m_HcooH>aocH smaooapQMi m mCHCCconcH uncoumm smbmsm omflamm .HO gubapm I I mmWSMHWP¢ mowpmzm 1 mo macapccom .a menace ooavmz cwaosom co>aw m Poona coarsesomoH masses ooflpmz cwaosom cc>aw m oscow coflpmsecmcH cannaam>< .COfisz awamflom cc>aw m cnmch mean. fi< macapmz cwacsom UQMBOP cocpape< anhmcmw 212 (1) Experimental and longitudinal methods have not been utilized. Typically nation—attitudes are measured at one point in time, and so it is difficult to infer what factors lead to particular attitudes. (2) Measurement of attitudes has often been inadequate, involving the use of single items rather than multiple—item scale techniques. (3) The salience——of the nation—object and of the attitude toward it—-has not been measured, even though the individuals studied are often fcund to have a fairly undifferentiated image of fOreign nations in general. (H) Usually only one of the three aspects of information dis— tinguished in the present study is measured. Where available informa— tion is measured, it is generally assumed that it has been accepted by the individual; and sometimes inferences about beliefs are derived directly from factual infOrmation about nation—objects. (5) Most research has concentrated on the relationships of only two or three variables, neglecting both multi—operational techniques of measurement and multivariate analysis techniques.1 There is no simple relationship between infOrmation and nation— attitudes, and so there is no simple, critical experiment that would Hake clear the relationship that does exist. Rather, a wide variety 1Most of these weaknesses, of course, are not peculiar to researCh on nation—attitudes. Instead they are common to muCh of the literature on attitudes and attitude Change. 213 of research is needed to clarify ambiguities, to test the generaliz- ability of existing data, to specify multivariate and curvilinear relationships , and to investigate causality. A general recommendation would be for the propositions in this study to be used as broad hypotheses to be tested with varLing samples, varying nation—objects, and vaging measures . 2. Specific Suggestions. At various points in the preceding chapters weaknesses in existing research have been pointed out and directions for future research have been suggested. Some of these suggestions are drawn together in the list which follows, as possible directions for research activity: (1) Research is needed on the salience of nations to individuals. Such research might clear up doubts about the meaningfulness of expressions of attitudes elicited from research subjects. It might be that information and attitudes relate differently for nation—objects high and low in salience, and control of variance in salience might clarify the interaction. In particular, such measures should be used to test Propositions 2Al.l and 2Al.2. (2) Dimensions of salience of nation-images need to be investigated separately. Relevance of particular nation-objects to the functions of object appraisal, social adjustment, and external— ization will tend to covary, but these aspects of salience are con— ceptually independent of each other. Separate measurements of these aSpects of salience might reveal that different attitude functions play different roles in the selectivity process. 21H (3) Dimensions of evaluation and affect in nation-images also need to be investigated. Factor analysis of results from.various measures, including social distance, liking, similarity to ideal, and prestige rankings, might continue the refinement of the evaluative dimension and allow synthesis of results from.Willis (1968) and Gardner, Wonnacott, and‘Taylor (1968). If regular dimensions of evaluation are identified it might turn out that those differences help account for discrepancies in existing data, and that the different factors involve different responses to information on fOreign nations. (4) In general, research on nation—attitudes, like other attitude researCh, needs to move toward multiple—operationalism rather than usage of single measures of attitude and toward inclusion of attitude measures other than verbal responses. (5) A.method needs to be develOped fOr measuring an individ~ ualksattitude toward fOreign nations in general. Existing scales, such as those for woridemdndedness and internationalism, involve other variables—-suCh as interest in other‘nations, nationalism, and foreign affairs attitudes—~as well as general attitude, and so they cannot be used for seeing how the general attitude relates to these other vari— ables. A reasonable approach would be to average some of the individ— ual's particular nation—attitudes (as measured in accord with suggestions 2 and 3 above), but it would be important to use a sample of nation~ Objects which would be comparable from sample to sample and.from study to study. Such a technique might also make possible measures of the differentiation of the general image of ”fOreign nations," potentially an important variable. If a measure of general attitude toward foreign 215 nations is developed it will make it possible to distinguish the general and specific components of particular nation—attitudes and allow the predictors of these two components to be studied separately. The generalization hypothesis (Proposition 2A2) should be tested using this new measure and a comparable measure of interpersonal attitudes. (6) Prejudice and stereotyping are often said to involve images whiCh are rigidly held and whiCh admit of little variation. In studying images of foreign nations it would be useful to use independent measures to find out whether the individual thinks his beliefs apply to all members of the object nationality ornjust to most of them, and to find out whether he sees these as innate, invariant Characteristics or whether he sees them.as learned and.capable of being Changed. (7) It may be that nation—images include some traits whiCh color’the meaning of other traits and have particular importance in determining a gestalt response. Studies of nation—images similar to the well—known study by AsCh (1946) of interpersonal perceptions might identify particular attributes or combinations of attributes deserving of special attention. Mere generally——at all levels of information discussed in this study——particular information content needs to be compared with nation-attitudes to see how muCh of the variance in nation-attitudes it accounts fOr. Factor analytic studies have suggested the types of information that may be salient, but experi~ mental studies are needed to demonstrate WhiCh attributes are most influential. (8) Studies of information effects especially need to focus 9n differences between mediated and directly acquired infOrmation. 216 Both on the level of subjective information and on the level of available information, it would be possible to look at messages or beliefs and analyze the differences in content, and then to see if these content differences relate to attitude differences. Potentially these two types of infOrmation have very different effects. (9) The concept of "amoun " of information also needs to be examined.more carefully. It has not been measured directly. Rather subjects have been asked if they think they are knowledgeable, they have been given infOrmation tests WhiCh measure infOrmation of a pamticular'and restricted type, their exposure to particular sources and experiences has been measured, and the volume of foreign affairs infOrmation in some of these sources has been measured. On the sub- jective level it may be possible to measure the number of distinct beliefs an.individua1 has about a nation—object (this is something like differentiation, but an individual may have a variety of specific beliefs without evaluative differentiation). It also might be possible to relate the number of beliefs (and facts) the subject has to the number available to himu although specifying What is available would be difficult except in the case of isolated individuals and little- known nations. (10) In general, studies of the predictors of nation—attitudes_ need.to use a.multivariate approaCh. It is a.general problem of the area that most studies tend to fOcus on the relationShip between two or'three variables. If one study indicates that variables X and.Y are related, and another indicates that Y relates to Z, the relation- Ship of’X and Z remains unSpecified, Where a single study using all 217 three variables might have removed the ambiguity. There is a general need for multivariate studies to help synthesize existing data. An important and complicated problem, deserving of multivariate treatment, involves the relationships between salience of nation—attitudes , the type of information (mediated or direct) available to the individual, the differentiation of nation—attitudes, the degree to which nation- attitudes are moderate or polarized, and the amount of information a person has about other nations . (ll) A given individual is, simultaneously, a member of various subnat ional, national, and supernational groups , and his identity and loyalty will be divided among these groups. ' Attitudes toward foreign nations may be seen as reflecting the salience of supernational group membership in the identity of the individual, and thus as a function of national and subnational loyalties. Research using comparable measures of identity and loyalty on the different levels might be use- ful to test this approach to nation—attitudes. This would help test Propositions 2A5, 2A6 (A) and 2A6(B) , and it might help explain the discrepancies between the two types of xenophilia described by Perlmutter (195%). Measurement of an individual's "hierarchy of loyalties" might be done using a method similar to that of Terhune (1965). (12) It should be determined if there are types of individuals who respond in particular ways to other nations. One method of doing this would involve replication with larger samples of Stephenson's (1967) use of Q—sort technique. Recognition of types of individuals who respond in particular ways to other nations would be useful to the 218 individuals involved in international communication (for instance to people planning programs for foreign students), and it would be likely to give insights, which might not be otherwise attained, into config— urations of variables associated with nation—attitudes. In particular, it might be fournd that Proposition 2A1 applies to some types of pecple more than to others. (13) The relationship between liking foreign nations and ascribing favorable attributes to them needs to be clarified. More research should measure the particular subject's evaluation of the traits he ascribes to the nation-object instead of using a group mean to rate the attributes, since this would eliminate extraneous variance caused by discrepancies between individuals and the group mean. (11+) Research is needed to clear 1.33 the ambiguity found in the results of many studies where it is not clear if the significant vari— able in predictingnation—attitudes is a ppalgy perceived in the nation-obj ect or a quality of the relationship between the nation— object and the judge or the judge's homeland. This kind of ambiguity can be reduced if more studies are done looking at the predictors of nation-attitudes for subjects from different nations. It can also be reduced if subjects are asked to indicate the extent to which they are personally characterized by the attributes in question, and by sta— tistical methods (as in Selltiz e_t__a_l_., 1963). Presumably both absolute and similarity factors may operate on a given attribute. (15) Studies of populations from various cultures are needed to determine if the positive relationship found in the United States b_etween favorable nat ion-attitudes and perceptions that the people in 219 the other nation have similar attitudes on most topics holds cross— culturally. This, in effect, would be a test of the generalizability of Proposition 284.2. (16) Studies are needed which use comparable measures of per- ceived similarity to homeland and perceived similarity to self (or to subgroup) to discover which of these reference points is most important in predicting nation—attitudes. Such studies would help refine PrOpositions 284.1, 284.2, and 284.3. The results of such tests might also vary with the culture of the subjects, so this research should also be done with a variety of populations . (17) Generally, an individual will tend to have a favorable attitude toward a foreign nation if he believes that the pecple of that nation have a favorable attitude toward him. Research is needed to determine the specific types of pgceptions of favorable attitudes Mothers that are most closely associated with a favorable attitude toward those others. Is it important that others be seen as liking one's nation, one's subgroup, or one's self? And is it necessary or sufficient that the individual believe that others see his nation as similar to their own? In effect, what is called for is a comparison of the predictiveness of the various forms of Proposition 285 suggested in Chapter II. (18) More researchers should interview individuals at length as to the origins of their nation-images. That is, they should follow the lead of Isaacs (1958). Though interview responses are not always accurate, they provide a kind of information about effects of infome— tion on attitudes which is not otherwise available. Interviews with 220 relatively uneducated groups in different nations would be especially interesting, since little researCh of this kind has taken place. (19) Since fOreign affairs media content is controlled by the government in different ways in different nations, research is needed in different societies to see if it is cross—nationally true that pegple with more exppsure to fOreign affairs news are relatively likely to have favorable nation—attitudes. This means that PrOposition 3A4.l should be tested in societies with varying types of press systems. (20) .A comparison should be made between nation-images entirely derived.fromlinf0rmation in the mass media.and.nation—images derived pgrtiallypor entirely from other sources. Insofar as this can be done while controlling other variables, it may be possible to see if these two sets of images do indeed, as Proposition 3A6 predicts, differ qualitatively. (21) Generally more research is needed on variables whiCh predict the influence of interpersonal interaction and reference group attaChment on nation—images. SuCh research would need to measure the salience of the reference group to the individual, the general image of the nation—object held.by the reference group, and the individual’s image of the nation—object. It may be fCund that particular aspects of nation—images tend to be determined by interpersonal communication while others tend.to be determined.by mass communicatrmn. (22) Mere research is needed on the effects of tourist travel gppthe nation-images and attitudes of the traveler. (23) Studies of contact egperiences should look in more detail gt the way the sojourner responds to infOrmation about the host country 221 in the mass media of the host country. This is likely to be an important part of the contact experience. (24) Research is needed to identify the factors which predict how muCh the traveler's knowledge of the foreign nation will increase as a result of his sojourn. If the effect of contact on attitudes is in part determined.by increase in knowledge, more detailed information about what is learned and by whom Should shed light on the relation— ship. (25) The correspondence between the objective characteristics of foreign nations and the information about them which becomes available in the news media and in schools has been studied in less detail than the correspondence between available infOrmation, sub— jective information, and attitudes. It is clear that bias occurs in the mediation process as infOrmation is selectively eliminated and interpreted, but it is not clear how biased the resulting available infOrmation is. The difficulty is in developing an independent and objective measure of factual infOrmation with which to compare the available infOrmation. This can never be done completely, but objective measures of a variety of characteristics of the nation should be developed and compared with available information to provide a description of the bias and to give an indication of the relationship between nation-images and possession of factual information. (26) It is generally felt that the way a nation is presented in media fiction influences the audience's image of that nation, but not much is known about when this is the case and when it is not. Studies should be done of how people respond to foreign characters and 222 settings in media fiction to see when they are perceived as relatimg to reality and when exposure to them influences nation—attitudes. Such research should consider effects both in the normal situation where the media presentation is consistent with popular stereotypes and in the propagandistic situation where fiction is deliberately designed to Change popular stereotypes (or where media fiction pro— duced in one society is published or broadcast in another). (27) Studies of the infOrmation about other nations which is taught in schools have focussed on textbook content. Research is needed on the attitudes of teachers and their influence on students' nation—images. (28) Studies of the effects of direct contact on nation— attitudes should be replicated with measures of knowledge and nation— attitudes made at several points in time both during and after the sojourn. The U—curve and W—curve literature makes it clear that the results of suCh measurements will depend to a large extent on the time when they are made, and generalizations about the relationship of information and attitudes during the sojourn can only be made if the time variable is controlled through longitudinal measurement. (29) There is a practical need for more studies of attitudes toward the smaller and poorer nations. The most detailed studies of nation—attitudes, like that by Smith, Bruner, and White (1956), have concentrated on relatively well—known and important nations. There is a need for comparable depth in studies of lesser known nations. Though such nations may not be clearly distinguished from each other in many minds (not much would be gained by asking an American about 223 differences between Thailand and Burma or between Chad and the Central African Republic), together they make up an important element in the modern world, and the individual's image of "Africa" or of "under- developed countries" may be worth studying. Since such nations are also different in their salience to the mass media, differences in attitude might show the effects of media treatment. Some additional suggestions are included in Part C of the present chapter. 3. Variables to be Measured in an Ideal Study. Drawing on a number of the previous suggestions, it is possible to suggest the variables which would be measured and related to each other in an ideal study of relationships between information and nation—attitudes: (1) Subjects of different nationalities, including communist and non- communist , developed and underdeveloped, and European and non—European nations would be compared. (2) Generally influential variables such as education, previous foreign travel, and authoritarianism, attitudes " toward the subj ect's homeland, and attitudes toward interpersonal relations would be measured and statistically controlled. (3) Content dimensions of attitudes toward a wide variety of nation~objects would be measured through a multiple—indicator approach. (4) Attitudes toward nation-obj ects would also be described in terms of differentiation and extremity/moderation. (5) Attitudes toward nations would be averaged to provide an estimate of the individual's attitude toward foreign nations in general; and this attitude would also be described in terms Of different dimensions, differentiation, and extremity/moderation. (6) Beliefs about particular nations would be measured in a way that 224 would include both beliefs about matters of opinion and mattters of fact. (7) Belief measures would be accompanied by a measure of how the individual evaluates the ascribed traits and.whetherfihe also ascribes themnto himself and his homeland. (8) Measures would be made of subjects' preferences for various information sources and of” their communication habits. (9) A.survey would be made of the mediated and of the direct information——factual, Opinionated, and fictional-— available to the individual. (10) Sociometric measures would be used to identify the individuals' peer and opinion leaders, and an indepen— dent estimate of their nation-images would also be made. Some of the data generated by simultaneous measurement of the variables listed in the preceding paragraph could be used to test hypotheses derived fromlthe propositions discussed in this study. MuCh of it, however, would have to be classified as exploratory researCh. In effect, researCh on this subject is at a point where the variables whiCh need to be considered are known, where there is some data on how individual pairs of variables relate to eaCh other, but Where the multivariate data and the theory needed to clarify the whole picture are missing. C. Implications for Theory—Building l. The Concept of Attitudes toward Nations and Their Peoples. Although the present study has been arbitrarily restricted to researCh on attitudes toward nations and nationalities, this researCh does not make up a distinct area of attitude researCh. The frequent attention to nation—attitudes by students of attitude fbrmation and change does 225 not imply that nation is a conceptually important variable in suCh researCh. Rather'the frequent use of nations as attitude—objects seems to have been at times a matter*of convenience, since nation— alities are easily labeled and widely known groups of'people, and at times a reflection of the value-orientations of the researChers and/ or their sponsors. Despite the frequency of questions about nation—attitudes in attitude researCh, the concept of nation—attitude has usually not been carefully explicated. As a.resu1t, the usefulness of this researCh in the development of a general theory of attitudes (or of attitudes toward others) has been limited. Two problems are involved. First, it is usually not clear What referents the research subjects have for’the names of nations or nationalities. If a subject is asked for his opinion of "China,” for instance, will his response represent his image of China's people, of its leadership, or its climate and landforms, or'what? And if he is asked to rate "the Chinese," does he think only of modern Chinese, and does he (if he is an American) include his opinion of ChineseeAmericans? Generally the existing data do not answer such questions, though the way in Which these concepts are defined will influence the responses whiCh are made to them. When the name of a nation is used as a stimulus, the reSponses may represent attitudes toward its government, its peOple, or its history, or to a somewhat vague mixture of these and other ingredients. Research on the usual referents of names of nations might help clarify (or qualify) existing data on nation~attitudes, and night demonstrate the need for more precise stimuli in measuring nation— 226 attitudes. DeSpite the confusion over the meanings whiCh names of nations may have to individuals, it seems reasonable to treat nation-attitudes as a subset of what might be called attitudes toward others or atti— tudes toward.out—groups. Human beings belong to hierarChies of groups—— usually including the nuclear‘family, the extended.family, the local community, the ethnic group, the.nation, alliances of nations, and the human species——WhiCh play roles of varying importance in their iden— tities. Where belonging to a given group is important to an individual, he will make a "we—they” distinction between the group he belongs to and other comparable groups. ResearCh on attitudes toward fOreign nations is researCh on an aspect of the way in whiCh people respond to groups tO'WhiCh they do not belong, and thus it is closely related to other bodies of researCh suCh as studies of prejudice toward ethnic groups and studies of affect between individuals. The present study has not been concerned with the similarities or differences between predictors of nation—attitudes and predictors of attitudes toward other kinds of out—groups. The predictors of attitudes toward foreign nations in general——discussed in the first part of Chapter II——are generally consistent with researCh on individ~ uals' attitudes toward other individuals and out—groups. Evidence of a pattern WhiCh goes beyond nation—attitudes is included in the dis— cussion of Propositions 2A2, 2A2.l, 2A2.2, and 2A3.2. In particular, authoritarianism.seems to relate in muCh the same way to nation— attitudes and attitudes toward other out-groups. Additional researCh is needed, however, to see if individuals consistently make distinctions 227 between "we" and ”they" in looking at nations analogous to those they make in interpersonal situations, and to specify how these distinctions will be made under particular circumstances.2 Likewise, the findings on general predictors of acceptance of information about other nations, reported in the second part of Chapter III, are generally consistent with the researCh on other kinds of attitudes toward others. The attitude functions referred to in Propositions 381 and 381.1 and the selectivity processes described in Propositions 382, 382.1, 382.2, 382.3, 382.4, 382.5, 382.6, and 383 seem.to apply to the relationship of available information and attitudes toward others of all kinds. The propositions in the first part of Chapter III, and the general conclusions of Chapter IV, however, cannot be generalized beyond the study of nation—attitudes. The kind of information which a particular medium of communication carries about foreign nations (and related subjects) may be very different from the kind of informa— tion it carries about other sorts of out—groups. For various reasons it may diffuse information about one kind of out—group more effectively and with different consequences than it diffuses information about another. A general theory of the effects of exposure to particular sources on attitudes toward all types of out—groups will be possible 2Responses to nations may reflect both a we—they distinction between the individual's own nation and fOreign nations and similar distinctions made between groups of nations, so that under given cir— cumstances an American, fOr instance, may respond to the English or the South Vietnamese as part of a supernational in—group while under other circumstances he will see them largely as foreigners. 228 only through additional research on the predictors of information about particular kinds of out—groups in particular types of communica— tion media. The second problem with the concept of nation—attitude, from the point of View of a student of attitudes toward all kinds of out— groups, is that in the existing data it is usually not possible to determine what aspects of the stimulus nation (i.e. , of the respon— dent's image of the stimulus nation) account for the elicited response. The research discussed in the second part of Chapter II, on the dimens— ions along which nations tend to be seen as good and bad and similar and dissimilar, represents a step toward the solution of this problem. Most of this research, however, has utilized a correlational approach, looldng at the traits correlated with attitudes toward real nations. This method is limited because time order is not measured and because traits cannot be varied independently. When most nations which are underdeveloped are also non—white, for example, it is difficult to tell the extent to which one or the other of these factors influences (or is influenced by) nation—attitudes. Several methods might be used to identify the trait attributions which best predict nation—attitudes. Longitudinal, panel surveys and quasi-experimental techniques involving manipulation of available information would be better than the usual "one—shot" surveys of Opinion, but even with those methods prior attitudes may result in differential acceptance of opinion. A better solution might be to provide information varying on single attributes describing fictitious 229 nations about whiCh subjects can have no preconceptions.3 Other methods similar‘to those used in researCh on person perception might also be used to help identify the most influential trait attributions in perception of nations. For the purposes of developing a general theory of attitudes toward others or toward out—groups, it would be desirable to go beyond identifying traits which only describe nations to identifying more abstract and general traits. One set of traits whiCh might be used fOr’this purpose are the three main dimensions of connotative meaning drawn from.the work of Osgood, Suci, and.Tannenbaum.