.wv-m. A GUTTMAN FACET ANALYSIS OF RACIAL ATTITUDES IN KENYA, NIGERIA, SOUTH AFRICA, AND THE UNITED STATES Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D- MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WINFRED JOSEPH SMITH 1975 1299IIIII IIII II III III III IIII IIII IIII I LIBRA RY Michigan State University This is to certify that the _ r»; n.‘ thesis entitled A Guttman Facet Anaiysis of Racial Attitudes in Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United States presented by Winfred Joseph Smith has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Couns. Pers. Serv., 8 Ed. Psy. fli/gn Z: Q3/1152? 41 Major fessor Date May 16, 1975 0-7639 f I at I 94-! {ii 3i C ”12.39:? “:3 .un- “Unto“ .- ‘v’-‘ .—A——-‘- -. I.'¢ AL».— I CODtiRUO‘I SCiOusly another, Predomini ences. E historiCa Of prej‘dd Studies w T attitudes ABSTRACT A GUTTMAN FACET ANALYSIS OF RACIAL ATTITUDES IN KENYA, NIGERIA, SOUTH AFRICA, AND THE UNITED STATES BY Winfred Joseph Smith Statement of the Problem Intergroup conflicts and problems have been continuous as long as mankind has consciously or uncon- sciously accepted "devaluing" differences between one another. In the twentieth century, the focus has been predominantly that of racial/ethnic or national differ- ences. Students of society have attempted to establish historical, psychological, and social-structural roots of prejudice; however, there have been few definitive studies which assess racial attitudes. The purpose of this study was to assess racial attitudes in three African countries and compare them to race attitudes in the United States. A further pur- pose was to validate the South African form of the Attitude-Behavior Scale (ABS-SAP) (Smith and Jordan, 1973). The form differs from Jordan's "general" racial attitude scale (Hamersma, Paige, and Jordan, 1974) in I irggz'.l that it law and of Guttr. design a scales I33 A review Africa we by Which J of attitu man (1959 SAP: is Q a ri . w .9: .aCEt the r. npreSent Winfred Joseph Smith that it does not include items in the areas of military, law and order, and political activism. The review of literature includes the history of Guttman facet design, and the extension of this design as well as the formation of attitude-behavior ’scales based on Guttman's facet analysis of attitudes. A review of racial attitudes in the United States and Africa was presented along with a theoretical framework by which racial behavior between groups can be predicted. Methodology Jordan and Hamersma (1969) constructed a series of attitude scales based on the facet analysis of Gutt- man (1959). The scale used in this study, ABS-BW/WB- SAP, is one in this series of scales. Theory and construction of the items followed a systematic a priori method instead of the Likert method of intu- ition or the Thurstone use of judges. Guttman's (1959) facet theory specifies that the attitude universe represented by the item content can be substructured into behavioral profiles which are systematically related according to the number of identical conceptual or semantic elements they hold in common. The substruc- turing of an attitude-behavior universe into facets and elements facilitates an a priori sampling of items within each of the derived profiles and also enables Aflxrfi’ the pred of the u first-ye Africa, I Ed 429 s jects we: students; 'I the simpl Simple cc Winfred Joseph Smith the prediction of relationships between various profiles of the universe. The sample for this research was drawn from the first-year psychology students in Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Georgia, and Michigan with a control group of Ed 429 students at Michigan State University. The sub- jects were composed of Black and White, male and female students; there were 1,070 subjects sampled. The statistics employed were the Kaiser Q2 for the simplex approximation, analysis of variance, and simple correlation. Results The results indicate that the ABS-SAP is cross- culturally invariant. The Kaiser Q2 simplex approxima- tion test was > .70. The hypotheses dealing with efficacy or sense of control over the environment (H-2), urbanity (H-3), new child-rearing practices (H-4) and new techniques of birth control (H-S) were not sup- ported. The remaining hypotheses (H-6, 7, and 8) dealt with the socio-cultural and socio-structural aspects of racial behavior. The groups were ranked according to size and control of social power in their respective society. Hypothesis 6, dealing with the rank order of the White samples, was not supported; Hypotheses 7 and 8 were. Hypothesis 7, dealing with the rank order of the Blac with the tion to within a Winfred Joseph Smith the Black samples, was supported. Hypothesis 8, dealing with the social control of societal institutions in rela- tion to the percentage of the particular racial group within a society, was also supported.* 9 *This study is one in a series of cross-cultural r"filial/ethnic studies under the direction of Dr. John E. Jordan of Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michi- gan 48824. in A GUTTMAN FACET ANALYSIS OF RACIAL ATTITUDES IN KENYA, NIGERIA, SOUTH AFRICA, AND THE UNITED STATES BY ‘Winfred Joseph Smith A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology 1975 flDCOPYright VIIEIEIIED J and JOIN E. 5 1975 Copyright by WINFRED JOSEPH SMITH and JOHN E. JORDAN 1975 Dedicated to my wife, Elisha, and my Mother ii by sever Jordan q graduate theoret i Procedur PREFACE This study is one in a series, jointly designed by several investigators and supervised by Dr. John E. Jordan as an example of the "project" approach to graduate research. A common use of instrumentation and theoretical material, as well as technical and analysis jprocedures, was both necessary and desirable. iii I‘m; L“; .. and cha' given me ation to Dr, Laer making h: Dean of t alumni Sc anal-9, Sis ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First of all, I would like to thank my advisor and chairman, Dr. John E.-Jordan, who has not only Igiven me guidance and encouragement in all aspects of 'this dissertation, but has helped give my life direction. Also, I would like to express my deep appreci- Eation to my committee members: Dr. Robert L. Green, IDr. Lawrence Lezotte, and Dr. Christopher Sower for rnaking helpful suggestions and providing guidance. I especially wish to thank Dr. Keith Goldhammer, IDean of the College of Education, for providing an ailumni scholarship which provided funds for the final analysis work and printing of this thesis. iv LIST OF LIST OF Chapter II. III. IV. .“rv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . Vii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION .' . . . . . . . . . 1 Need of the Study . . . . . . . . 2 Racial Relations in the United States . 3 Racial Relations in South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria . . . . . . . 7 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . 10 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . 11 History of Attitude-Behavior . . . . ll Guttman Facet Theory . . . . . 12 Racial Attitudes in the United States . l3 Racial Attitudes in Africa . . . . . 24 Theories of Racial Behavior . . . . 39 III. INSTRUMENTATION AND RESEARCH DESIGN . . 52 Semantic Paths . . . . . 55 Theory and Construction of the ABS . . 61 The Simplex Approximation and the ABS . 64 Reliability and Validity of the ABS-BW/WB scale 0 o o o o o o o 65 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . 69 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . 74 Analysis Procedure . . . . . . . 74 HYPOthe se 5 O .9 O O O O O O O O 7 6 V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 102 Summary of the Study . . . . . . . 102 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . 105 Recommendations . . . . . . . . 113 7 I 9 9 REFEREE I I APPENDI’ A. REFERENCES . APPENDICES . A. B. C. ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE: SOUTH AFRICAN FORM ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE: SOUTH AFRICAN FORM SIMPLEX DATA vi BLACK/WHITE, WHITE/BLACK, Page 118 130 131 149 167 III“ ||I||IIII ll II\ Me 10. CI 11. PI 12. Table 1. 10. ll. 12. LIST OF TABLES Page Facets Used to Determine Joint Struction of an Attitude Universe . . . . . . 53 Joint Level, Profile Composition, and Labels for Six Types of Attitude Struction O O O O O O O O O O 0 S3 Comparisons of Guttman and Jordan Facet Designations . . . . . . . . . . 54 Joint Level, Profile Composition, and Labels for Six Types of Attitude Struction . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Combinations of Five Two-Element Facets Of Table 1 O I O O O O O O I O O 57 Combinations of Five Two-Element Facets and Rules for Elimination . . . . . . 58 Five-Facet Six-Level System of Attitude Verbalizations: Levels, Facet Pro- files, and Definitional Statements for Twelve Combinations . . . . . . 60 Items for Revised ABS:BW/WB-SAF . . . . 67 Sample Size, Means, and Standard Deviation for Selected Variables of the African- United States Racial Attitude Study . . 77 Means, Sample Sizes, and Differences Between All Pairs-of-Samples on the African-United States Racial Attitude Study . . . . . . . . . 84 Correlations Between the ABS and Four Variables (Efficacy, Urbanity, Child Rearing, and Birth Control) . . . . . 92 Postulated and Achieved Rank Order of the "White" Samples on Attitudes Toward the Opposite Race . . . . . . . . 97 vii Table 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Page Postulated and Achieved Rank Order of the "Black" Samples on Attitudes Toward the Opposite Race . . . . . . . . 97 Postulated and Achieved Rank Order of Racial Groups by Power Position in Their Society on Attitudes Toward the Opposite Race . . . . . . . . 100 ABS-BW/WN: Basic Variable List by IBM Card and Column . . . . . . . . . 101 Simplex Matrix for ED 429: Sample (84) . . 168 Simplex Matrix for Kenya: Sample (152) . . 168 Simplex Matrix for Nigeria: Sample (87) . 168 Simplex Matrix for South Africa: Sample (180) . . . . . . . . . . 169 Simplex Matrix for MSU Black: Sample (54) . . . . . . . . . . 169 Simplex Matrix for MSU White: Sample (411) . . . . . . . . . . 169 Simplex Matrix for Georgia: Sample (102) . . . . . . . . . . 169 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis of Joint and Lateral Struction of Blacks' and Whites' Attitudes Toward Each Other . . . . . . . . 