(l957): evaluation, activity, and potency. There is an apparent parallel between these dimensions and some of the dimensions of judgments of nations reported in Chapter II. In particular, evaluation may be somewhat similar to political alignment, and potency may be related to economic development. ResearCh considering how nations are judged on the Osgood dimensions could be compared with researCh considering how other~kinds of out— groups are judged on the same dimensions, testing hypotheses about general relationships between perceptions of out—groups and attitudes toward‘them.u 3Results fromnthis method might not generalize to images of better known nations like Britain or Russia. A similar method, less controlled but more realistic, would use as stimuli a list of real nations, with supplemental infOrmation about eaCh, carefully Chosen to differ from.eaCh other, insofar as is possible, only on single attri— butes. A.respondent might be asked, for instance, to express his preference for one of a pair of factors which he rated as differing on only one trait. HDr. Frederick Waisanen of MiChigan State University suggested this general approaCh to the present author. He suggested, as an 230 2. Differentiation as a Dependent Variable. Most of the researCh on attitudes toward fOreign nations and peoples has fOcussed on the predictors of favorable evaluation and affect. The concentra— tion on favorability/unfavorability as a dependent variable reflects the frequent assumptions (a) that all peoples are basically good, and anyone Who thinks otherwise must therefOre have a false or incomplete image of them, and (b) that it would be desirable fOr all peoples to have favorable attitudes toward eaCh other. It is equally possible to assume, however, (a) that a given nation (and its people) is a complex phenomenon including muCh that is good, muCh that is bad, and muCh that is neither good nor bad,5 and (b) that wholly favorable attitudes toward a given nation are therefore unrealistic and not necessarily desirable. These alternative assumptions suggest the possibility that a shift of attention from.the predictors of favorable nation—images to the predictors of differentiated.nation—images might prove valuable. - If a nation is not a homogeneous, purely good or'purely bad phenomenon, then either a wholly favorable Or a wholly unfavorable orientation to it can be maintained only if much of the factual example, the hypothesis that nations (and other kinds of out—groups) would be perceived as threatening if they were judged as being negative on the evaluative dimension and positive on the potency dimension of semantic space. 5The extent to which it is justified to call anothernnation good or bad may vary someWhat depending on whether it is assumed that good and bad have meaning only relative to the values of particular cnfltures, but even from.a completely relativistic viewpoint a judgment whiCh fails to recognize variance within a nation~object must be considered less than accurate. 231 information about that nation is either ignored or distorted. Such a selectivity process may take place as the information is processed by gatekeepers, producing mediated available infOrmation whiCh is relatively undifferentiated, and it may take place in the individual‘s Selective exposure to communications sources and selective inter— pretation of their content, resulting in relatively undifferentiated, subjective infOrmation. An undifferentiated image of a given nation is an inadequate and unrealistic representation of its character— istics, and so the individual guided by such an image is likely to experience more difficulty and stress in interacting with people of the other nation and in reSponding to unmediated infOrmation about the other nation than is an individual with a more differentiated image. Differentiation of nation—images is therefOre likely to be a useful predictor of effective communication and successful interaction between individuals of different nations. In Chapter II a person was said to have differentiated nation- images insofar as he (a) tends to make distinctions in terms of a variety of independent attributes rather than judging nations in terms of a few attributes all of which correlate with evaluation, (b) tends to make distinctions in terms of a variety of degrees of a given attribute rather than treating each attribute as a dichotomous vari- able, and (0) tends to respond to novel infOrmation about other nations by modifying his cognitive structure (including his nation—image) rather than by assimilating the information into his existing image in order 232 to maintain cognitive balance and simple structure. This definition can be extended to apply not only to images of particular nations but to images of foreign nations in general and even to images of out— groups in general. Likewise, the definition can be extended to apply to the infOrmation available about these groups in particular commun— ication systems (and to the images held by communication gatekeepers) as well as to the subjective information believed by various individ— uals. This makes it possible to study a variety of hypotheses about the predictors of differentiation in each of these contexts. Existing data do not permit specific predictions about how differentiated a particular individual's image of a given fOreign nation will be. In general, it appears that predictions of differen— tiation as a dependent variable would have to take into consideration three types of independent variable: the cognitive style of the individual, the information about the fOreign nation to which he is exposed, and the functions his nation-image has for hrn. Thus the same independent variables that have figured in research on favorability of nation—attitudes seemlto be relevant to predicting differentiation, though the two dependent variables may relate to these independent variables in different ways. Individuals differ in their general cognitive styles, with some tending more than others to develop differentiated images of all kinds of objects. Thus the degree of differentiation of a nation-image will be in part a fUnction of whether the individual generally tends to be a "differentiator." The origins of this general tendency are not entirely clear, but as Propositions 2A3.3 and 2A3.H suggest it is 233 inversely related to authoritarianism and thus presumably determined largely by childhood learning experiences. An individual‘s cognitive style will influence the way he reSponds to infOrmation about a foreign nation, and so the resulting image will also be influenced by the extent to which the available information about the nation is differentiated. Where the individual gets his information fromlmediated sources rather than through direct contact, where he gets his infOrmation from a relatively small and homogeneous group of sources, and where he attends largely to sources like the mass media which tend to present a fairly simplified view of the nation—object, he will tend to develop an undifferentiated nation— image, even if his general style Would not discourage differentiation (2:: Propositions 3A6 and 3All). A third influence on the differentiation of nation-images, interacting with cognitive style and available information, involves the actual or anticipated reinforcement the individual receives for holding a particular image. This reinforcement will be related to one or more of the three attitude functions discussed in Chapter III: object appraisal, social adjustment, and externalization. Prediction of differentiation therefore must involve both infOrmation about the relative importance of these three functions in reinforcing the individual‘s attitude toward the nation in question and the extent of differentiation which tends to be optimal for fulfilling these functions. In general, it would be expected that social adjustment and external— ization would be served most effectively by relatively undifferentiated 23H images of foreign nations. Object appraisal has itself different functions. It may include a "need to understand" that can combine with an intolerance of ambiguity to produce relatively undifferentiated images, or it may involve a practical need to deal with the people of another nation which leads to exposure to more information about the other country, to testing of the existing image, and thus to an increasingly differentiated nation~image (pg; Propositions 2Al.l, 2Al.2, and 2AM). D. Implications for Action Many people are concerned with manipulating nation—attitudes. Some are motivated with a desire to create friendship and peaceful interaction between all nations. Others seek national self—interest, trying to create a favorable impression of their own nation abroad or to give their own countrymen a feeling of superiority over other peoples. Some of the propositions discussed in the present study may have practical applications to the work of these people. They suggest the types of people (in terms of such variables as education and author— itarianism) who are most and least open to influences in the direction of favorable attitudes toward foreign nations (an important considera— tion, for instance, to people awarding scholarships to fOreign students), they suggest the types of message content (in terms of such variables as standard of living and attitudes of foreigners) most likely to influence nation—attitudes, and——most important——they emphasize the respects in which developing favorable attitudes toward fOreign nations is a complex and difficult task, where success is not likely to come 235 from messages sent at a single time or through a single channel nor through appeals which are exclusively rational and informational. The present study also has another kind of implication, which arises from the knowledge that nation—attitudes are not easily man— ipulated to create mutually favorable attitudes between all peoples . Cherry (1971, p. 8) expressed an opinion which might serve as a conclusion for the present study: In the writer's opinion, one of the greatest dangers into which . . . world communication can lead us is the delusion that, as the global network expands , so the walls of our mental villages are being pushed back: the delusion that increased powers of com- munication will bring us all closer together into better understanding and a sense of human compassion. There is no foundation whatsoever for such an emotional belief. There is nothing in the present study which contradicts this pessimistic opinion. Most evidence indicates that non-informational influences are the major determinants of most people's attitudes toward most other nations. The information most peg>le have about most other nations is drawn from the mass media, and the mass media are likely to present foreign nations in a way that makes for little sympathy or understanding. ’I_'he resulting beliefs and attitudes about other nations may satisfy pgychological and social needs of the individuals who hold them, but they are not likely to lead to pleasant relations between peoples of different nations. Since these conclusions tend to disconfirm the common assumption that as people of different nations come to know more about each other they will come to like each other as well, they may be thought of as an essentially negative result from the extensive research which has 236 focused on nation—attitudes. Rather than showing how favorable atti— tudes can be created, the research has tended to show why peoples often do not view each other favorably. These findings can, however, make an important contribution to effective communication and friendly relationships between peoples of different nations. Recognition of the obstacles to international understanding can be the first step in overcoming themh When expec— tations are based on realistic rather than on naive assumptions about how information influences attitudes, they are less likely to be frustrated by experience. Understanding of the reasons Why people do not always respond favorably to information about other nations may lead to acceptance of the responses they do make. The individual who recognizes the probability of bias in the infOrmation available to him, and who recognizes the probability of non—rational elements in his own attitudes toward fOreigners, may hold and communicate his attitudes less dogmatically. In general, communication based on realistic understanding of the factors which determine nation-attitudes may be more effective and less defensive than communication based on ignorance of sudh factors, and thus it may contribute to favorable nation— attitudes on the part of the participants. Research on the origins of nation—attitudes can contribute to this kind of understanding, but only if it meets three requirements. First, it must provide models which are faithful to reality. Existing research represents progress toward understanding nation—attitudes, but there is much more to be learned. Some of the needs for research have been discussed in the present study. Second, it mustgprovide 237 models which can be generalized to the variety of people who participate, directly or indirectly, in international interaction. It is important to know what determines the nation—attitudes of an American congressman, a South American dictator, or a Chinese peasant as well as what determines the nation—attitudes of a college freshman. It may be that research done on one kind of subject is of general relevance, but this must be tested rather than taken for granted. Third, it must provide models which can be taught to and understood by the variety of people who particifite, directly or indirectly, in international interaction. The usefulness of research on the origins of nation-attitudes is con— tingent on the success with which the results of that research become known, not only to sources of messages about other nations, but to the receivers of such messages as well. APPENDIX APPENDIX List of Propositions Proposition Page 2A1 The favorability of an individual's attitude tOWard a given foreign nation is positively related to the mean favorability of his attitudes toward all other nations. 