68 ix Continu< scionsl: another, feeling t0 relig ences. for Wars and almc and belj tact. variOus differer earliEr um twep a ,9, “O“‘lnant It is Dr Tm indu a I l . .Stitut CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Intergroup conflicts and problems have been continuous as long as mankind has consciously or uncon- sciously accepted "devaluing" differences between one another. Intergroup problems have been caused by a feeling of superiority of one group toward another due to religious, cultural, ethnic and/or racial differ- ences. The belief in group difference has been blamed for wars, revolutions, racial, and religious pogroms and almost any other kind of human calamity. Attitudes and beliefs were usually established by unintended contact between groups and, in some cases, by no con— tact. Since recorded history, groups have emphasized various differences. Mankind has focused on religious differences during the last two thousand years and even earlier stressed tribal and cultural differences. In the twentieth century, however, the focus has been pre- dominantly that of racial/ethnic or national differences. It is projected that as the progress of modernization and industrialization expands throughout the world such inStitutions as religion, education, and nationalism l will we cation of grou find fe neighbc ethnic unimpor currentI Hut of Continue lish diI resort I of the 9 racial 9 or aCCO9 Studied States CWRiSS Ttyi 1710:9- 9c F] (L :3“ ( rn will weaken and that technological advances in communi- cation and language will also reduce ethnic isolation of groups throughout the world. Therefore, man will find fewer factors which can set him apart from his neighbors and such beliefs as superiority and racial/ ethnic group identity may be eliminated or become unimportant in ranking peoples on a value continuum. The only difference between groups which cannot currently be influenced by technology and modernity is that of race. It is evident, therefore, that if people continue to label groups and if they attempt to estab- lish differences between populations, they will have to resort to racial factors. Therefore, the understanding of the dynamics of racial differences, the analysis of racial attitudes and the factors which promote conflict or accommodation between existing groups must be studied and understood. Need of the Study Many differences between groups in the United States are currently based on race. This is clearly established in the Report of the National Advisory Commission of Civil Disorders (1968): This is our basic conclusion: our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white--separate and unequal . . . . This deepening racial division is not inevitable. The movement apart can be reversed. Choice is it in: Campbell Anders: in the also a Student torical haVe bEE - | attitude in the E South as intenSi‘ latiOn 9 is still possible . . . . From every American it will require new attitudes, new understand- ing, and above all new will (pp. 1-2). Other researchers, Brink and Harris (1967) and Campbell and Schuman (1968), have expressed a need to understand the racial attitudes between Black and White in the United States. In Africa, as in the United States, there is also a need to understand attitudes between races. Students of society have attempted to establish his- torical roots of racial prejudice. However, there have been few definitive studies which assess racial attitudes, cross-nationally. Racial Relations in the United States Intergroup contact between Black and White groups in the United States developed differently within the South as compared to the North. The agricultural economy in the South was labor intensive. The large plantations depended upon imported slaves from West Africa. Some slaves obtained their freedom; some became sharecroppers, artisans, and a few were educated in missionary schools. Even after the freeing of the slaves little changed for the Black popu- lation in the southern United States. Not until the nineteenth century did a large number of blacks become educated and accumulate some I—I wealth socioe: unequa politi Negro 9 the 'ma t0 thie equal 1 gratior IEgal C and ecc tudeS c the lirr an att: wealth and prestige within the Negro communities. The socioeconomic structure of the South was separated and unequal. Whites dominated the educational, economic, political, and social systems within the region. The Negro group lived in a microcosm and had to perpetuate the 'master-servant' role relationship. Not until industrialization in the 19505 came to the South did the Negro population request and receive equal legal and economic rights with Whites. The "inte- gration policy" of the national government enforced legal decisions which permitted Negroes equal political and economic opportunities. Until integration, the relationship between the two groups was subordination and segregation; the atti- tudes of Whites was that of hatred and hostility. In the integrationist period, however, there seems to be an attitude of begrudging acceptance and, in some cases, respect of Black accomplishments and achievements. In the northern United States the agricultural economy was based on small farms, and industry devel- Oped early, thus, there was no need for slave labor. The Negro population in the North was composed predomi- nantly of freedmen or runaway slaves. As the immigration laws were tightened rural southern Negroes migrated to northern urban centers and settled in slum areas recently vacated by European immigr develo Whites of the suburb the Uni cal per attitud human I l'IOIl-ac CE teriZed the Sout Part of tilde bEg Afte] of M Afri the C fine So 36 1870 area (OQOt '1 found the immigrants. At this time racial conflict and problems developed in the North when middle- and working-class Whites moved to the urban fringe causing a separation of the two races into opposing geographic regions-- suburban Whites and innercity Blacks. The public attitude of Whites toward Blacks in the United States can be classified into three histori- cal periods, each characterized by a general attitude. During the earliest period, 1619 to 1830, the attitude toward Blacks was that of non-existence as a human race. The Blacks faced slavery in the South and non-acceptance, politically, and socially in the North. The second period, 1830 to 1910, was charac- terized by repression and persecution of the Blacks in the South and of indifference to their plight on the part of the WhitesiJithe North. The change of atti- tude began around the 18303: After toying with several ideas including that of Marcus Garvey which advocated a 'Back-to- Africa-' movement, the white peOple came to the conclusion that though Uncle Tom may be a fine fellow, he is, nevertheless, different. So segregation was born. And between roughly 1870 and 1910 the Negro was segregated in every area of life in the Southern United States (Ogot, 1965, p. 18). The Whites of the United States felt they had found the solution to the Negro problem by establishing a national policy of segregation. Southern state con- stitutions legitimated this policy and it was supported by the rate b a [8511 I the Bia dinatic 0f the and seg Civil R | White 1. laws of by the United States Supreme Court's decision of 'sepa- rate but equal' in 1896. The third period, 1910 to the present, began as a result of increased education, two World Wars, and the Blacks protesting louder and louder against subor- dination. The Whites, too, became increasingly aware of the incompatibility between the American Way of Life and segregation. The period of integration climaxed with the Civil Rights movement in the 19605 and both Black and White leaders demonstrated for the abolition of the laws of 'separate but equal.’ However, the attitudes of Whites had developed for almost a century and could not be dissolved in a decade of integration advance- ment. With the assassination of Martin Luther King in 1968, Black leadership fractionalized and the Afro- American consciousness developed. Blacks developed a sense of pride and achievement in their new found consciousness. Many were afraid that integration into the dominant White society would cause them to lose their identity so a reaction to the "full" integration occurred. With this, the liberal Whites experienced disillusionment and a 'White Back Lash' developed. Whites' attitude toward Blacks was that of resentment and hurt that the Blacks felt they could not assimi- late into the broader stream of American life. obtaineI economy the UniI 0f the I and egg, The achievement of Black integration . . . is not likely to mark the end of racial consciousness among the Negro population. For many years the Negro has been made, through legal, educational and political devices, to feel that he is different from other Americans. And although the legal myth of 'separate but equal' has been exploded it is evident . . . that emotionally and spiritually the American Negroes still believe in the doctrine of 'sepa- rate but equal' . . . . This deep-rooted atti— tude is likely to hinder integration and to perpetuate racial consciousness among the Negroes (Ogot, 1965, p. 18). During the period of integration, Negroes have obtained a sense of social identity and political and economic advancement. It can be said that the Negro in the United States has put his foot on the first rung of the upward mobile ladder and, with his new political and economic muscle, he may find "true" integration. Racial Relations in South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria Racial prejudice has been institutionalized in South Africa. The concept of "apartheid" embodies the extreme negative racial relations between Natives, Afrikaans, and English-speaking Africans. Munger (1967) views South Africa as ". . . two huge feudal classes divided by colour" (p. 31). Because of thepolitical, social and economic enforcement of the dual society on racial differences, the racial situation in South Africa is so extreme that ". . . over 95% of all Biij SOC of lea Afr Con hei bee the he] ate all the white people are in favor of segregation" (de Blij, 1962, p. 186). Kuper (1965) describes the South African society: The situation is so raw . . . and so governed by racial ideology and domination, that it is the perception of race relations which becomes the overriding factor and shapes the political ideologies, both of the parliamentary parties and of the non-White extra parliamentary move- ments (p. 366). It was in 1948 that the Afrikaans, descendants of the early Dutch settlers, captured the political leadership from the English-speaking Whites. The Afrikaan domination has been maintained since. With a consensus of 95% of White voters in support of apart- heid, the severe laws based on racial segregation have been enforced by the police. Phillips (1961) argues that the "Broderbond," a secret society, draws its mem- bers from the less educated rural Afrikaans and domin- ates the police, and in some areas resembes the Nazi SS troops. The apartheid socio-political system in South Africa is atypical when the rest of sub-Saharan Africa is included in an analysis of racial attitudes. The majority of African nations are controlled by African Blacks; hostile and negative attitudes in racial relations still exist. In Kenya and Nigeria, for example, resistance to White British rule brought about a m 4‘.