39 2Al.l The relationship between the favorability of an individual's attitude toward a given nation and the mean favorability of his attitudes toward all other nations will be more strongly positive when the given nation is relatively non—salient to the individual than when it is not. 40 2Al.2 The relationship between the favorability of an individual's attitude toward a given nation and the mean favorability of his attitudes toward all other nations will be more strongly positive for individuals to whom foreign nations in general are relatively non—salient. Ml 2A2 Individuals who tend to have favorable attitudes toward people they deal with in everyday life will be more likely to have favorable attitudes toward other nations than will individuals who tend to have unfavorable attitudes toward people they deal with in everyday life. Ml 2A2.l Individuals who emphasize a distinction between ingroups and outgroups in interpersonal and intrasocietal relations will be more likely than other individuals to emphasize a distinc— tion between ingroups and outgroups in their attitudes toward nations. um 2A2.2 The evaluative and descriptive distinctions an individual makes in his judgments of nations will be similar to those he makes in his judgments of individuals and groups within his society. nu 2A3 Individuals who are relatively high in author— ‘itarianism (or closed—mindedness or concreteness) are likely to have relatively unfavorable atti— tudes toward fOreign nations. 238 MB 239 Proposition 2A3.l 2A3.2 2A3.3 2A4 2A5 2A6(A) 2A6(B) 281 2Bl.l Individuals who tend to dislike themselves will tend to have relatively unfavorable attitudes to foreign nations. Individuals who tend not to trust other people and Who are pessimistic about human nature will tend to have relatively unfavorable attitudes to foreign nations. Individuals who are relatively low in author— itarianism (or closed—mindedness or concreteness) mlikely to have a relatively differentiated image and evaluation of the concept "foreign nations and peoples." Individuals who are relatively low in author— itarianism (or closed—mindedness or concreteness) are likely to have a relatively differentiated image of a given foreign nation. Individuals with a relatively differentiated image of a given foreign nation are likely to have a relatively moderate, rather than a wholly favor— able or unfavorable, evaluation of that nation. The favorability of an individual's attitude toward a given fOreign nation will be negatively related to the salience of nationality in his self—identity. The favorability of an individual's attitude toward a given fOreign nation is negatively related to the favorability of his attitude toward his own nation. The favorability of an individual's attitude toward a given foreign nation is positively related to the favorability of his attitude toward his own nation. An individual' 5 judgment of the over—all similarity of two nations will be a function of his judgments of how similar they are in terms of a small number of attributes. An individual's judgment of the overaall srmilarity of two nations will be in part a function of his judgment of how similar they are in political alignment. Page H9 49 52 52 52 55 56 57 58 58 240 Proposition 2Bl.2 2Bl.3 2B2 2B3 2B3.l 2B3.2 2B3.3 2B3.” 2B3.5 ZBH An individual's judgment of the over—all similarity of two nations will be in part a function of his judgment of how similar they are in economic development. An individual's judgment of the over—all similarity of two nations will be in part a function of his judgment of how similar they are culturally. The favorability of an individual's attitude toward a given nation will be positively related to his perception of the favorability of the traits he sees that nation as having. An individual’s attitude toward a given foreign nation will be a function of his perception of the degree to whiCh that nation is char— acterized by certain attributes. An individual's attitude toward a given fOreign nation will be in part a function of his per— ception of the degree to which that nation is Characterized by a relatively high level of economic and technological development and a relatively high standard of living. An individual's attitude toward a given fOreign nation will be in part a function of his per— ception of the nation as peaceful. An individual’s attitude toward a given foreign nation will be in part a function of his per— ception of the nation as independent of other nations. An individual's attitude toward a given foreign nation will be in part a function of his per— ception of the nation as democratic. An individual's attitude toward a given foreign nation will be in part a function of his perv ception of the people of that nation as white. The favorability of an individual's attitude toward a given nation will be positively related to the degree of similarity he per— ceives between that nation and his own nation. Page 58 58 63 66 66 7O 7O 70 70 7m 2H1 Proposition Page 2Bu.l The favorability of an individual's attitude toward a given nation is positively related to the degree of similarity he perceives between that nation and his own nation in terms of political alignment. 77 ZBH.2 The favorability of an individual's attitude toward a given nation is positively related to the degree of similarity of attitudes and beliefs he perceives between the people of that nation and the people of his own nation. 79 2B4.3 The favorability of an individual’s attitude toward a given nation is positively related to the degree of similarity he perceives between that nation and.himself. 80 2B5 The favorability of an individual's attitude toward a given nation is positively related to his estimate of the favorability of the atti— tudes of the people of that nation toward his own nation. 81 2B6 Insofar as an individual's image of a given nation is a relatively salient part of his belief system, his attitude toward that nation is likely to be very favorable or very unfavor— able, rather than moderate. 8H 3A1 The more education a person has, the more he will tend to be interested in fOreign nations and peoples. 95 3Al.l The more education a person has, the more he will tend to expose himself to infOrmation about foreign nations and peoples. 95 3A2 The more education a person has, the more knowledge he will have about foreign nations and peoples. 95 3A3 The more education a person has, the more favorable will be his attitude toward foreign nations in general. 97 3AA An individual who is relatively interested in foreign nations will tend to be exposed to more information about foreign nations in the mass media than one who is not. 102 2H2 Proposition 3A#.1 3A5 3A6 3A7 3A7.l 3A7.2 3A8 3A8 3A9.l Individuals relatively high in exposure to infor- mation about foreign nations in the mass media will be relatively likely to have favorable attitudes toward foreign nations in general. An individual's beliefs about a given foreign nation will be a function of his exposure to specific information in the mass media about that nation and of the credibility to him of that information. Insofar as an individual's image of the people of a given nation is drawn exclusively from mass communication media, he will tend to see them impersonally and as conforming to a single (or a few) types. A given individual's attitudes toward other nations and peoples will be positively related to the most common attitudes among the people of his own nationality with whom he interacts. The more salient attitudes toward a given nation or people are to an individual's reference groups, the more his attitudes tcward that nation or people will be like those of his reference groups. The more salient a reference group is to a given individual, the more his attitudes toward other nations and peoples will be like those prevalent in the reference group. Contact between individuals of different nationalities will be related to their atti— tudies tcward each other's nations only insofar as the contact involves shared experiences. Contact through travel with another nation will result in increased knowledge about that nation. Contact through travel with other nations will result in increased agreement with the non— evaluative beliefs about the host country held by host nationals. Page 103 109 109 111 113 113 118 132 130. Contact through foreign travel, when the traveler has a favorable attitude toward the host country, is positively related to perceiving the host country as similar'to the traveler's own; contact through foreign travel, when the traveler has an unfavorable attitude toward the host country, is negatively related to perceiving the host country as similar to the traveler's own. Contact through fOreign travel is positively rela— ted to having relatively differentiated attitudes toward the host country. Contact through foreign travel is positively rela— ted to the average favorableness of the indi— vidual's attitudes toward other nations. Contact through fOreign travel will be positively related to attitudes toward the host country, insofar as the individual who travels (a) has initially favorable attitudes toward the host country, (b) is prepared to interact with nadonas ofthe host country, and (c) is not rigid in his attitudes toward the host country. The sojourner's satisfaction with his experience in the host country will be positively related to the favorability of his attitudes toward the host country. The favorability of the sojourner's attitude toward the host country will be in part a function of the stage of the sojourn he is in; his attitude will tend to be more favorable if he has been in the host country fromltwo to four years. The amount of interaction the sojourner has with host country nationals will be positively rela- ted to the favorability of his attitudes toward the host country. The amount of equal—status interaction the sojourner has with host country nationals will be positively related to the favorability of his attitudes toward the host country. Page 135 137 139 141 1mm 195 147 198 2% Proposition Page 3A16 The effects of contact on the direction of attitudes toward the host country will tend to disappear over time following the traveler's return to his homeland; while the effects of contact on knowledge of the host country and on differentiation of attitudes toward the host country will tend to persist. 152 3B1 An individual will tend to hold attitudes toward other nations which simultaneously maximize the functions of object appraisal, social adjustment, and externalization. 158 3Bl.l An individual will tend to accept information supportive of attitudes toward other nations Which simultaneously maximize the functions of object appraisal, social adjustment, and externalization. 158 3B2 Out of the infOrmation about a given foreign ‘“ tt‘ country that is available at a particular time, an individual will be more likely to accept that information which is consonant with his prior image of the nation than that which is not. 161 3B2.l Out of the information about a given fOreign country that is available at a particular time, an individual will tend to expose him— self more to that information which is consonant with his existing nation—image than to that Which is not. 163 3B2.2 Out of the information about a given fOreign country to which he is exposed, an individual Will be more likely to become aware of that information which is consonant with his existing nation—image than that which is not. 164 3B2.3 Out of the information about a given foreign country to which he is exposed, an individual will be more likely to learn and remember that infOrmation which is consonant with his existing nation-image than that which is not. 164 3B2.u Out of the infOrmation about a given fOreign nation of which he becomes aware, an individual will tend to treat that information which is consonant with his existing nation—image as more salient than that which is not. 165 Proposition Page 3B2.5 Out of the information about a given foreign nation of which he becomes aware, an individual will tend to perceive that information WhiCh is consonant with his existing nation—image as more credible than that which is not. 166 3B2.6 An individual will tend to interpret the infer— mation he accepts about a given foreign nation in such a way that it is maximally consonant with his existing image of the nation. 166 3B3 An individual will be relatively likely to accept new information about a given fOreign to the extent that the new information is relatively unambiguous and uncontroversial. 169 SB” To the extent that the international affairs climate is one of perceived threat, an indi— vidual's perception of a given fOreign nation will tend to be polarized and undifferentiated. 170 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abate, Mario A. (1969), "The Relationship of Variables of Respondent Personality to Affective-Cognitive Consistency in National Stereotype Attitudes," Dissertation Abstracts, 29(ll—A):L+101. Abate, Mario A. , and A.K. Berrien (1967), "Validation of Stereotypes: Japanese versus American Students," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7:4354138. Abell, Peter, and Robin Jenkins (1967) , "Perception of the Structural Balance of Part of the International System of Nations," Journal of Peace Research, 76—82. Aboud, Frances 13., and Donald M. Taylor (1971), "Ethnic and Role Stereotypes: Their Relative Importance in Person Perception," Journal of Social Psychology, 85:17—27. Adinarayan, S.P. (1957), ”A Study of Racial Attitudes in India," Journal of Social Psychology, l+5z21l-216. Adorno, T.W., E. Frenkel—Brunswik, D.J. Levinson, and R.N. Sanford (1950), The Authoritarian Personality, Harpers, New York. Albright, Lewis E., Arthur D. Kirsch, C. H. Lawsche, and H.H. Remmers ( 19 56) , "A Longitudinal Comparison of Student Attitudes Toward Minorities," Journal of Educational Psychology, Ll7:372—379. Alcock, Norman Z. , and Alan G. Newcombe (1970), "The Perception of National Power, " Journal of Conflict Resolution, 19:335—343. Allport, Floyd H. , and Mary Mathes Simpson (19%), ”Broadcasting to an Enemy Country: What Appeals are Effective and Why," Journal of Social Psychology, 23:217-224. Allport, Gordon W. (1951), ”Prejudice: A Problem in Psychological and Social Causation, " in Toward a General Theory of Action, ed. Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, Harper and Row, New York, pp. 365—387. Allport, Gordon W. (1958), The Nature of Prejudice, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts . 2 L46 2H7 Almond, G.A. (1960), The American People and Foreign Policy, Frederick A. Praeger, New York. Amir, Yehuda (1969) , "Contact Hypothesis in Ethnic Relations," Psychological Bulletin, 71: 319—3u2. Angell, Robert C. (1966), "The Sociology of International Relations," Current Sociolog, 18(1). Angell, Robert C. (1967), "The Growth of Transnational Participation," Journal of Social Issues, 23(1):108—l29. Angell, Robert C. (1969), Peace on the March: Transnational Partici— pation, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Angus, H.F. , ed. (1938), Canada and Her Great Neighbor; Sociological Surveys of Opinions and Attitudes in Canada Concerning the United States, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Antler, Lawrence (1970), "Correlates of Home and Host Country Acquaintanceship Among Foreign Medical Residents in the United States," Journal of Social Psycholg, 80:L¥9—57. Aranguren, J.L. (1967), Human Communication, McGraw—Hill, New York. Armer, J. Michael (1966), "Preliminary Analysis and Measurement of Nationd. Prestige," Pacific Sociological Review, 9:3—8. Asch, Solomon (19%), "Forming Impressions of Personality," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholog, L+1:258-—290. Bagby, J .W. (1957), "A Cross—Cultural Study of Perceptual Predominance in Binocular Rivalry," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59:331—339. Bardis, Panos D. (1956), "Social Distance Among Foreign Students," Sociology and Social Research, Ltl:112—115. Bardis, Panos D. (1967), "Influence of Anthropological Education on International and Interracial Social Distance," Sociologia Internationalis , 5 : 210—2 26 . Bastide, R., and P. Van Den Berghe (1957), "Stereotypes, Norms, and Interracial Behavior in Sao Paulo, Brazil," American Socio- logical Review, 22: 6 89—691.L . Basu, A.K., and Richard G. Ames, (1970), "Cross—Cultural Contact and Attitude Formation," Sociology and Social Research, 55:5-16. Bayton, James A., and E.F. Byoune (1947), "Racio—National Stereotypes Held by Negroes," Journal of Negro Education, 16zu9-56. 248 Bayton, James A., Lois B. McAlister, and Jeston Hamer (1956), "Race Class Stereotypes," Journal of Negro Education, 25:75—78. Beals, Ralph L., and Norman D. Humphrey (1957), No Frontier in Learning, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Becker, Tamil (1968), "Patterns of Attitudinal Changes Among Foreign Students," American Journal of Sociology, 731H31—433. Bem, Daryl J. (1970), Beliefs, Attitudes, and Human Affairs, Wadsworth, Belmont, California. Bennett, John W., Herbert Passin, and Robert K. McKnight (1958), In Search of Identity: The Japanese Overseas Scholar in America and Japan, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Berelson, Bernard, and Patricia J. Salter (1946), "Majority and Minority Americans: An Analysis of Magazine Fiction," Public Opinion Quarterly, 10:168—190. Berelson, Bernard, and Gary A. Steiner (196%), Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings, Harcourt, Brace and World, New York. Berlo, David K., James B. Lemert, and Robert J. Mertz (1969—70), "Dimensions for Evaluating the Acceptability of Message Sources," Public Opinion Quarterly, 33:563—576. Bernot, Lucien, and Rene Blancard (1955), "What a French Village Thinks of the Foreigner," UNESCO Courier, 8(9):16—19,34. Berreman, Joel V. (1958), "Filipino Stereotypes of Minorities," Pacific Sociological Review, 1:7—12. Berrien, F. Kenneth (1969), "Stereotype Similarities and Contrasts,” Journal of Social Psychology, 78:173~183. Bettelheim, Bruno, and Morris Janowitz (1950),'Prejudice," Scientific American, 183(H):11—13. Bjerstedt, Ake (1962), "InfOrmational and Non-Informational Determi- nants of Nationality Stereotypes," Journal of Social Issues, 18(1):24—29. Blau, Peter M. (1953), "Orientation of College Students Toward International Relations," American Journal of Sociology, 59:205—214. Bochner, Stephen, and Ray W. Perks (1971), "National Role Evocation as a Function of Cross-National Interaction," Journal of Cross—Cultural Psychology, 2:157-16u. 249 Bogardus, Emory S. (19H7), "Changes in Racial Distances," International Journal of Opinion and.Attitude ResearCh, 1(a):55-62. Bogardus, Emory S. (1959), Social Distance, Antioch Press, Yellow Springs, Ohio. Bogart, Leo (1968), "The Overseas Newsmar .A 1967 Profile Study," Journalisleuarterly, ”5:293—306. Boorstin, Daniel J. (1961), The Image: A.Guide to Pseudo—Events in America, Harper, New York Boulding, Kenneth E. (1956), The Image, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Boulding, Kenneth E. (1959), "National Images and International Systems," Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3:120—131. Bourne, Francis 8. (1960), "The Celluloid Image," Public Opinion Quarterly, 2n: 522—523. Brein, Michael, and Kenneth H. David (1971), "Intercultural Commun— ication and the Adjustment of the Sojourner," PsyChological Bulletin, 76:215-230. BreitenbaCh, Diether (1970), "The Evaluation of Study Abroad," and "Bibliography of Studies on Foreign Students," Students as Links Between Cultures, ed. Ingrid Eide, Scandanavian University Books, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, pp. 70-98, 99-107. Brigham, JOhn C. (1971), "Ethnic Stereotypes," _§yChologica1 Bulletin, 76:15-38. Brislin, RiChard W. (1971), "Interaction Among Members of Nine Ethnic Groups and.Be1ief—Simi1arity Hypothesis," Journal of Social Psychology, 85:171—179. Brodbeck, Arthur‘J.,and Howard V. Perlmutter (1954), "Self—Dislike as a Determinant of Marked Ingroup—Outgroup Preferences," Journal of Psydhology, 38:271—280. Bronfenbrennerg U. (1961), "The Mirror Image in Soviet-American Relations: A Social Psychologist's Report," Journal of Social Issues, l7(3):H5—56. Brooks, Lee M. (1936), "Racial Distance as Affected by Education," Sociology and Social ResearCh, 21:128—133. 250 Brouwer, M., and A. Van Bergen (1960), "Communication Effects of Attitudes toward India: A Scale Comparison Experiment, " University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam (mimeographed) . Browne, Don R. (1968), "The American Image as Presented Abroad by U.S. Television," Journalism Quarterly, 45:307—316. Bruner, Jerome S. , Jacqueline J. Goodnow, and George A. Austin (1962), A Study of Thinking, Science Editions, New York. Bruner, Jerome S. , and Howard V. Perlmutter (1957), "Compatriot and Foreigner: A Study of Impression Formation in Three Countries," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55:253—260. Buchanan, William (1954), "How Others See Us," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 295:1-11. Buchanan, William, and Hadley Cantril (1953), How Nations See Each Other, University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Burkhardt, Richard W. (1947-48), "The Soviet Union in American School Textbooks," Public Opinion Quarterly, 11:567—571. Byrne, Donn (1961), "Interpersonal Attraction and Attitude Similarity," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholog, 62:713—715. Byrne, Donn (1969), "Attitudes and Attraction," Advances in Experi— mental Social Psy¢olo&, Vol. 4, ed. Leonard Beflmwitz, Academic Press, New York, pp. 35—89. Byrne, Donn, William Griffitt, William Hudgins, and Keith Reeves (1969), "Attitude Similarity—Dissimilarity and Attraction: Generality Beyond the College Sophomore," Journal of Social Psydhology, 79:155—161. Bryne, Donn, and Terry J. Wong (1962), "Racial Prejudice, Interpersonal Attraction, and Assumed Dissimilarity of Attitudes," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychologr, 65:246—253. Byrnes, Francis C. (1965), Americans in Technical Assistance, Praeger, New York. .1 Campbell, Donald T. (1963), "Social Attitudes and Other Acquired Behavioral Dispositions," in Psychology: A Study of a Science, Vol. 6, ed. S. Koch, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 94—172. Campbell, Donald T. (1967), "Stereotypes and the Perception of Group Differences," American Psychologist, 22:817—829. Cantril, Hadley (1967), The Human Dimension: Experiences in Policy Research, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 251 Cauthen, Nelson R., Ira E. Robinson, and.Herbert H. Krauss (1971), "Stereotypes: .A Review of the Literature, 1926 to 1968," Journal of Social Psychology, 84:103-125. Centers, Ridhard (1951), "An Effective Classroom.Demonstration of Stereotypes," Journal of Social PsyChology, 34:41-46. Cherry, Colin (1971),W0r1d Communication: Threat or Promise, ‘Wiley, New York. Child, Irvin L., and Leonard.W. Doob (1943), "Factors Determining National Stereotypes," Journal of Social PsyChology, 17:203—219. Christiansen, Bjorn (1959), Attitudes Towards Foreign Affairs as a Function of Personality, Oslo University Press, Oslo. ChurCh, Alfred M. (1939), The Study of China and Japan in American Secondary Schools, unpubliShed Dr. Ed. thesis, Harvard. Cobb, J. walter (1949), "Personal Familiarity and Variations in Stereotypes Regarding.Japanese," Sociology and Social Research, 33:441—448. Coelho, George (1958), ChangingfImages of.America: A.Study of Indian Students' Perceptions, Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois. Cohen, Bernard C. (1967), "Mass Communication and Foreign Policy," Domestic Sources of Foreign Policy, ed. James N. Rosenau, Free Press, New York, pp. 195—212. Cook, Mark (1971), Interpersonal Perception, Penguin Books, Baltimore. Cook, Stuart W., and Claire Selltiz (1964), "A Multiple—Indicator ApproaCh to Attitude Measurement," PsyChological Bulletin, 62:36-55. Cooper, Eunice, and Marie Jahoda (1947), "The Evasion of Propaganda: How Prejudiced People Respond to Anti—Prejudice PrOpaganda," Journal of Psychology, 23:14—25. Cooper, Joseph B. (1959), "Emotion in Prejudice," Science, 130: 314—318. Cooper, Joseph B., and Lawrence J. MiChiels (1952), "A Study of Attitudes as Functions of Objective Knowledge,” Journal of PsyChology, 36:59—71. Cronen, Vernon E. (1973), "Belief, Salience, Media Exposure, and Summation Theory," Journal of Communication, 23:86—94. 252 Cronkite, Gary (1969), Persuasion: Speech and Behavioral Change, Bobbs —Merrill , New York . Davis, James M., Russell G. Hanson, and Duane R. Burnor (1961), IIE SurveLof the African Student: His Achievements and His Problems , Insiitute of International Education,New York. Davis, Jerry B. (1963), "Teaching for Attitude Change on Race," Journal of Human Relations, 11:140-144. Deutsch, Karl W. , and Richard L. Merritt (1965), "Effects of Events on National and International Images ," International Behavior, ed. Herbert C. Kelman, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, pp. 132—189. Deutsch, Steven E. , and George Y. M. Won (1963), "Some Factors in the Adjustment of Foreign Nationals in the United States," Journal of Social Issues, l9(3):115—122. Diab, Lutfy N. (1962), "National Stereotypes and the 'Reference Group' Concept," Journal of Social Psycholog, 57:339—351. Digman, John M. (1962), "The Dimensionality of Social Attitudes," Journal of Social Psychology, 57:433-444. Donohue, George A., Phillip J. Tichenor, and Clarice N. Olien (1972), "Gatekeeping: Mass Media Systems and Information Control," in Current Persjectives in Mass Commmication Research, ed. F. Gerald Kline and Phillip J. Tichenor, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, pp. 41—69. Doob, Leonard W. (1964), Patriotism and Nationalism: Their Psycho— logical Functions, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Driver, M. J. (1962), Conceptual Structure and Grow Processes in an Inter-Nation Simulation. Part I: The Perception of Simulated Nations, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey. Du Bois, Cora (1966), Foreign Students and Higer Education in the United States, American Council on Education, Washington, D.C. Duijker, H.C., and N.H. Frijda (1960), National Character and National Stereotypes, North—Holland Publishing Co. , Amsterdam. Edwards, Allen L. (1940), "Four Dimensions in Political Stereotypes," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 35:566—572. Ehrlich, Howard J., and James W. Rinehart (1965), "A Brief Report on the Methodology of Stereotype Research," Social Forces, 43:564—575. 253 Eide, Ingrid (1970a), "The Impact of Study Abroad," in Students as Links Between Cultures , ed. Ingrid Eide, Scandanavian University Books, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 114-136. (This article is the same as Galtung, 1965.) Eide, Ingrid (1970b), "Students as Culture Carriers," in Students as Links Between Cultures, ed. Ingrid Eide, Scandanavian Uhiversity Books, Universitetstrlaget, Oslo, pp. 166—243. Eisenberg, Shlomit (1968) , "Ethnocentrism and the Face of the Stranger," Journal of Social Psychology, 76:243-247. Eysenck, H.J. (1950), "War and Aggressiveness: A Survey of Social Attitude Studies," ngchological Factors of Peace and War, ed. T.H. Pear, Philosophical Library, New York, pp.49—8l. Eysenck, H.J., and S. Crown (1948), "National Stereotypes: An Experimental and Methodological Study," International Opinion and Attitude Research, 2:26—39. Fagen, Richard R. (1966), Politics and Communication, Little, Brown, and Company, Boston. Farber, M. (1951), "The Armageddon Complex: Dynamics of Opinion," Public Opinion Quarterly, 15:217-224. Farrell, John C. (1967), "Editor's Foreward," (Image and Reality in World Politics), Journal of International Affairs, ed. John C. Farrell, 21:xiii-xvi. Farris, Charles D. (1960), "Selected Attitudes on Foreign Affairs as Correlates of Authoritarianism and Political Anomie," Journal of Politics, 22:50-67. Felipe, Abraham I. (1970), "Evaluative versus Descriptive Consistency v in Trait Inferences," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16:627-638. Fensterheim, N. , and H.E. Tresselt (1953), "The Influence of Value Systems on the Perception of People," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholog, 48:93—98. Fensterwald, B. (1958), "The Anatomy of American Isolationism and Expansionism," (Parts 1 and 2), Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2:111-139, 280—309. Festinger, Leon (1954), "A Theory of Social Comparison Processes," Human Relations, 7:117—140. 254 Fishbein, Martin (1965), "A Consideration of Beliefs, Attitudes, and Their Relationships," in Current Studies in Social Psychology, ed. Ivan D. Steiner and Martin Fishbéin, pp. 107—120. Fishbein, Martin, and Icek jzen (1972), "Attitudes and Opinions," Annual Review of Psychology, 23:486—544. Forstat, Reisha (1951), "Adjustment Problems of International Students," Sociology and Social Research, 36:25—30. Frank, Jerome D. (1968), "The Face of the Enemy," Psychology Today, 2(6):24—29. Free, Lloyd A., and Hadley Cantril (1968), The Political Beliefs of Americans: A Study of Public Opinion, Simon and Schuster, New York. Freedman, Jonathan L., and David 0. Sears (1965), "Selective Exposure," in AdVances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, Academic Press, New York, pp. 57-97. Galtung, I.E. (1965), "The Impact of Study Abroad: A Three—By-Three Nation Study of Cross—Cultural Contact," Journal of Peace Research, 258-276. Galtung, Johan, and Mari Holmboe Ruge (1965), ”The Structure of Foreign News," Journal of Peace Research, 64—91. Gardner, R.C., D.M. Kirby, F.H. Gorospe, and A.C. Villamin (1972), "Ethnic Stereotypes: An Alternative Assessment Technique, the Stereotype Differential," Journal of Social Psychology, 87:259—267. Gardner, R.C., and D.M. Taylor (1968), "Ethnic Stereotypes: Their Effects on Person Perception," Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22:267—276. Gardner, R.C., and D.M. Taylor (1969), "Ethnic Stereotypes: Meaning— fulness in Ethnic—Group Labels," Canadian Journal of Behavio— ural Science, 11182—192. Gardner, R.C., D.M. Taylor, and.H.J. Feenstra (1970), "Ethnic Stereotypes: Attitudes or Beliefs," Canadian Journal of Psychology, 24:321—334. Gardner, R.C., E.J. Wonnacott, and D.M. Taylor (1968), "Ethnic Stereotypes: A Factor Analytic Investigation," Canadian Journal of Psychology, 22:35—44. Garrison, Karl C. (1961), "Worldminded Attitudes of College Students in a Southern University," Journal of Social Psychology, 54:147—153. 255 Gezi, Kalil I. (1965) , "Factors Associated with Student Adjustment in Cross—Cultural Contact, " California Journal of Educational ResearCh, 16:129—136. Gilbert, G.M. (1951), "Stereotype Persistence and Change Among College Students," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, u6z2145-2 51+. Gladstone, Arthur I. (1955), "The Possibility of Predicting Reactions to International Events,” Journal of Social Issues, ll(l):21-28. Gladstone, Arthur I. , and Martha A. Taylor (1958) , "Threat—related Attitudes and Reactions to Communications about International Events," Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2:17-28. Goertzel, Ted (1972), "Changes in Attitudes Related to Support for the Vietnam War: 1965—197l,” Society for the Study of Social Problems, New Orleans. Goldsen, Rose K. , Edward A. Suchman, and Robin M. Williams, Jr. (1965), "Factors Associated with the Development of Cross—Cultural Social Interaction," Journal of Social Issues, 12(1):20-25. Gorden, Raymond L. (1952), "Interaction Between Attitude and Defi- nition of the Situation in the Expression of an Opinion." American Sociological Review, 17:50-58. Gordon, Rosemary (1962), Stereotfly of Imagery and Belief as an Ego Defense , (British Journal of Psychology Monograph Supplement XXXIV5 , University Press, Cambridge, England. Grace, H.A. , and Jack Olin Neuhaus (1952), "Information and Social Distance as Predictors of Hostility Toward Nations," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, ”7:540—5'45. Gray, Charles, Leslie Gray, and Glenn Gregory (1968), A Bibliography of Peace Research, Indexed 31 Key Words , General Research Analysis Methods , Eugene, Oregon. Grice, H.H. (19 3’4), "The Construction and Validation of a Generalized Scale Designed to Measure Attitudes Toward Defined Groups," in Studies in Attitudes: A Contribution to Social Psychological Research Methods, ed. H.H. Remmers et al TStudEES in Higher Education, No. 26), Bulletin of Purdue-University, 35(4):37—L+6. Gruen, Walter (1959) , "Attitudes of German Exchange Students During a Year in the U.S. ," Public Opinion Quarterly, 23:43—54. Gullahorn, Jeanne B., and John T. Gullahorn (1966), "American Students Abroad: Professional versus Personal Development," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 368:L+3-59. 256 Gullahorn, John T., and Jeanne E. Gullahorn (1960), "The Role of the Academic Man as a Cross-Cultural Mediator," American Socio— logi‘cal Review, 25:141u—417. Gullahorn, John T. , and Jeanne E. Gullahorn (1963), "An Extension of the U-Curve Hypothesis," Journal of Social Issues, 19(3): 33—47. Gundlach, Ralph H. (19%), "The Attributes of Enemy, Allied, and Domestic Nationality Groups as Seen by College Students of Different Regions," Journal of Social Psychology, 19:2u9—258. Hanchett, Gertrude (1950), "A Multiple Scale of Attitudes Toward the British," Journal of Social Psychology, 31:183—208. Harding, John, Harold Proshansky, Bernard Kutner, and Isidor Chein (1969), "Prejudice and Ethnic Relations," in The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd edition, Vol. 5, ed. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, Addison—Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts , pp- l—76. Hartley, Eugene L. (1911.6), Problems in Prejudice, King‘s Crown Press, New York. Hartley, Eugene L. (1967), "Attitude Research and the Jangle Fallacy," in Attitude, Ego-Involvement and Change, ed. Carolyn W. Sherif andi’luzafer Sherif, John Wiley 8 Sons, New York, pp. 88—10H. Hartley, Eugene L., Ruth E. Hartley, and Clyde Hart (1952), "Attitudes and Opinions," in The Process and Effects of Mass Commication, ed. Wilbur Schramm, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1965, pp. 216—250. Hartsough, W. Ross, and Allen F. Fontana (1970), "Persistance of Ethnic Stereotypes and the Relative Importance of Positive and Negative Stereotyping for Association Preferences," Psychological Reports, 27:723—731. Harvey, O.J. (1967), "Conceptual Systems and Attitude Change" in Attitude, Ego—Involvement, and Change, ed. Carolyn W. Sherif and Muzafer Sherif, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 201—226. Hasdorf, Albert H. , David J. Schneider, and Judith Polefka (1970), Person Perception, Addison—Wesley, Menlo Park, California. Hawkins, Henry Stuart (1969), Receiver Attitudes Toward a Foreign Source: Persuasive Intensity and Message Content as Factors in International Attitude Changg, unpublished Ph. D . dissertation , Department of Communicat ion, Michigan State University , East Lansing, Michigan. 257 Heindel, R.H. (1937), "American Attitudes of British Schoolchildren," School and Society, L+6z838-81l0. Hendrick, Clyde, V. Bixenstine, and Gayle Hawkins (1971) , "Race versus Belief Similarity as Determinants of Attraction: A Search for a Fair Test," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17:250—258. Herman, Simon N. (1970), American Students in Israel, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Hero, Alfred O. (1959a), Americans in World Affairs, World Peace Foundation , Boston. Hero, Alfred O. (19 59b) , Mass Media and World Affairs, World Peace Foundation. Hero, Alfred O. (1968), "Public Reaction to Government Policy," in Measures of Political Attitudes, ed. John P. Robinson, Jerrold G. Rusk, and Kendra B. Head, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 23-78. Hess, Robert D. , and Judith V. Torney (1967), The Development of Political Attitudes in Children, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago. Himmelweit, H.T., A.N. Oppenheim, and P. Vince (1958), Television and the Child, Oxford University Press, London. Hofman, John E. , and Itai Zak (1969), "Interpersonal Contact and Attitude Change in a Cross—Cultural Situation," Journal of Social Psychology, 78:165—171. ‘ Hollander, E.P., and Raymond G. Hunt (1963), Current Perspectives in Social Psychology, Oxford University Press, New York. Holsti, Ole R. (1967), "Cognitive Dynamics and Images of the Enemy," Journal of International Affairs, 21:16—39. Hsu, Francis, L.K. (1970), Americans and Chinese: Purpose and Fulfillment in Great Civilizations, 2nd edition, Natural History Press , Garden City, New York. Ibrahim, Saad E.M. (1972), "Arab Images of the United States and the Soviet Union Before and After the June War of 1967," Journal of Conflict Resolution, 16:227—2u0. Iisager, Holger (1949) , "An Evaluation of an Attempt to Form International Attitudes," Journal of Social Psychology, 30:20 7-216. 258 Institute of International Education (1972), Open Doors, 1972, New York. International Sociological Association (1957), The Nature of Conflict: Studies on the Sociological ASpects of International Tens ions, UNESCO, Paris. Isaacs, Harold R. (1958), Scratches on Our Minds, John Day, New York. (Page numbers cited in the text refer to the 1962 Capricorn edition retitled Images of Asia.) Isaacs, Harold R. (1961), Emergent Americans: A Report on "Crossroads Africa," John Day, New York. Jacobson, Eugene, Hideya Kumata, and Jeanne E. Gullahorn (1960) , "Cross—Cultural Contributions to Attitudinal Research," Public Opinion Quarterly, 29: 205—223. Jahoda, Gustav (1969) , "Nationality Preferences and National Stereo- types in Ghana Before Independence," Journal of Social Psychology, 50:166—174. Jahoda, Gustav (1962), "Development of Scottish Children's Ideas and Attitudes About Other Countries," Journal of Social Psychology, 58:91—108. Janis, Irving L. , and M. Brewster Smith (1965), "Effects of Education and Persuasion on National and International Images ," in International Behavior, ed. Herbert C . Kelman, Holt , Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 190—235. Jervis, Robert (1972), "Consistency in Foreign Policy Views," in Communication in International Politics , ed. Richard L. Merritt, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 272-291. Johnson, N .B. , Margaret R. Middleton, and Henri Tajfel (1970) , "The Relationship Between Children‘s Preferences for and Knowledge about Other Nations," British Journal of Social and Clinical Psycholog, 9:232—290. Jones, Russell A., and Richard D. Ashmore (1971), "Dimensions Underlying the Perceptions of National, Religious , and Other Ethnic Groups ," Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 6(I):399-J+00. Jordan, John E. (1968) , Attitudes Toward Education and Physically Disabled Persons in Eleven Nations , Latin American Studies Center, Michigan State Universiiy, East Lansing. Karlins, Marvin, and Herbert I. Abelson (1970), Persuasion: How gainions and Attitudes are Changed, 2nd edition, Springer Publishing Company, New York. 259 Karlins, Marvin, Thomas L. Coffman, and Gary walters (1969), "On the Fading of Social Stereotypes: Studies in Three Generations of College Students," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13:1—16. Katz, Daniel (1960), "The Functional Approaoh to the Study of Attitudes," Public Opinion Quarterly, 24:163—209. Katz, Daniel (1965), "Nationalismland Strategies of International Conflict Resolution," in International Behavior, ed. Herbert C. Kelman, Holt, Rinehart and.Wifiston, New York, pp. 356—390. Katz, Daniel, and Kenneth W. Braly (19u7), "Verbal Stereotypes and Racial Prejudice," in Readings in Social Psydhology, ed. T.M. Newcomb and E.L. Hartley, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. Keehn, J.D., and.E. Terry Prothro (1956), "National Preferences of University Students fromWTwenty—Three Nations," Journal of Psychology, 92:283—294. Kelly, Rita M., and Lorand B. Szalay (1972), "The Impact of a Foreign Culture: South Koreans in America," in Communication in Inter— national Politics, ed. Ridhard L. Merritt, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 95—119. Kelman, Herbert C. (1962), "Changing Attitudes Through International ,Activities," Journal of Social Issues, l8(l):68—87. Kelman, Herbert C. (1965a), "The Effects of Participation in a Foreign Specialists Seminar on the Images of the Host Country and.the Professional Field," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1:1u9—l66. Kelman, Herbert C. (1965b), "Social—Psychological.ApproaChes to the Study of International Relations," in International Behavior, ed. Herbert C. Kelman, HOlt, Rinehart and.Winston, New York, pp. 3—39. Kelman, Herbert C., and Lotte Bailyn (1962), "Effects of Cross— Cultural Experience on National Images: A Study of Scandinavian Students in America," Journal of Conflict Resolution, 6:319—334. Kelman, Herbert C., and Raphael S. Ezekiel (1970), CrosseNational Encounters, Jossey—Bass, San Francisco. Kerry Madeline (19u3), "An Experimental Investigation of National Stereotypes,” Sociological Review, 35:37—u3. Kirby, D.M., and R.C. Gardner (1972), "Ethnic Stereotypes: Norms on 208 Words Typically Used in Their Assessment," Canadian Journal of Psychology, 26:1”0—154. 