— the the in K ener by t] Kenya Perce the 1 major the independence of both countries. In October, 1952, the colonial government declared a state of emergency in Kenya due to the Mau Mau rebellion. After the emergency, . . . the colonial government's attitude did not appreciably change in the critical years that followed. They saw the activities of most African leaders as disruptive and con- tinued to believe that the solution to the country's problems lay in effective adminis— tration and economic growth under European leadership rather than in any substantial reform of the political structure (Rosberg and Nottingham, 1966, p. 231). The hatred and resentment of White domination by the Kikuyu Tribe provided the leadership for the Kenyan independent movement. This tribe composed 20 percent of the East African native population and was the most influential. Leadership was weaker and more diffused in Nigeria because there was no dominant tribe. The twelve major tribes constantly warred among themselves; thus, political pressure for independence was not developed as strong as in Kenya. Independence was facilitated more by the change in administration and political attitudes in Britain rather than through political pressure and rebellion within Nigeria. The degree of contact and hostility varies between Whites and Blacks in South Africa, Kenya, and Nigeria. In South Africa the Dutch-speaking White set sca Con‘ the heir amas cont Dutc Afri nent Whit Who t0n tude Iaci 10 settlers developed small farms, and established widely scattered farm communities throughout the entire area. Contact with Africans, if any, was hostile. In Kenya the White settlers were predominantly British gentry who held and developed large plantations with a hOpe of amassing personal wealth and retiring to England. Their contact with the Africans was less severe than the Dutch-speaking Whites because they depended on the Africans for labor. In Nigeria the independence move- ment developed slowly due to little contact between Whites and Blacks; This is supported by Hatch (1970) who states that the colonial government took many years to make a direct impact on the majority in Nigeria. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to test racial atti- tudes in three African countries and compare them to racial attitudes in southern and northern United States. A further purpose was to validate the South Afri- can form of the Attitude Behavior Scale (ABS-SAP) (Smith and Jordan, 1973). This form differs from Jordan's "general" racial attitude scale (Hamersma, Paige, and Jordan, 1974) in that it does not include items in the areas of military, law and order, and political activism. Differences of the instrument and of the hypotheses tested will be presented in detail in Chapter III. Ammjmgzé 316%. of G asw base Ofr pres raci and CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The review of literature includes the history of Guttman facet design, and the extension of this design as well as the formation of attitude-behavior scales based on Guttman's facet analysis of attitudes. A review of racial attitudes in the United States and Africa is presented along with a theoretical framework by which racial behavior between groups can be predicted. History of Attitude—Behavior Two basic views permeate the literature on atti- tude research: one defining attitude as a "predisposi- tion to behavior" and the other "attitude as behavior." Jordan (1971a), however, believes that attitudes and behaviors are not separate or disparate entities, but are varying along the same continuum; hence, he uses 'the hyphenated term, attitude-behavior, to connote a synthesizing of what has previously been two separate Iand distinct entities. The new usage was in part (derived from Guttman's (1950a) definition of attitude as a "delimited" totality of behavior with respect to something" (Jordan, 1971b). 11 wide analy Guttm tude 1: lg. :9- to $01 behav. into a and dc facetf ICI h; actiOr 12 Guttman Facet Theory Guttman's contributions to attitude scaling pro- vide a rigorous paradigm for item construction and analysis that can be applied to any intergroup situation. Guttman (1950b) started by operationally defining atti- tude as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something" and divided this delimited totality of behavior into four levels or subuniverses (1959). Guttman (1959) developed the concept of levels into a structural theory of belief and action based on and defined by facets to produce each level. The four facetized levels were (a) stereotypic, (b) norm, (c) hypothetical interaction, and (d) personal inter- action. Jordan (1968), reviewing current attitude research, found few studies which employed many atti- tude items other than stereotypic ones. Since attitudes exist on various other levels most of the current research instruments fail to elicit more than a stereotypic measure. Jordan extended Guttman's levels and developed an instrument which he used to test attitudes towards the mentally retarded (Jordan, 1970), IBlacks and Whites (Hamersma, Paige, and Jordan, 1974), attended church twice a month are "less favor- able” toward desegregation; those who never attend church are the most tolerant. Holtzman (1956) found that Jewish students were the most tolerant toward non-segregation while Protes- tants were the least. He also found that frequency of church attendance was significantly related to toler- ance. Those who attended church once or twice a month are most likely to favor segregation. l9 Larson, Ahrenholz, and Graziplene (1964) found religion to be a significant variable in both Alabama and Texas students' attitudes toward integration. In Alabama the Jewish students were more favorable toward integrated facilities than Catholics; the Catholics were more favorable toward integration than the Protes- tants. Engel (1968) in a different type of study found that when considering Negroes for membership in a civil organization, neighborhood housing, and office sharing, White college students accepted Negroes of the same religion more readily than Negroes from other religious groups. Irvine (1974) in a later study administered the Jordan Attitude-Behavior Scale of Blacks toward Whites and Whites toward Negroes (ABS-BW/WN) to three minis- terial groups--Catholics, Pentecostal, and Protestants. He found a significant difference between the groups at the societal level; Catholics scoring highest at the societal stereotypes, Pentecostals second, and Protes- tants scoring lowest. When comparing White and Black ministers, a significant difference occurred on the personal action level. When the Blacks' and Whites' attitudes toward the opposite race are compared accord- ing to educational level, the more highly educated Blacks scored more "unfavorably" toward Whites and the A I _— mo 20 more highly educated Whites scored more "favorably" toward Blacks. Irvine's research contradicts earlier studies (Allport and Kramer, 1946; Lombardi, 1963). The reason for this may be that Irvine gathered information on racial attitudes in the United States after the 19603 during which the integrationist movement of Martin Luther King achieved its peak only to be countered by the "Black Movement" which emphasized self appreciation for Blacks and hatred of the "white establishment." Educated White liberals accepted the blame for the "black problem." This may explain why educated Blacks scored more unfavorably toward Whites and Whites scored more favorably toward Blacks. Literature on racial attitudes indicates that education is the most significant variable, negatively related to prejudice, i.e., the more education, the less prejudice. Allport and Kramer (1946) and Lombardi (1963) point out that the higher the parents' educational level, the lowertfluaprejudice or more favorable the attitude toward Negroes. Carter and Mitchell (1955-56) found that as Negro pupils ascended in grade levels their attitudes towards Whites became more positive. Allport and Kramer (1946), Stephenson (1952), Holtzman (1956), and Kelly, Ferson, and Holtzman (1958) found that White college students' major field of aca Neg stu and in the gas: All; Gra: men Site and IESe «2:39 21 academic interest was related to their tolerance of Negroes. All the studies yielded similar results: students majoring in fields such as business, pharmacy, and engineering were less tolerant than those majoring in fields such as social science and humanities. Sex, income, age, and geographic location are the other demographic factors or variables most fre- quently considered in the literature of racial attitudes. Allport and Kramer (1946) and Larson, Ahrenholz, and Graziplene (1964) found women to be less prejudiced than men while Carter and Mitchell (1955-56) found the oppo- site to be the case. Kelly, Ferson, and Holtzman (1958) and Weller (1964) found no sex differences in their research. Regional or geographic location of the subjects has received extensive attention. Studies which con- sistently revealed that persons in the southern United States generally hold a more unfavorable View of Negroes than elsewhere in the country include Kelly, Ferson, and Holtzman (1958), Weller (1964), Brink and Harris (1964, 1967), CBS News (1968), Larson, Ahrenholz, and Grazi- plene (1964), Campbell and Schuman (1968), Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (1968), and Dell Orto and Jordan (1975). Unfavorable racial attitudes and older age has also been a consistent fact in the literature. Mussen 22 (1963) and Allport and Kramer (1946) indicate that prejudice increases with age, whereas other researchers --Weller (1964), Brink and Harris (1964, 1967), Camp- bell and Schuman (1968)--have all reported conflicting results. When income has been used as a variable, the results are not consistent. Weller (1964) found that higher income groups see a loss of status in associ- ation with Negroes and are more prejudiced toward them than other income groups. Harding and Hogrefe (1952) support these findings. Social Psychological Factors Carlson (1956) reported a study that involved changes in prejudicial attitudes toward Negro mobility according to perceived property value. Attitudes became more favorable toward Negro movement into White neigh- borhoods as subjects' beliefs were changed from the view that Negroes tend to lower property value. The change was ascribed to an inconsistency between the cognitive (belief) component and the affective (value) component. Himelstein and Moore (1963) found that racial attitudes may play a minor role in certain situations. Subjects of both high and low prejudice tend to be strongly influenced by the behavior of the confederate whether Black or White. For example, when a confederate nun; 23 (White) signs a petition, it's highly likely that the subject (Black) will sign also. Trent (1957) studied self-acceptance in Negro children. His results showed that children who were more self-acceptant expressed significantly more posi- tive attitudes toward both Negro and White. Williams (1968) and Allport and Kramer (1946) studied how students perceived themselves in relation to things around them. They asked students to rate their own prejudice, and found that those who are more prejudiced have less ability to discriminate how preju- diced they are. The work of Brodwin (1973) indicates that the symbolism associated with the