260 Kirby, D.M., and R.C. Gardner (1973), "Ethnic Stereotypes: Determinants in Children and Their Parents," Canadian Journal of Psychology, 27:140-193. Klapper, Joseph T. (1960), The Effects of Mass Communication, Free Press, New York. Klineberg, Otto (1950), Tensions Affecting International Understanding, Social Science Research Council, Bulletin No. 62, New York. Klineberg, Otto (19 51), "The Scientific Study of National Stereo— types," International Social Science Bulletin, 3:505-515. Klineberg, Otto (1961+) , The Human Dimension in International Relations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Kosa, John (1957), "The Rank Order of PeOples: A Study in National Stereotypes," Journal of Social Psychologz, L16:311-320. Kracauer, Siegfried (191+9), "National Types as Hollywood Presents Them," Public Opinion Quarterly, 13:53—72. Kriesberg, Martin (19%), "Soviet News in the 'New York Times,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 10:540—564. Kriesberg, Martin (1999), "Dark Areas of Ignorance," in Public Opinion and Foreign Policy, ed. Lester Markel, Harper and Brothers, New York, pp. 99—69. Kumata, Hideya, and Wilbur Schramm (1956), "A Pilot Study of Cross—Cultural Meaning," Public Opinion Quarterl , 20:229-238. Lambert, Richard D., and Marvin Bressler (1955), "The Sensitive—Area Complex: A Contribution to the Theory of Guided Culture Contact, " American Journal of Sociology, 60:586-689. Lambert, Richard D. , and Marvin Bressler (1966), Indian Students on an American Campus, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Lambert, Wallace E. , and Otto Klineberg (1959), "A Pilot Study of the Origin and Development of National Stereotypes," International Social Science Journal, 11:221—238. Lambert, Wallace E. , and Otto Klineberg (1967), Children's Views of Foreign Peoples, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York. Lane, Robert E. (1962), Political Ideology, Free Press, New York. Lane, Robert E., and David 0. Sears (19614), Public Opinion, Prentice— Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 261 Lasswell, Harold D. (1965), "The Climate of International Action," in International Behavior, ed. Herbert C. Kelman, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 339-353. Lehmann, Irvin J., Birendra K. Sinha, and Rodney T. Harnett (1966), "Changes in Attitudes and Values Associated with College Attendance," Journal of Educational Psych010gy, 57:89—98. LeVine, J.M. , and G. Murphy (19%), "The Learning and Forgetting of Controversial Material," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38:507—517. LeVine, Robert A. (1965), "Socialization, Social Structure, and Intersocietal Images," in International Behavior, ed. Herbert C. Kelman, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. L#5—69. Levinson, Daniel J. (1957), "Authoritarian Personality and Foreign Policy," Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1:37-47. Lewan, Paul c. , and Ezra Stotland (1961), "The Effects of Prior Information on Susceptibility to an Emotional Appeal," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62:950—453. Lichtheim, George (1965), "All the News That's Fit to Print. . . ," Commentary, HO(3):33-’+6. Lindgren, Henry Clay, and Amelia Tebcherani (1971), "Arab and American Auto— and Heterostereotypes: A Cross—Cultural Study of Empathy," Journal of Cross—Cultural Psychologf, 2:173—180. Loomis, Charles P., and Edgar A. Schuler (l9u8), "Acculturation of Foreign Students in the United States," @plied Anthropology, 7:17-13”. Lorenz, Konrad (1967), On Aggression, Bantam Books, New York. Lysgaard, Sverre (1955), "Adjustment in a Foreign Society: Norwegian Fulbright Grantees Visiting the United States ," International Social Science Bulletin, 7:95—51. MacKinnon, William J. , and Richard Centers (1958), "Social—Psychological Factors in Public Orientation toward an Out—group," American Journal of Sociolog, 613:915419. MacKinnon, William J. , and Richard Centers (1956), "Authoritarianism and Internationalism," Public Opinion Quarterly, 20:621—630. Mann, John H. (1958), "The Influence of Racial Prejudice on Socio— metric Choices and Perception," Sociometry, 21:150-158. 262 Maslog, Crispin (1971), "Images and the Mass Media," Journalism Quarterly, L+8:Sl9-525. McClintock, Charles G. , and James Davis (1958), "Changes in the Attribute of 'Nationalism' in the Self—Percept of the 'Stranger, ' " Journal of Social Eychology, l48:183-193. McCloskey, Herbert (1967) , "Personality and Attitude Correlates of Foreign Policy Orientation," in Domestic Sources of Foreign Poligy, ed., James N. Rosenau, Free Press ,Tlew York, pp. 51—109. McCroskey, James C. (1967), Studies of the Effects of Evidence in Persuasive Communication, Speech Comrmmnication Research Laboratory, Michigan State University, East Lansing. McCroskey, James C. (1969), "A Summary of Experimental Research on the Effects of Evidence in Persuasive Communication," Quarterly Journal of Speedn, l4:169—176. McGranahan, Donald V. (1951), "Content Analysis of the Mass Media of Communication, " in Research Methods in Social Relations with Especial Reference to PIBjilCECB, Vol. 2, ed. Marie Jahoda, Morton Deutsch, and Stuart W. Cook, Dryden Press, New York, pp. 539-560. McGuire, William J. (1969), "The Nature of Attitudes and Attitude Change," in The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd edition, Vol. 3, ed. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, pp. 136—311+. McLeod, Jack M., and Steven R. Chaffee (1972), "The Construction of Social Reality," in The Social Influence Processes, ed., James T. Tedeschi, Aldine—Atherton, Chicago, pp. 30—99. McNelly, John T. (1961), Meaning Intensity as Related to Readership of Foreign News, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing. McNemar, Quinn (1962), Psychological Statistics, 3rd edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Merrill, John C. (1969), "National Stereotypes and International Understanding," in International Communication: Media, Channels, Functions, ed. Heinz—Dietrich Fischer and John Calhoun Merrill, Hastings House, New York, pp. 191—196. Merritt, Richard L. (1972a), "Effects of International Student Exchange, " in Communication in International Politics, ed. Richard L. Merfitt, University of Tllinois Press, Urbana, pp. 65—99. 263 Mickelson, Sig (1970), "The First Eight Years," in Readin s in Mass Communication, ed. Michael C. Emery and Ted GEES Smythe, Wm. C. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa, pp. 278-284. Miller, Delbert C. (1964), Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement, David McKay, New York. Mishler, Anita L. (1965), "Personal Contact in International Exchanges," in International Behavior, ed. Herbert C. Kelman, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 550— 561. Morris, Richard T. (1956), ”National Status and Attitudes of Foreign Students," Journal of Social Issues, l2(l):20—25. Morris, Richard T. (1960), The Two—Way Mirror, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Mowlana, Hamid (1971), International Communication: A Selected Bibliography, Kendall—Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa. Mowlana, Hamid, and Gerald W. McLaughlin (1969), "Some Variables Interacting with Media Exposure Among Foreign Students," Sociolgg and Social Research, 53:511—522. Murphy G. , and Likert R. (1938), Public Opinion and the Individual, Harper and Brothers, New York. Nettler, GWynne (19146), "The Relationship between Attitude and Information concerning Japanese in America," American Socio— logical Review, 11:177—191. Nettler, GWynne, and Elizabeth H. Golding (1946), "The Measurement of Attitudes toward the Japanese in America," American Journal of Sociology, 52: 31—40 . Newcomb, Theodore M. (1966), ”The Prediction of Interpersonal Attraction," in Problems in Social ngcholgg: Selected Readings, ed. Carl W. Backman and Paul F. Secord, McGraw—Hill, New York, p. 168-179. Niebuhr, Reinhold (1967), "The Social Myths in the 'Cold War,"‘ Journal of International Affairs, 21:40—56. Osgood, Charles (1963), "An Exploration into Semantic Space," in The Science of Human Communication, ed. Wilbur Schramm, Basic Books, New York, pp. 28—L+O. Osgood, Charles E. , George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum (1957), The Measurement of Meanin in,g University of Illinois Press, Urbana. 264 Ostgaard, Einar (1965), "Factors Influencing the Flow of News," Journal of Peace Research, 39—63. Pace, C. Robert (1959), The Junior Year in France, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York. Parry, Hugh J. (1960), "The Image and Reciprocal Image in Western EurOpe and Japan," Public Opinion Quarterly, 24:517-519. Peabody, Dean (1967), "Trait Inferences: Evaluative and Descriptive ASpects," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(4), Monograph Whole No. 644. Peabody, Dean (1968), "Group Judgrents in the Philippines: Evaluative and Descriptive Aspects," Journaleof Personality and Social Psychology, 10:290—300. Peabody, Dean (19 70), "Evaluative and Descriptive Aspects in Personality Perception: A Reappraisal," Journal of Personality and Social Esydnolog, 16:639-646. ' Perlmutter, Howard V. (19 54a) , "Relations Between the Self—Image, the Image of the Foreigner, and the Desire to Live Abroad," Journal of Psychology, 38:131-137. Perlmutter, Howard V. (1954b), "Some Characteristics of the Xenophilic Personality," Journal of Psychology, 38:29l-300. Perlmutter, Howard V. (19 56), "Correlates of the Two Types of Xenophilic Orientation, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psydnologr, 52:130-135. Perlmutter, Howard V. (1957), Personal Identity as a Determinant of International Attitudes , Center for International Studies , Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Perlmutter, Howard, and David Shapiro (1957), "Stereotypes about Americans and Europeans Who Make Specific Statements," Psychological Reports , 3: 131—137 . Peterson, Ruth C., and L.L. Thurstone (1933), Motion Pictures and the Social Attitudes of Children, Macmillan, New York. Piaget, J. , and Anne-Marie Weil (1951), "The Development in Children of the Idea of the Homeland and of Relations with Other Countries," International Social Science Bulletin, 3:561—578. Pool, Ithiel de Sola (1965), "Effects of Cross—National Contact on National and International Images," International Behavior, ed. .Herbert C. Kelman, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 106—129. 265 Pool, Ithiel de Sola, and Kali Prasad (1959) "Indian Student Images of Foreign PeOple," Public Opinion Quarterly, 22:292-304. Prothro, E. Terry (1954a), "Cross—Cultural Patterns of National Stereotypes," Journal of Social Psychology, 40:53—59. Prothro, E. Terry (1954b), "Lebanese Stereotypes of America as Revealed by the Sentence Completion Technique," Journal of Social Psychology, 40: 39-42 . Prothro, E. Terry, and J.D. Keehn (1957), "Stereotypes and Semantic Space," Journal of Social Psychology, 45:197—209. Prothro, E. Terry, and Levon H. Melikian (1954), "Studies in Stereo— types: Arab Students in the Near East," Journal of Social Psychology, 40:237—243. Prothro, E. Terry, and Levon H. Melikian (1955), "Studies in Stereo— types: Familiarity and the Kernel of Truth Hypothesis," Journal of Social Psychology, 41:3-10. Pruitt, Dean G. (1965), "Definition of the Situation as a Determinant of International Act ion , " International Behavior, ed. Herbert C. Kelman, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 393-432. Purdue, William D. (1969), "Educational Level and the Propensity for Stereotyping," Proceedings of the Southwestern Sociological Association, 19:119—123. Queener, Llewellyn (1949 ) , "The Development of Internationalist Attitudes: III. The Literature and Point of View," Journal of Social Psychology, 30:105—126. Rabushka, Alvin (19 70), "Affective, Cogiitive, and Behavioral Consistency of Chinese—Malay Interracial Attitudes," Journal of Social Psychology, 82:35—41. Razran, Gregory (1950), "Ethnic Dislikes and Stereotypes: A Laboratory Study," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45:7—27. Reigrotski, Erich, and Nels Anderson (1959), "National Stereotypes and Foreign Contacts," Public Opinion Quarterly, 23:514-528. Reindl, Max (19 70), Propositions on Information Mangggment of Innova— tion Processes in Organizations , unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Remmers, H.H. (1946), "Changes in Attitude Toward Germans, Japanese, Jews, and Nazis as Affected by the War," School and Society, 63:118—119. 266 Reusch, Jurgen, and Gregory Bateson (1968), Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry, W.W. Norton, New York. Richman, Alvin (1972), "Public Opinion and Foreign Affairs: The Mediating Influence of Educational Level," in Communication in International Politics, ed. Ridhard L. Merritt, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 232—251. Riegel, O.W. (1953), "Residual Effects of Exchange-of—Persons," Public Opinion Quarterl , 17:319—327. Roberts, A.H. , and Milton Rokeach (1956), "Anomie, Authoritarianism, and Prejudice: .A Replication," American Journal of Sociology, 61: 35 5—358. Robinson, John P. (1967a), Public Information about WCrld.Affairs, Institute fOr Social Researdh,iSurvey ResearCh Center, Ann Arbor,‘Michigan. RObinson, JOhn P. (1967b), "World Affairs Information and.Mass Media Exposure," Journalism.Quarterly, 44:23—31. RObinson, John P., and Robert Hefner (1967), "Multidimensional Differences in Public and.Academic Perceptions of Countries," Journal of Personality and.Social Psychology, 7:251—259. Robinson, John P., and Robert Hefner (1968), "Perceptual Maps of the WCrld," Public Opinion Quarterly, 32:273—280. Rogers, William C., Barbara Stuhler, and Donald KOenig (1967), ”A Comparison of Informed and General Public Opinion on U.S. Foreign Policy," Public Opinion Quarterly, 31:242-252. Rokeach, Milton (1968), Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values, Jossey—Bass, San Francisco, CalifOrnia. Rokeach, Milton (1960), The Opgn and Closed Mind, Basic Books, New York. Rosenberg, Milton J. (1965), "Images in Relation to the Policy Process: American Public Opinion on Cold war Issues," in International Behavior, ed. Herbert C. Kelman, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 277—334. Rosenberg, Seymour, and.Karen Olshan (1970), "Evaluative and Descriptive Aspects in Personality Perception,” Journal of Personality and Social Psydhology, 16:619—626. Rosengren, Karl Erik (1970), "International News: Intra and Extra Media Data,".Acta Sociologica, 13:96—109. 