word "black" in the United States has in the past been associated with "badness" but that college students now evaluate the terms "blacks" and "negro" rather equally. Knowledge Factors A study by Droba (1932) looked at the effect of education on attitudes toward Negroes. The design con- sisted of a test of attitudes which was given to a class at the beginning and again at the end of a course. The difference between the two scores obtained on the two occasions was taken as a measure of change. She con- cluded that a course on the Negro given to college 4.2!; R. . ._ J 24 students tends to make the White students slightly more favorable toward the Negro. Corroborating evidence for the positive effect of the knowledge factor or variable in research was also found by Holtzman (1956), Deutsch and Collins (1951), Wilner, Walkley, and Cook (1952), Brophy (1964), and Merton, West, and Jahoda (1949). Racial Attitudes in Africa The substantive research concerning racial atti- tudes in Africa is less extensive than that in the United States. The research is largely demographic and socio-psychological in emphasis. The majority of the studies have been conducted in South Africa and very little research has been undertaken in Eastern and Western Africa. MacCrone (1930) was the pioneer in studying the attitudes of White South Africans toward non-White Africans. Beginning his work, he asked twenty-five students to describe their attitudes toward the Black community and to give reasons for their attitudes. A variety of negative factors emerged: 1. factors based on past contact between Whites and Blacks and passed on to their children; 2. present political, economic, and social stigmas of inferiority concerning the Black man; 3. the Black man is a group of criminals because only Black criminals are appre- hended in South Africa; *r1 [)1 25 4. pseudo-scientific explanations of racial differences; 5. social barriers set up by Whites who had no interest in learning the Black Afri- can's language, customs, and culture; and 6. in folklore and fairy tales the symbol 'black' is evil. With this information MacCrone (1932) developed his research instruments: a Thurstone-type scale; the "Attitudes Toward the Native" scale; and a Bogardos- type "Social Distance" scale. Over a period of years, MacCrone gathered additional social distance data and found consistently that Whites first preferred their own in-group (English-speaking Africans preferred other English-speaking Africans), and second, Whites pre- ferred other Whites (the English-speaking group pre- ferred the Afrikaans group before non-White groups). MacCrone found that the Afrikaans-speaking group was the most intolerant toward the native and "appear to be unaffected by difference in the socio-economic back- ground of the various groups . . ." (MacCrone, 1949a, p. 703). Their attitude did not change over a ten- year period. Mann (1971, pp. 52-59) analyzed the research on racial attitudes in South Africa, classifying them according to types of studies (such as survey research) and differing variables (such as ethnocentrism, social-cultural factors, education, sex, etc.). 26 Ethnocentrism MacCrone (1937a, b) was the pioneer in studying the issue of whether or not a racial majority in a society place their own group above other groups. His chief instruments were an "Attitude toward the Native" scale and a social-distance scale. He was careful to work out the reliabilities and validities of his measures. Not all who have succeeded him have cared to establish levels of reliability and validity for their measures, let alone improve on the levels he obtained. His own measure of attitude towards Africans, after more than thirty years, still seems to scale in the same way as it originally did, although nowadays student raters show greater variety in their attitudes than his raters did (Melamed, 1967). MacCrone chose 632 White university students and classified them as belonging to the English-speaking, Afrikaans-speaking, and Jewish ethnic groups. According to his measure of social distance, each one of the three ethnic groups fell short of maximum tolerance for itself. Nevertheless, each group extended more tolerance towards itself than towards any other group. More recent studies have disclosed similar trends. After studying 627 White students of the Uni- versity of Natal in 1956, Pettigrew (1960) showed that from 89 to 93 percent of the students were willing to 27 marry ethnic congeners, while at most 66 percent were willing to marry ethnic outsiders. So vehemently was the Indian group spurned that a fifth of the non-Jewish students chose the response "I wish someone would kill all of them." Like Pettigrew, van den Berghe (1962) used a measure of social distance. He also drew upon students of the University of Natal for subjects; but his 383 subjects were both White and non-White and included student nurses and technical college as well as university students. His results indicate that the group least rejected by his mainly English-speaking White subjects was the English group; the group least rejected by his Indian subjects was the Indian group; and the group least rejected by his African subjects was the "City African" group. Crijns (1960) confined his subjects to 113 Africans who were either graduates or students of a university. The social-distance scale applied to them revealed that their tolerance was greater for various African groups than for other groups. A social-distance scale was again the measure when Lever (1966, 1968) took a 10 percent random sample of the high-school pupils in Johannesburg. She found that the Afrikaan- Speaking group put their group well above any other group in the hierarchy of preferences. 28 Bogardus (1968) compared three social-distance studies from South Africa, Ethiopia, and the United States which dealt with racial attitudes and social- distance. He found in all three countries that Whites preferred their own ethnic group to any other group and non-Whites preferred their own as well. The non-White subjects in South Africa and Ethiopia, however, had a more favorable attitude toward Whites from the United States and EurOpe than Whites from their own country. Clearly there is ample evidence of ethnocen- trism in the various studies of social-distance. Studies of other kinds add to the evidence. Kuper (1965), for example, asked African teachers to rate six ethnic groups on various qualities. His finding was that on the average the teachers gave the Zulu group the highest rating. This is ethnocentrism once again, because the teachers themselves were mainly Zulu. One assumption of the social-distance theory is, in general, if a person dislikes one non-membership group, is he likely to also dislike other groups? The question is important because a positive answer suggests that the dislike may stem from psychodynamic charac- teristics of the individual rather than from the specific socio-cultural and socio-structural factors of the various non-membership groups themselves. Origi- nally MacCrone (1937a, b) had made a search for common 2‘. :IV V I . ’ aver: m an fa Bil sa at on. if dis his of Ii) be tra 6x; V‘. ere in aC WI; 1 29 factors in the social-distance put by members of White groups between themselves and members of groups differ- ent from their own; and Pettigrew (1960) later did the same. Their findings agreed closely. It seems that attitudes toward non—membership groups demonstrate some generalization, but there is also a special kind of generalization covering White non-membership groups only. The impression fostered by the findings is that if an Afrikaaner dislikes the Indians he is likely to dislike all other non-Afrikaaner groups as well; but his dislike of the non-Afrikaaner White groups will be of a different, and milder kind compared with his dis- like of the non-White groups. A basic factor underlying generalization may be a particular pattern or dynamic system of personality traits. In his earlier work, MacCrone (1937b) had expressed a strong interest in the psychodynamics of prejudice, paying special attention to psychoanalytic theorizing, as in his discussion of unconscious elements in aversion to the color "black." He came to envision a Calvinistic-Puritanic personality (MacCrone, 1955), which in many ways resembled what is widely known today as the authoritarian personality. Some of his empirical work on race attitudes centered about questions of per- sonality. MacCrone (1937b) reported no link between the attitude towards Africans and fair-mindedness. His 30 later work leaned heavily on factor analysis. Among other things, it suggested that such traits as aggres- siveness and assertiveness lie beneath the intolerant- tolerant outlook of Whites; that racial aggressiveness shown by Whites has a relatively heavy dependence upon extrapunitiveness (MacCrone, 1949c), and that these are essential features of the Calvinistic-Puritanic personality (MacCrone, 1955). A factor analysis carried out by MacCrone and Starfield (1949) indicated that White hypersensitive- ness is slightly associated with anti-African attitudes. To explain some of his factor analytical results, MacCrone (1953) resorted once again to psychoanalytic interpretation, for example, the ethnoeroticist whom he described in Freudian terms as having submissive and neurotically compulsive tendencies. Pettigrew (1960) was another to look for per- sonality correlates related to attitude. Drawing upon the researches into the authoritarian personality, he used an §_scale to find, as expected, that authoritarian features of personality in Whites go with remoteness from people outside the membership group, particularly non-Whites. With improved scales, Orpen (1966) was later able to confirm the link between authoritarianism and ethnocentrism in Whites. 31 Socio-Cultural Factors There is convincing evidence that, however important the personality factor is, it is not enough to explain everything about attitudes. Pettigrew (1958) made an investigation which implied that per- sonality by itself does not explain high levels of intolerance. Drawing on the social-cultural factors for a fuller explanation of racial attitudes, he found that anti-African attitudes were slightly stronger in those Whites born on the African continent than in those born elsewhere, although the former were no more authoritarian in personality structure than the White South Africans born in other countries outside Africa. Pettigrew (1958) concluded that being born in Africa brings about a particularly thorough exposure to the local culture, with its anti-African beliefs, customs, and apartheid social structure. Rogers (1962) studied 500 White subjects in southern Rhodesia to determine factors contributing to racial prejudice. He found that "ethnic affiliation" is of greater predictive value for prejudice toward Africans than origin of birth, i.e., England or Rho- desia. White immigrants to southern Rhodesia quickly adapt to their positions as members of the power elite; their political and economic survival is based on the maintenance of White supremacy. 32 Pettigrew, Allport, and Barnett (1958) in a unique study presented photographic stimuli of White and non-White persons to White African subjects. They found that White South Africans, especially the Afri- kaaners, seem to show a "perceptual vigilance" in their judgment of the people in the photographs in that they tended to report only "White" and "pure African" in spite of the pictured stimuli including Coloureds and Indians. Sex Differences Different observers have reported differing data concerning intolerance toward Africans between White males and females. Calculations of variance convinced MacCrone (1937a) that sex was a relatively minor factor in White intolerance. Inspection of the data presented by him show that sex differences are slight, with the males usually exceeding the females in intolerance. Van den Berghe (1962) presents data which supports MacCrone's findings. He reports a slight difference between males and females concerning social-distance from Africans with one sex not consistently more remote than the other to show a significant difference between sexes. On the other hand, White women keep their dis- tance from non-Whites more consistently than White men jfi 91. 4f... n.3,»; .flw 33 (Pettigrew, 1960). However, in White English-medium schools, girls are significantly closer to Coloureds and Indians than boys are (Lever, 1967). Occupational Factor The evidence concerning the parental attribute influence on intolerance is mixed as it is in the sex factor. A factor sometimes thought important is occu- pation which has been taken as an index of socioeconomic status. MacCrone (1949a, b) and Lever (1966) analyzed their data comparing race and class. They found that race was significantly predictive of prejudice and that socioeconomic level was not. Pettigrew (1960) also found that parent's occupation did not influence the level of intolerance against non-Whites except when he divided his subjects according to region--rural or urban. He found, however, difference between children's racial attitudes when they were separated according to white or blue collar parental occupations. It can be concluded, therefore, that only on a broad scale do socioeconomic differences occur regarding racial atti- tudes in South Africa. Educational Factor The educational level of the parent is another factor that does not yield entirely straightforward evi- dence. Lever and Wagner (1965) reported that as the 34 educational level of pupils in the Johannesburg English- medium provincial high school increased the social- distance from non-Whites also increased. MacCrone (1938, 1954) found that children of parents who were born and educated in another country did not differ in the intolerance towards non-Whites from children whose parents were born and educated in South Africa. Non-White Attitudes Educated African subjects have provided evidence of hostile feelings towards Afrikaaners (MacCrone, 1938) or Whites in general (Crijns, 1960) and have been less disposed than uneducated to admire Whites (Doob, 1962). African workers have preferred African supervisors to White (Reader, 1963), and African clerks have not been as likely to think their efficiency depended upon respectfulness toward White supervisors as their White supervisors have (Sherwood, 1958). Urban Africans in Durban have shown a marked distaste for Indians (Mann, 1955) . In giving stereotypes, African subjects have demonstrated that there is a negligible correlation between the labels they apply to their own group and the labels applied to it by subjects from other ethnic groups (MacCrone, 1937b). Coloured subjects rated as able to pass as White have shown no stronger pro-White orientation 35 than relatively unpassable Coloureds (Mann, 1958). Russell (1961) sampled a group of Coloureds from a Dur- ban residential area who have frequent contact with Whites and Indians. They have shown signs of avoiding both Whites and Indians living nearby. The superiority-inferiority dimension in Indi- ans relative to attitudes towards Whites has emerged' from an experiment involving Indian university students (Mann, 1963). These students on the whole expected themselves to be inferior in social polish but superior in inner qualities such as honesty, humility, etc. Indians, Coloureds, and Africans have been lumped together for comparison with Whites in an inquiry into the attitudes of students of political science. From the comparison, it has appeared that the propor- tion approving marriage between Whites and non-Whites is higher among the non-Whites than among the Whites (Bloom, de Crespigny, and Spence, 1961). These findings notwithstanding, the race atti- tudes of the non-Whites, who after all constitute the vast majority of the population, have not had the attention they deserve. At least part of the neglect is traceable to a lack of appropriate measuring tech- niques. Present-day attitude research is almost invariably research into verbal behavior. Ways by which research can elicit verbalization about different 36 races from non-Whites who may be illiterate, or into whose languages questionnaires cannot easily be trans- lated, are fortunately being develOped. Biesheuvel (1953, 1955, 1958, 1959) has devised not only a ques- tionnaire technique for measuring the attitudes of educated Africans but also methods of interviewing and holding group discussions with uneducated Africans whose attitudes are sought. His techniques are readily adapted to enquiries into attitudes towards ethnic groups. Moreover, de Ridder (1961) has given examples of how a thematic apperception test for Africans can be used to delve into race consciousness. Although some of these methods may force the investigator to work harder at collecting and interpreting data than would be necessary by merely passing out questionnaires and scoring them, they entitle him to be optimistic about gauging non-White attitudes. Non-White Values and Ethnic Rankings Lobban (1971) studied 51 high school subjects and found that these students ranked English-speaking Africans after American Negroes and urban Africans, and the Afrikaans-speaking group was ranked the most nega- tive of all ethnic groups presented. Brett (1963) also found 150 middle-class Africans ranked Americans most positive and Afrikaans-speaking Africans most negative in an ethnic ranking study. 37 'Bieshuevel (1971) presents conflicting data. He drew a random sample of one thousand subjects above the age of seventeen who had at least a sixth-grade education. He was concerned with the possibility of group antagonisms spilling over into individual human relationships and concluded: . . . there is no evidence of the growth of hostility that might lead to a repudiation of European institutions or values, or to a carry- over of race antagonism from the group level into the sphere of individual human relation- ships (p. 314). Jahoda (1959, 1961, 1962) studied the attitudes of Africans towards Whites in Ghana. He surveyed edu- cated and uneducated Africans and found 52 percent of the uneducated felt uncomfortable with Whites whereas only 7 percent of the educated felt uncomfortable. More than 80 percent believed that Whites had a nega- tive attitude toward Africans. Rogers (1959) developed two scales to be used in Western and Central Africa; one to measure the atti- tudes of Europeans toward Africans, and the other to measure the attitudes of Africans toward Europeans. The latter scale was developed for Africans with at least . . . a post-primary knowledge of English. This was essential (he states) because it was found that many of the concepts expressed in English became meaningless when an attempt was made to translate them into African tongues . . . (p. 53). 38 Rogers administered his African form of the attitude questionnaire to 217 students at Ibadan University in Nigeria. The students were drawn from the three regions of Nigeria although the majority came from the Eastern and Western parts. He found that attitudes toward Europeans were generally favorable but not significantly so; these favorable attitudes did not differ along regional or tribal lines--Eastern/Ibo and Western/ Yoruba. Dawson (1964, 1965, 1969) studied 200 Africans in Sierra-Leone. His purpose was to identify the favorableness of attitudes between the differing ethnic and tribal groups and to investigate what Africans think Europeans think about Africans. It was hypothesized that since Syrians and Lebanese control most of the com- mercial life of Sierra-Leone, the Africans and Coloureds (Creoles) would have a negative or unfavorable attitude. In fact, 58 percent of the males tested and 51 percent of the females tested held favorable attitudes toward the Syrians and Lebanese. Concerning the image of Europeans among Africans, 111 out of 200 subjects thought that Europeans thought Africans were "bad." The findings presented by Dawson are not sufficient to permit sound generalizations concerning racial atti- tudes in Sierra-Leone. 39 Theories of Racial Behavior Theories of racial behavior can be classified into broad categories: (a) pseudo-scientific theories, and (b) middle-range scientific theories. The pseudo- scientific theories attempt to explain racial behavior as an aspect of "instinctual" or "biological" differ- ences. The scientific theories, on the other hand, attempt to explain the differences of group racial behavior with quantifiable scientific research. Proponents of the pseudo-scientific approach toward racial behavior have confused the definition of race. "The study of race is the pursuit of knowledge about a biological phenomena" (Nash, 1972, p. 111-112). The analysis of race as a biological phenomena was a result of the discovery of new peoples and cultures during the exploratory period of the seventeenth and and eighteenth centuries. Anthropologists, such as Tyler (1900, 1960), gathered Observational data concerning pe0ple of the non-European world. He was the forerunner of current physical anthropology which deals with the classifica- tion of biological differences among mankind. The early biological differences such as skin pigmentation, cranial capacity, bone structure, and hair type soon became the scientific basis of an ideological movement 4.. 