267 Rubin, Ernest (1966), ”A Statistical Overview of Americans Abroad," Annals of the,Anerican.Academy;of Political and Social Science, 368:1-10. Russell, Bertrand (1962), Human Society in Ethics and Politics, New .American Library, New'York. Saenger, Gehart, and Samuel Flowerman (195H), "Stereotypes and Prejudiced Attitudes,” Human Relations, 7:217—238. Sampson, Donald L., and.Howard P. Smith (1957), "A Scale to Measure WorldeMinded.Attitudes,” Journal of Social Psydhology, 45:99—106. Sohild, Erling O. (1962), "The Foreign Student, as Stranger, Learning the Norms of the Host Culture," Journal of Social Issues, l8(l):Hl-5u. Schiller, Herbert I. (1971), Mass Communications and.American Empire, Beacon Press, Boston. Schiller, Herbert I. (1972), "Madison Avenue Imperialism," Communication in International Politics, ed. Richard L. Merritt, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 318—338. Sohonbar, Rosalea.Ann (1949), "Students' Attitudes Toward Communists: I. The Relations between Intensity of Attitude and Amount of Information," Journal of Psydhology, 27:55-71. Schramm, Wilbur (1964), Mass Media.and National Development, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Schuman, Howard (1966), "Social Change and the Validity of Regional Stereotypes in East Pakistan," Sociometry, 29zu28—H40. Schwartzman, Simon, and.Manuel Mora y Araujo (1966), "The Images of International Stratification in Latin America," Journal of Peace ResearCh, 225—243. Sohweitzer, Don, and Gerald P. Ginsburg (1966), "Factors of Communi— cator Credibility," in PrOblems in Social Psychology, ed. Carl W. Backman and.Paul F. Secord, McGraw—Hill, New York, pp. 94—102. Scott, Franklin D. (1956), The American Experience of SwediSh Students, University of Minnesota Press,_Minneapolis. Scott, William A. (1958b), "Rationality and.Non-Rationality of Inter— national Attitudes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2:8—16. Scott, William A. (1960), "International Ideology and Interpersonal Ideology," Public Opinion Quarterly, 2H:ul9—H35. Scott, Scott , Scott , Scott , Scott, Seago , Sears, Sears , 268 William A. (1962a), "Cognitive Complexity and Cognitive Flexibility , " Sociometry, 25: 40 54411;. William A. (1962b), "Cognitive Structure and Social Structure: Some Concepts and Relationships," in Decisions, Values, and Groups, Vol. 2, ed. N .F. Washburne, Pergamon Press, New YBrk, pp. 86—118. William A. (1963), "Conceptualizing and Measuring Structural Properties of Cognition," in Motivation and Social Interaction, ed. O.J. Harvey, Ronald Press, New York,pp. 266—288. William A. (1965), "Psychological and Social Correlates of International Images , " in International Behavior, ed. Herbert C. Kelman, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 71-103. William A. (1969), "The Structure of Natural Cognitions," Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog," 12:261-278. _ Dorothy W. (19147), "Stereotypes: Before Pearl Harbor and After," Journal of PsychologZ, 23:55—63. David O. (1969), "Political Behavior," in The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd edition, Vol. 5, ed. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, Addison—Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, pp. 315—1158. David O., and Jonathan L. Freedman (1967), "Selective Exposure to Information: A Critical Review," Public Opinion Quarterly, 31:191—214. Secord, P.F. (1959), "Stereotyping and Favorableness in the Perception of Negro Faces," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59:309—315. Secord, P.F., W. Bevan, and B. Katz (1956), "The Negro Stereotype and Perceptual Accentuation, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53:78—83. Selltiz, Claire, June R. Christ, Joan Havel, and Stuart W. Cook (1963), Attitudes and Social Relations of Foreign Students in the United States, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Selltiz, Claire, and Stuart W. Cook (1962) "Factors Influencing Attitudes of Foreign Students Toward the Host Country,“ Journal of Social Issues, 18(1):7—23. Selltiz, Claire, and Stuart W. Cook (1966), "Racial Attitude as a Determinant of Judgments of Plausibility," Journal of Social Psychology, 70:139—147. 269 Selltiz, Claire, H. Edrich, and Stuart W. Cook (1965), "Ratings of Favorableness of Statements about a Social Group as an Indicator of Attitude Toward the Group," Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog, 2:408—H15. Selltiz, Claire, Anna Lee Hopson, and Stuart W. Cook (1956), ”The Effects of Situational Factors on Personal Interaction Between Foreign Students and Americans,“ Journal of Social Issues, l2(l):33—HH. Seward, John P., and Evelyn E. Silvers (19143), "A Study of Belief in the Accuracy of Newspaper Reports,” Journal of Psychology 16:209—218. Shaffer, Robert H., and Leo R. Dowling (1966), Foreign Students and Their American Student Friends , Indiana University, Bloomington. Sheikh, Anees A. , and Robert C. Gardner (1968), "Comparative Accuracy of Canadians‘ Perceptions of Compatriots and Foreigners," Journal of Social Psydiology, 76:275—276. Attitude and Attitude Change: Approach, W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia. Sherif, Carolyn W. , Muzafer Sherif, and Roger E. Nebergall (1965), The Social J udgn‘ent ~Involvement Sherif, Muzafer, and Carl I. Hovland (1961), Social Judgment, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Sherman, Ricard C. (1973) , “Dimensional Salience in the Perception of Nations as a Function of Attitudes Toward War and Anticipated Social Interaction," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27:63—73. Shimberg, Benjamin (mug) , "Information and Attitudes toward World Affairs,“ Journal of Educational Psychology, 140:206—222. Singer, J. David (1965), "Cosmopolitan Attitudes and International Relations Courses: Sorre Tentative Correlations ," Journal of Politics, 27:318—338. Singh, Amar Kumar (1963), Indian Students in Britain, Asia Publishing House, London. Sinha, Gopal Sharan, and Mahendra Narain Karma (1967), "Studying Stereotypes Cross—Culturally," Man in India, l+7:92—102. Smith, Bruce L., H.D. Lasswell, and R.D. Casey (19%), Pro agenda, Communication, and Public Opinion: A Comprehensrve Reference Guide, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. 270 Smith, Bruce L, and Chitra M. Smith (1956), International Communication and Political Opinion: A Guide to the Literature, Princeton UniverSity Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Smith, Don D. (1973), "Mass Communications and International Image Change," Journal of Conflict Resolution, l7:llS~l29. Smith, George Horsley (19H8), "InfOrmation, Radicalism, and Inter- nationalism," Public Opinion Quarterly, 12:125-128. Smith, Howard P. (1955), "Do Intercultural Experiences Affect Attitudes?" Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51:469—477. Smith, Howard P. (1957), "The Effects of Intercultural Experience-— A Follow4Up Investigation," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Suz266—269. Smith, Howard P., and Ellen Weber Rosen (1958), "Some Psydhological Correlates of Worldmindedness and.Authoritarianism," Journal of Personality, 26:170—183. Smith, M. Brewster (19u7), "The Personal Setting of Public Opinions: A Study of Attitudes Toward Russia," Public Opinion.Quarterly, ll:507~523. Smith, M. Brewster (1955), "Some Features of Foreign—Student Adjustment," Journal of'Higher Education, 26:231—241. Smith, M. Brewster (1969), "The schools and Prejudice: Findings," in Prejudice U.S.A., ed. C.Y. Glodk and Ellen Siegelman, Praegerg New York, pp. 112—135. Smith, M. Brewster, Jerome S. Bruner, and Robert W1 White (1956), Opinions and Personality, JOhn Wiley and Sons, New York. Spilka, B., and E.L. Struening (1956), "A Questionnaire Study of Personality and Ethnocentrism," Journal of Social Psychology, ”4:65-71. Srole, L. (1956), "Social Integration and Certain Corollaries: An Exploratory Study," American Sociological Review, 21:709—716. Staats, Arthur~W., and Carolyn K. Staats (1958), "Attitudes Established by Classical Conditioning," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57:37—40. Stephenson, William.(1967), The Play Theory of Mass Communication, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 271 Stouffer, Samuel A. , et al. (19119), The American Soldier: Combat and Its Aftermath, Pranceton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Streufert, Siegfried, and Sandra Ishibashi Sandler (1971), "A Laboratory Test of the Mirror Image Hypothesis," Journal of Applied SoCial Psychology, 1:378—397. Szalay, Lorand B. , and Dale A. Lysne (1970), "Attitude Research for Intercultural Communication and Interaction," Journal of Communication, 20:180-200. Taft, R. (1959), "Ethnic Stereotypes, Attitudes, and Familiarity: Australia," Journal of Social PsychologI, L+9:l77—l86. Tagiuri, Renato (1969), "Person Perception," in The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd edition, Vol. 3, ed. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, Addison—Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, pp.395-l+l+9 . Tajfel, Henri, and John L. Dawson, eds. (1965), Disappointed Guests: Essays by African, Asian, and West Indian Students, Oxford University Press, New York. Tanaka, Yasumasa (l972a), "The Cross—Cultural Generality of Psycho— logic in the Perception of National Stereotypes," in The Analysis of Subjective Culture, ed. H.C. Triandis et 31—7, Wiley, New York. Tanaka, Yasumasa (1972b), "Values in the Subjective Culture: A Social Psychological View," Journal of Cross—Cultural Psychology, 3:57-69. Terhune, K.W. (196”), "Nationalism Among Foreign and American Students: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Conflict-Resolution, 8:256-270. Terhune, K.W. (1965), "Nationalistic Aspiration, Loyalty, and Inter— nationalism, " Journal of Peace Research, pp. 277ff. Triandis, Harry C. (1961+) , "Exploratory Factor Analyses of the Behavioral Component of Social Attitudes," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68:1420—Lt30. Triandis, Harry C. (1967), "Toward an Analysis of the Components of Interpersonal Attitudes, " in Attitude, Ego-Involvement , and Change, ed. Carolyn W. Sherif and Muzafer Sherif, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 227—270. Triandis, Harry C. ( 19 71), Attitude and Attitude Change, John Wiley and Sons , New York. Triandis, Harry C., and L.M. Triandis (1960), ”Race, Social Class, Religion, and Nationality as Determinants of Social Distance," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61:110—118. 272 of Social Distance," Psychological Monographs, 76(21) (Whole No. 5H0) . Triandis, Harry C. , and L.M. Triandis (1962), "A Cross—Cultural Study Triandis, Harry C. , and L.M. Triandis (1965), "Some Studies of Social Distance," in Current Studies in Social Psychology, ed. Ivan D. Steiner and Martin Fishbein, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 207—217. Triandis, Harry C., and Vasso Vassiliou (1966), "Social Status as a De tenninant of Social Acceptance and Friendship Acceptance," Sociometry, 29:396—Ur05. Triandis, Harry C. , and Vasso Vassiliou (1967), “Frequency of Contact and Stereotyping," Journal of Personalig and Social Psychology, 7:316—328. Tumin, Melvin M. , and Barbara A. Anderson (1972) , Research Annual on Intergroup Relations - 1972 , Quadrangle Books. Useem, John, and Ruth Hill Useem (1955) , The Western Educated Man in India, Dryden Press, New York. Useem, Ruth Hill, and John Useem (195%), "Images of the United States and Britain Held by Foreign—Educated Indians," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 295:73ff. Vaughan, J. Koyinde (1961), "Africa and the Cinema," in An African Treasg, ed. Langston Hughes, Pyramid Books, New York, pp. 89—97. Veroff, Joseph (1963), “African Students in the United States," Journal of Social Issues, 19(3):L+8—60. 30:265—291. Vinacke, W.E. (l9u9) , "Stereotyping Among National—Racial Groups in Hawaii: A Study in Ethnooentrism," Journal of Social Psychology, Vinacke, W.E. (I956), “Explorations in the Dynamic Process of Stereotyping,“ Journal of Social Psycholggl, U.3:lOS—132. Warr, Peter B. , and Christopher Knapper (196 8) , The Perception of People and Events, John Wiley and Sons, New York. Warwick, Donald P. (1971) , “Transnational Participation and Inter— national Peace," International Organization, 25:655—67H. Watson, Jeanne, and Ronald Lippitt (1955), Learning Across Cultures: A Study of Germans Visiting America, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 273 Watzlawick, Paul, Janet H. Beavin, and Don D. Jackson (1967), Pragmatics of Human Communication, W.W. Norton, New York. Weinstein, E.A. (1957) , "Development of Concept of Flag and a Sense of National Identity," Child DeveIOpment, 28:167—l7u. Weiss, Walter (1969), "Effects of the Mass Media of Communication," in The Handbook of Social Psycholog, 2nd edition, Vol. 5, ed. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson, pp. 77—195. Welch, Susan (1972), The American Press and Indochina, 1950—56," in Communication in International Politics, ed. Richard L. Merritt, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 207-231. Ralph K. (1965), "Images in the Context of International Soviet Perceptions of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.," White, Conflict: International Behavior, ed. Herbert C. Kelman, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 238-276. White, Ralph K. (1966), "Misperception and the Vietnam War," Journal of Social Issues, 22(3):l-164. White, Ralph K. (1967), "Misperception of Aggression in Vietnam," Journal of International Affairs, 21:123—340. Wiebe, Gerhart D. (1969—70), "'IWo Psychological Factors in Media Audience Behavior," Public Opinion Quarterly, 33:523-536. Willis, Richard H. (1963), ”Finnish Images of the Northern Lands and PeOples," Acta Sociologica, 7:73—88. Willis, Richard H. (1968), "Ethnic and National Images: Peoples _v_s_. Nations," Public Opinion Quarterly, 32:186—201. Wilson, Howard E. (1956) , American College Life as Education in World Outlook, American Comcii on Education. Wish, Myron ( 19 70), "Comparisons Among Multidimensional Structures of Nations Based on Different Measures of Subjective Similarity," General Systems, 15:55—65. Wish, Myron (1971) , "Individual Differences in Perceptions and Preferences Among Nations, " in Attitude Research Reaches New Hei ts, ed. C.W. King and D. Tigert, American Marketing Assocration , Chicago . Wish, Myron, Morton Deutsch, and Lois Biener (1970), "Differences An Exploratory Study," in Conceptual Structures of Nations: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16:361—373. 274 Wright, Charles R. (1959), Mass Communication: A Sociological Perspective, Random House, New York. Zeligs, Rose (19514), "Races and Nationalities Most and Least Liked by Children," Journal of Educational Research, L+8zl-ILL. Zeligs, Rose (1955), "Children's Concepts and Stereotypes of American, Greek, English, German and Japanese," Journal of Educational Sociology, 28: 360-368. Zimbardo, Philip, and Ebbe B. Ebbesen (1969), Influencing Attitudes and Changing Behavior, Addison—Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts. [/1 NINNNNNNNINNNN||NNNNNNNN1|NNNNNNUNINSNNNNNNNLNNNNNN|NNNN|NNNNN|