1. .Trlrtfi. u J‘II 40 which proposed to establish the superiority of the "white" western world. The ideology of race is a system of ideas which interprets and defines the meanings of racial differences, real or imagined, in terms of some system of cultural values (Nash, 1972: P- 117)- Building a racial ideology is thus not a func- tion of the state of knowledge about racial differences. It is the response to a situ- ation of social conflict and crisis. Racial ideologies grew up in situations of conflict, where the participants in the conflict have the hereditary, visible, and physical badges of differences. And even if they do not, sym- bols like the yellow stars of Nazi Germany, can be used to mark off a socially visible group with supposed racial characteristics (Nash, 1972, pp. 118-119). During the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century, ideological interpretations of racial behavior have served as the bulwark of nation- alistic and ethnocentric movements. "The various racial theories . . . represented in combined form, may be termed 'the myth' a concept pseudo-scientific in ori- gin. . ." (Snyder, 1939, p. 312). Racial theories in their ideological form have now passed well beyond the situation in which they were born. What was once an attempt to divide mankind into several recognizable groups has developed into a vast and complicated mythology. The earlier search for dif- ferent instincts and emotions which were alleged to exist among different people throughout the world, which are biological in nature, have been confused with the 41 cultural forces. The earlier tendency was to classify peoples and nations on biological grounds, although the social forces which bound peeple together into nations and resulted in different languages, customs and tradi- tions were cultural in nature. The search for "pure races" and "superior races" soon developed into a broad movement reflecting the economic struggle of nations. The proper sphere for the development of racial theories, therefore, is not grounded in biological dif- ferences between racial groups. If these racial behavioral differences can be established scientifically and can be validated subculturally and cross-culturally, a prOper theory of racial behavior can be developed. The social-scientific theories of racial behavior attempt to analyze inter-group racial relationships with one specific factor. These factors range from the historical implications of racial relations to specific psychological explanations. The problem with explaining human behavior by employing one factor is that each factor does not take into account the total variance of racial behavior between two groups. A further problem which the social-scientific theorists have encountered is the confusion of "ethnic" groups with "racial" groups. "When peOple confuse racial with ethnic traits they are confusing what is given by nature and what is acquired through learning" (Allport, 1958, p. 111). In 42 analyzing the two phenomena, racial versus ethnic group interaction, it must be remembered that both race and ethnic concepts are learned within the individual's social environment. He learns to react to a specific group whether this group be labeled as racially dif- ferent or ethnically different. The learned reaction may be similar (e.g., hostility) but the social object, racial Or ethnic, may be perceived as different. Thus, it can be understood that differences between ethnic and racial theories of intergroup relationships are understood only from the actor's point of view. The Group_Norm Theory The Sherifs (1953) have prOposed a group norm theory of racial behavior. They suggest that all groups, whether in-group or reference-groups, develop a way of living with characteristic codes and beliefs, standards and "enemies" to suit their own adaptive needs. These groups develop modes of pressure whereby their individual members are forced, either through reward or punishment, to uphold and defend the group's normative codes of behavior. The group's values (norms) are the main anchor in regulating experience and behavior. 43 Historical Theory Social theorists who hold the historical point of view concerning the theory of racial behavior con- tend that only the total background of a particular racial group's conflict with other groups can lead to the understanding of the group's intergroup racial behavior. That is, only the historical implications of inter-group behavior can explain that group's behavioral relationships. This viewpoint does not attempt to explain why one individual behaves prejudicially toward a specific group and why another does not, as the psychological theorists attempt to do. Rather, they explain racial attitudes due to broad implications of history. The economic determinants of racial behavior is one subclass of the historical explanations of racial inter-group behavior. Cox (1948, 1972) and Mast (1971a, b) attempt to explain racial behavior in the light of Marxian historical determinism. The exploitation theory or economic theory of racial behavior holds that preju- dice is a social attitude prOpagated among the public by an exploiting class for the purpose of stigmatizing some group as inferior so that the exploitation of either the group itself or its resources may be justified. The colonists of the nineteenth century devel- oped sexual and social taboos against non-White persons 44 to restrict them from learning industrial techniques whereby they could develOp their own resources. The White ruling classes also developed separate political, educational, and religious institutions in the foreign colonies which served to separate the White ruling class from the populace of the various colonial posses- sions. A policy of segregation and repression was ‘developedenuiperpetuated by the European colonists in the majority of the African, Asian, and American colo- nies. These taboos, policies and programs served to insulate the White and Coloureds in the various colo- nies and was the basis for future racial conflict between the White and non-White peOples of the colonial areas. While there is some truth in the exploitation theory, it is weak in many particulars. It fails to explain why there is not equal prejudice against all exploited peoples. For example, the history of northern United States differs from southern United States in its segregation and subordinate attitudes towards the Blacks. Furthermore, in Africa, the behavioral differ- ences between the Whites and Blacks in Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa developed differently due to other factors in the various historical, social-structural, and cultural make-up of the countries. 45 Social Structure Theories Some sociologists and anthropologists have attempted to explain racial behavior in terms of social- structural factors within societies and cultures. Many anthrOpologists have found that different societies emphasize different types of social behavior. Benedict (1959) states that varying types of societies or themes within societies are transmitted to individuals through social learning patterns. Thus certain kinds of behaviors are rewarded or punished within that particu- lar society. Firth and Radclif-Brown (Herskovits, 1964) have been concerned with different societies' organiza- tion of social institutions and the particular functions of these insitututions within the culture. Herskovits (1964) states that Firth, a social anthropologist, has developed the term 'social organization' as the sys- tematic organizing of social relations by acts of choice and decision. Societies, then, which have as a focal point the oppression of a particular race or ethnic group, organize their structural institutions (such as economic, political, educational, religious, and sexual) in relationship to those dominant themes of racial and ethnic prejudice. That is, certain sanc- tions are set up against minority groups which do not jpermit them to share equally in the benefits of the specific institutions and resources of the particular 46 society. An excellent example of this type of society is the South African society which has permeated its institutions (political, economic, religious, and edu- cational) with the philosOphy of apartheid and has not permitted an equal sharing of resources to its social minorities, Blacks, Coloureds, and Asians. South Africa is an example of a society which has 'institutionalized' a dominant theme in their cul- ture--apartheid. Concerning the process of institutionalization: Institutionalized behavior, then, refers to culturally and socially established ways of doing things. Institutional behavior is backed by the authority and sanctions of society and hence is predictable and dependable. It reflects the consensus of a society relative to the behavior which is right and prOper in respect to a situation and consequently has the backing of the society. Other behavior will result in social disapproval and probably evoke social sanctions against the deviant (Bell, 1965, PP. 419-420). Some sociologists have focused on the types of social structures, such as class and caste, within a specific society or subculture to explain racial behav- ior. MacCrone (1937a, b) and Warner (1972) are two sociologists who analyzed racial societies or subcul- tures in relationship to class positioning. They have concluded that both South Africa and the southern United States have a type of racial caste positioning which typifies and regulates these specific societies. 1'11 mo. SUI 47 Caste, as Warner uses the term, describes a theoretical arrangement of the people of a given group in an order in which the privileges, duties, obligations, and oppor- tunities are unequally distributed between the groups which are considered to be higher and lower. There are social sanctions which tend to maintain these unequal distributions. Warner concluded that the southern United States is both a type of class and caste system relative to the American Negro. He states: . . . the Negro who has moved or been born into the uppermost group . . . of his caste is superior to the lower whites in class, but inferior in caste. In his own personality he feels the conflict of two opposing structures, and in the thinking and feeling of the members of both groups there is to be found this same conflict about his position (Warner, 1972, p. 366). Nesbit (Glasco, 1973) views and interprets society in terms of "authority" rather than merely posi- tion or role norm behavior. Authority is the key concept through which one can understand the organiza- tion and behavior of societies and their members. By authority Nesbit does not mean "power" as such but the kind of ordered regularity in which the directions and rules, stages, and norms indicate a system of authority. The concept of authority can explain racial behavior more adequately than static social-structural concepts such as caste, class, status, and role. 48 The nineteenth century sociologists were the first to study the importance of community to indi- viduals whether those communities be controlled by an authority system such as religious, local village, tribal chiefdoms, or occupational and guild communi- ties. These sociologists were the first to define the principle of authority which was the mechanism that dicatated human behavior within the specific kinds of communities. Allport presented several social-cultural pos- tulates which must exist in part or totally before the development of racial prejudice can occur: Where the social structure is marked by hetero- geneity Where vertical mobility is permitted Where rapid social change is in progress Where there are ignorance and barriers to com- munication Where the size of a minority group is large or increasing Where direct competition and realistic threats exist Where exploitation sustains important interests in the community Where customs regulating aggression are favor- able to bigotry Where traditional justifications for ethnocen- trism are available Where neither assimilation nor cultural plural- ism is favored (Allport, 1958, pp. 215-216) 49 Few theories which employ the social structure point of view have been able to identify sources of behavior relative to race relations. The Sherifs (1953) have undertaken some experiments in which they have attempted to introduce behavioral change between racial groups. They have found that racial change, no matter how it may be induced, does not continue for any length of time. The old patterns of racial prejudice are not eradicated. Nesbit (Glasco, 1973) suggests that changes within a specific social organization which only rearrange the structural elements or adds new types of conflict and stress do not bring about "real" social changes so that new statuses and modes of human behavior can be develOped. He states that significant changes of social structure cannot be explained causally by mere reference to the kinds of tensions and conflicts or roles, mores, and statuses we find in all social structures. There can be a lot of conflict and devi- ation from norm behavior and still not significantly change social structure. For example, the caste—class system in America between White and Negro relationships shows this to be the case. Changes are not to be explained through structural and functional factors within the society but change is brought about by out- side factors such as technology with its subdivisions (industrialization, modernization, rural-urban migration, 50 increased politicalization and nationalization with the definition of legal equality to the more isolated areas) and the impact of war. The psychological aspects of racial behavior have been the most exhaustively researched. These the— ories postulated that bigoted or prejudicial individuals have a "style of life" or "personality structure" which orientates them to hostile and aggressive adaptive mechanisms toward their environment. Allport categorizes these psychodynamic theories into (a) the frustration theory and (b) the character structure theory. 1. In good standing is the frustration theory of prejudice. It is a psycholbgical theory rooted in the "nature of man." It can readily admit that affiliative needs seem as basic, or more basic, than protest and hatred, and at the same time hold that when positive and friendly advances toward the environment are thwarted, ugly consequences result . . . . All formulations of this theory assume that anger once engendered may be displaced upon a (logically irrelevant) victim. 2. Another type of "nature of man" theory empha- sizes the character structure of the indi- vidual person. Only certain types of people develop prejudice as an important feature in their life. These seem to be insecure and anxious personalities who take the authori- tarian and exclusionist way of life rather than the relaxed and trusting democratic way (Allport, 1958, pp. 209-210). Dollard et al. (1939) have been the main proponents Of the frustration-aggression theory of racial behavior. M<3Lean (1946) is one theorist who explains racial behavior along the psychoanalytic model. Adorno et al. 51 (1950) have interpreted racial behavior by positing an authoritarian personality structure. Racial behavior has been studied from many the- oretical points of view. No one has been able to include "all" aspects of racial attitude. Pettigrew classified the social-psychological theories of racial behavior along a continuum of prejudice: Two extreme positions have been popular. One strongly emphasizing the personality of the bigot and negates his cultural mileu, the other views intolerance as a mere reflection of cul- tural norms and neglects individual differences. Recent evidence lends little support to either pole. As further data are gathered, with more refined research tools, it becomes increasingly apparent that the psychological and social cor- relates Of prejudice are elaborately entwined and that both are essential to provide an ade- quate theoretical framework for this complex phenomenon (Pettigrew, 1960, pp. 216-217). Ehrlich (1973) states that "no single domain of social science" can provide a full understanding or explanation of the structure or dynamics of minority relations in a society. But a theory of racial behavior which will comply with the principles and rigors of theoretical research and which can be sub- culturally relevant must be developed. CHAPTER III INSTRUMENTATION AND RESEARCH DESIGN Jordan's five-facet, six-level facet theory derived scale encompasses Guttman's three-facet, four- 1evel design, expanding the theory in the affective and conative domains. Guttman (Stouffer, 1950, p. 51) defined attitude as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something" and later (Guttman, 1959) divided this delimited totality of behavior into four levels using three facets in what he called a facet approach. This type of approach provides a rigorous a priori paradigm for item construction and analysis (Guttman, 1971) that can be applied to any attitude object, or situation. Specifically, Jordan retained Guttman's four original levels, but added two new levels at the affective and "action" or overt behavior levels. To compare Jordan's facet system with that of Guttman, compare Tables 1 and 2 with Table 3. Guttman included four attitude dimension categories: stereo- type, norm, hypothetical interaction, and personal interaction. According to McGuire (1969), the Guttman facets are primarily concerned with cognitive and affective behavior. Only the last level, hypothetical 52 I... It 53 .H manna mo muooom so oommmm coHuom Hchmuom No No No No mm o mcflaoom HchmHom am No NO No mm m cofluom amowuocuomho Hmcomuom Ho No No do No v coaumsam>o HouoE anaconda am No H0 H9 mm m Euos Hogwaoom am No HO Ho an N ommuoououm HMUOHOOm Ho H0 H0 an an H Shoe ucaon o>aumauomoo oaamonm ousuosuum HO>OAIOQ>B . . . m . mamomnsm .cOwuosHum mosufluu4 mo momwa xwm Hem maoomq can .COHuHmOQEOU OHHMOHm .Ho>oq ucHObII.N mqmda .mamsoocouaseflm muoomm o>Hm Ham mmouom “sod mum m.a.umHHOmQSmV goes on 30H Scum muoomm O>Hm on» mo muom wouoouo may no cocflmoo adamcoflpmuomo ma sofluosuum ucqoom Hmsowumummo No coHuomuoucH No A Hmowuosuomhn m H somwummfioo o Auofl>mnon uuo>ov N cocoauomxo No AHV maom m mumsuo HO moaaon an muonuo Hm A>E\OCHEV maom No How>mnom nowbonom msouw m.uouo< mo camaoa IuousH m.nou0< Amy any HOHUfl HOH>M£OQ UGOHOMOM UCOHOMOM Koo Amy “so .omHO>HcD opsufluu< no mo cOHuosuum mucflOb ocflauouoo 0» coma mDOONMII.H mqmse 54 um M0.m um Hooch mm uo.m no uoomm mm Ho.m “U umomm mm Ho.m "m pooch mm uo.m "m vouch .5 OHQOB mo mucosoumum HchHuHchoc on» cH pommoumxo hHHMOHucmaom mum o OHooa mo mcoHuocHoEOo may .msoHHOw mm commoumxo mum MIH mOHnma mo wuoomm on» MHm II O>HuomuoucH Np MHomEHn mommnsm mo coHuom uuo>o No II H H H II o>HumummEOO o msoum m . uooBfim O MUHHOQ a II HOH>mnom II muononoucH ucouomom HOH>c£om II m.uooflnsm IIIIIIII m.ucouomom ”coauusw AHOH>momn uuo>ov “Ho HmcoHumuomo No COHuomuoucH mo A%E\OCHEV MHom NO OOGUHuomxo Nn MHom mm H H H H H HMOHuonuom>£ o somwnmgfioo o muonuo O MOHHOQ n muocuo m HOH>mnom m.uouo« HOH>mnom msoum “Opus MOH>mcom ucouomom mmmmmmm mo GHMEOQ IuoucH m.uouo¢ ucouomom m a U m d :OHumcmHmoo COHumummo¢ cuckoo CH cmumomm .mcoHumsmeoo uoomm cmouoo can cosuuso mo comHHmmBOUII.m mamas 55 interaction, includes any conative material or "intention to act." It is at this point that Jordan visualized the need to expand Guttman's facet attitude theory. Jordan places special emphasis on the affective and conative elements of attitude-behavior. His approach, while including Guttman's four levels (cognitive and affective elements), more specifically extends into the realm of conative behavior. His two additional levels, personal feelings (level 5) and actual personal action (level 6), extend the theory to self-reported feelings and real and externally verifiable behavior. Levels 5 and 6 evaluate the subject's actual feelings and actions, instead of his cognitive thoughts, beliefs, and opinions, as measured in the first four levels. Levels 5 and 6 appear to be the crucial levels at which "acting out" attitu- dinal change occurs (see Tables 2 and 3 for a more explicit examination of Jordan's six levels and a com- parison of Guttman and Jordan facet designations). Semantic Paths According to Jordan (1971b), the Cartesian product of the five two-element/facets of Table 1 yields 32 possible profiles (Table 5). Tables 3 and 4 propose a structured or ordered definitional or semantic system for the relationships between the six scale levels. As shown in Table 4, six of the profiles of Table 6 were 56 .mmHHmoMm umHHownsm was muoomm How 5 mHnma oomo omUQOSOHMUm HMQOflUflUOG HON m OHQMB OOWQ .MIH mOHfldB HO MUOOMN CO waflmfl coHuom Hmcomuom No No No No mm m H E o a o mcHHoom Hmcomuom Ho No No no mm s H E o H m coHuom HNOHuoouomws Hmcomuom Ho No No HQ No a H E 9 H v sOHumsHm>o HOHOE HMGOmHom Ho No HO HA mm a H O n H m Enos HMHOHoom Ho No HO HA Hm c H O Q o m Oahuououm HMDOHoom Ho H0 H0 Ho Ho o o O a o H sums m mHnme eH smummm o oHnma eH soummm Hm>mqumm>e o>HumHuomoo Ho>oH mosuHuu¢ nHmsOHuouoz ha OHHmoum OHNGOHuHchon an OHHMOHm OHmoszm M .coHuosuum meauauua we wanna Ram Hoe mannaq can .aoauamooaoo mHHmoum .Hm>mn ucaoeun.e mamas 57 TABLE 5.--Combinations of Five Two-Element Facetsa of Table l. Facetsb Permutations A B C D E l l l 1 1 l 2 l 1 l 2 l 3 2 1 1 l l 4 2 l l 2 1 5 1 l 2 l l 6 1 l 2 2 l 7 2 l 2 l 1 8 2 1 2 2 1 9 l 2 1 1 l 10 1 2 1 2 1 ll 2 2 l 1 l 12 2 2 1 2 1 13 l 2 2 l 1 l4 1 2 2 2 1 15 2 2 2 l l 16 2 2 2 2 1 17 1 l 1 1 2 18 1 l l 2 2 l9 2 l 1 1 2 20 2 1 l 2 2 21 l l 2 l 2 22 1 l 2 2 2 23 2 l 2 1 2 24 2 1 2 2 2 25 1 2 l 1 2 26 1 2 1 2 2 27 2 2 l 1 2 28 2 2 l 2 2 29 1 2 2 1 2 30 l 2 2 2 2 31 2 2 2 l 2 32 2 2 2 2 2 aSubscript "1" indicates weak element; "2" indi- cates strong element. bSee Table l for facets. 58 TABLE 6.--Combinations of Five Two-Element Facetsa and Rules for Elimination. Combinations Facets and Subscripts . c BaSIS of Elimination b In In N°' Table 7 Table 4 A B C D E 1 1 Level 1 o b o c h 2 2 Level 2 o b o i h 3 3 -- i b o c h 4 4 Level 3 i b o i h 5 5 -- o b m c h 6 6 -- o b m i h 7 7 -- i b m c h 8 8 Level 4 i b m i h 9 -- ' -- o e o c h 2 10 9 —- o e o i h 11 -- -- i e o c h l 2 12 -- -- i e o i h l 13 -- -- o e m c h l 2 l4 -- —- o e m i h l 15 -- -- i e m c h 2 16 10 Level 5 i e m i h 17 -- -- o b o c p 3 4 18 -- -- o b o i p 4 19 -- —- i b o c p 3 4 20 -- -- i b o i p 4 21 -- -- o b m c p 3 4 22 -- -- o b m i p 4 23 -- -- i b m c p 3 4 24 -- -— i b m i p 4 25 -- -- o e o c p 2 3 26 ll -- o e o i p 27 -- -- i e o ' c p l 2 3 28 -- -- i e o i p l 29 ~- -- o e m c p l 30 -- -— o e m i p l 31 -- -- i e m c p 2 3 32 12 Level 6 i e m i p 3See Table l for facets. Numbering arbitrary, for identification only. Logical semantic analysis as follows: Rule 1--an "e" in facet B must be preceded and followed by equiva- lent elements, both "0"; or "i" in facet A or "m" in facetCL Rule 2--a "c" in facet D cannot be preceded by an "e" in facet B. Rule 3--a "c" in facet D cannot be followed by a "p" in facet E. Rule 4--a "p" in facet E cannot be preceded by a "b" in facet B. 59 chosen as psychologically relevant, potentially capable of instrumentation, and possessing a specific relation- ship among themselves--a simplex order. Maierle presents an extensive discussion of the 32 profiles, the specific rules by which the twelve profiles in Table 7 are retained and the seven "semantic paths" possible between these twelve profiles: i.e., the six levels presented in Table 4 agree with Maierle semantic path C, although they were extant prior to that (Maierle, 1969; Jordan, 1971b). Maierle (1969) developed rules for the elimina- tion of some of the theoretical combinations. For various logical or semantic reasons, only twelve of the 32 possi- ble combinations of Table 6 appear to make sense. For example, the weak element "believe" in Facet B can be preceded or followed by either "others" or "I"; this is not the case with the strong element "experience." As it is used here, "experience" is limited to the self- experience of the subject in intergroup-behavior ("interact" or "compare"). This implies that only the following combinations are possible: "I experience my interaction or comparison" or "others experience their interactions or comparisons" but not "I experience others' interactions or comparisons" (see Table 6, Rule 1). 6() .muonsos Ho>oH msoHuo> uo mmHnmcoHu . o>oq CH mucofio o ocou m 0 Hana: I. ImHou ouooHccH mononucousm :H moan: oumcuouHHHmcoHuouumo NONvNoNANm coHuom Huc0muom HHOH>onon uuo>ov mcoHuomuoqu am oucOHuomxm.M m NH m H a o H o >HHooHuoauomhm HONoNoNnNo mcHHoou Hmcomuom c. AmocHHoom. msoHuoououmw mm oo:OHuom&m.m v 0H s H E o a m >HHmcoHumuumo coHuoo macho Hosuod mcoHuoouoqu muonmm OOCOHHOQXM muozum HH m H o o o :oHuom m HONvNOHnNm .aoHuonuomsg .meomuom .. NHHaoHuonuooxm mcoHuumuouaH Na o>mH.om.m m n H s n a e AmmcHHoou macaw Hmsuoov huHucovH macho AmcoHuouooaxo >HHooHuonuomam macho. maoH OOBHNHUOHA mcoHuomuouQM muonum OOCOHMOQKW muonum m a H o o o Hmououm HocONHom vocmHmwm >HHc0Huonuomxm mcoHuoououom am o>oHHum muonum o g H B A o mHHoconuomo uQOOCOOIuHom >HHmoHuonuomxm mcomHuomEQm hm o>0HHum.m N n n o B n H HmosHo> vo>Hoouomv >HHmoHuonuomxm HONvHoHANo :oHuosHm>o Hones Ho:0muom «e mCOHuomuouQM muoswm o>OHHum.m v n H o n H m msumum . Hmcowuom cocmHmmMImsouU >HHm0Huonuomxm mcomHummEQm am O>OHHum muonum m n o 6 n o EH0: HouOHoom >HHmoHuosuomxm HONcHoHnHo maumum ac msoHuoououQM .muogwm O>OHHUm muonum H N n a o n o msouo cosmHmmthHHMCORHOA >HHooHuoouomxm mcomHuwmfiom .muocum o>oHHum.m m o o o n H N Hm:HMum H H H H H msoum cocmHmmm msoumo mcom Ransom mum .WHMMMMuOMuMMMm.I o W M a M amsuomumua HauoHoom .. H . a» .Hon nuo o H a n H . a 63a... 3398 ooadz o>HumHuomoo oucofiououm HmcoHuHCHuoo a 02 cH .oz vouch Ho>oq HacoHUHcaumn one .aoHHuoum nouns .mcoHumcHnEoo o>H039 wow musoaousum .wHo>oq . mcoHumuHHanuo> ouauHuua uo Bowman Ho>oquHm uoummuo>HmII.n mamas fl 61 Continuing with the example given above, the redundancy implied by the strong element "experience" of Facet B, the actor's intergroup behavior (Facet D) must be consistent herewith: they both must refer to the same person or group of persons. If the referent and actor are experiencing-acting (strong element of Facet B), he or they cannot simultaneously be seen simply in compari- son (weak element of Facet D) (see Table 6, Rule 2). The domain of the actor's behavior can be hypo- thetical (weak element of Facet E) whether the actor's intergroup behavior is comparative or interactive, but it can be operational (strong element in Facet E) only if there is interaction (see Table 6, Rule 3). Finally, if the domain of the actor's behavior is operational (strong element of Facet E), then the expression of belief (weak element of Facet B) would seem inconsitent--i.e., if the actor is really inter— acting, he cannot only believe he interacts, but he must 1 really experience himself as interacting (see Table 6, Rule 4). Theory and Construction of the ABS Theory and construction of the items followed a systematic a priori method instead of the Likert method lProvision is made for the situation in which an individual is not certain whether a particular item applies; he can answer "uncertain" in order not to com- bine "belief" and "Operational behavior" (Appendix A). 62 of intuition or the Thurstone use of judges. Guttman's (1959) facet theory specifies that the attitude universe represented by the item content can be substructured into behavioral profiles which are systematically rela- ted according to the number of identical conceptual or semantic elements they hold in common. The substruc- turing of an attitude-behavior universe into facets and elements facilitates an a priori sampling of items within each of the derived profiles and also enables the predic- tion of relationships between various profiles of the universe. This should also provide a set of clearly defined profile areas for cross-cultural comparisons. "Attitudes involve not only object-specificity but situation-specificity and object-subject relation- ships" (Jordan, 1970, p. 48). Guttman suggests a common semantic meaning; a progression from a weak to a strong form of behavior of the subject vis-a-vis the attitude object. Examination of Table 1 indicates the rationale of this ordering system. Facet A--the referent 'other' is weaker than 'self' in being Iess personal. Facet B--'be1ief' is weaker than 'action' in being 'passive' rather than 'active.‘ Facet C--referring to the behavior of 'other' rather than that of 'self' is weaker in that it implies less personal involvement. 63 Facet D--'comparative' behavior is weaker than 'interactive' behavior. It does not Imply social contact, and a comparison is more passive than interaction. Facet E--'hypothetical' behavior is weaker than '9peraEIOnal.‘ It does not imply actIng out behavior. The above analysis is restricted to the ordering implied in the five facets of Table 1. The rationale used in the selection of the item content or lateral dimension of the various Attitude- Behavior Scales attempted to "order" the item content via three principles: 1. Ego involvement: Cognitive-affective. Is the "attitude object in situation y" dealt with cognitively or affectively? 2. Social distance: Distant-close. Is the "attitude object in situation y" distant or close to one's self? 3. Relevance: Low-high. Is "situation y" relevant and/or important to the subject? Consistent with the above discussion of the weak-strong principle developed in Tables 1 through 7, a positive or stronger attitude would be expressed by a subject who "agreed with and was close to" items that dealt with the attitude object in "highly important situ- ations that involved the self in close interpersonal action" (Jordan, 1968). Two types of data analysis are indicated: (a) an analysis of the facets across the six levels, i.e., whether or not the simplex is obtained; and 64 (b) an analysis of the scalar nature of the content within each of the six subscales. The first analysis deals with the joint dimension and the second with the lateral dimension (Jordan, 1968). The Simplex Approximation and the ABS As previously stated in discussion of the con- tiguity hypothesis, subuniverses closer to each other in the semantic scales or their definitions will be closer statistically. Kaiser (1962) suggests a procedure for testing a simplex approximation: ". . . for scaling the vari- ables of a Guttman simplex . . . the procedure . . . orders the variables. A measure of goodness of fit of the scale to the data is suggested" (p. 155). Kaiser's approach may be seen as performing two functions: (a) an assessment of the empirically obtained one (the Q2 value range from 0.00 to 1.00), and (b) a "sorting" of virtually all possible adjacent pairs of matrix entrees so as to generate the "best" empirically possible simplex approximation. A computer program was developed which (a) re-ordered the adjacent pairs of level members of each matrix, by Kaiser's procedure, so as to generate the empirically best possible simplex approximation, and (b) calculated 02 for the hypothesized ordering of and for the empirically best ordering of each matrix. 65 It has been suggested (Hamersma, Paige and Jor- dan, 1974) that "6-reversals" should be the maximum possible in a 6 x 6 data matrix to still consider it as "approximating" a simplex. By the "6-reversa1" criteria, a 02 value of .60 would be minimal, and, preferably, a value of .70 for a 6 x 6 matrix to be acceptable as a simplex (Jordan, 1970). Reliability and Validity of the ABS-BW7WB Scale Standard reliability procedures were applied to the Attitude-Behavior Scales since they were new scales. An item analysis was run on the ABS inter-item correla- tion matrices and item-to-subscale correlations. The reliability coefficients for the ABS-BW/WB ranged between .70 and .95. The method used for reliability was the Hoyt (1967) method which produces a coefficient similar to the Kuder-Richardson 20-measure of internal consis- tency. The reliability coefficients found in the studies compare favorably to those of many tests described by Anastasi (1968). Facet theory guided the selection of content items and insured that known aspects of the item universe were sampled (Jordan, 1970). An analysis of results of the six ABS levels yields additional support for construct validity, since the postulated semantic structure (cognitive, affective, conative) and the obtained structure (i.e., the simplex) 66 are in essential agreement. Evidence for construct validity is seen in analysis of the simplex data. An obtained simplex indicates that the semantic structure is in agreement (Brodwin, 1973). The South African Form of the ABS-BW/WB‘ As noted in the scale development report (Hamersma, Paige, and Jordan, 1974) seven "content" .facets were used to determine the items of the scales: (C) characteristics, (E) education, (H) housing, (J) jobs, (L) law and order, (P) political activism, and (W) war and military. The L, P, and W facets were omitted since the items dealt with issues or situations that were not possible within the African interracial context (Table 8). Figure 1 combines both the attitude content (lateral) dimension and the subject-object dimension (joint) into one semantic "mapping sentence" that depicts the total facet theory research paradigm of the general Black/White scale, the ABS-BW/WN—G. The only changes in the two versions of the scales for 'Blacks' and 'Whites' were in the referent 2The ABS-BW/WB instrument has been deposited with NAPS. Order NAPS document #02144 from ASIS, National Auxiliary Publication Service c/o Microfiche Publications, 305 East 46th Street, New York, New York 10017; remitting $1.50 for microfiche or $5.00 for photocopies up to 30 pages. Note that the scale contains the L, P, and W facets omitted in this cross-cultural project. TI J... 67 a . b TABLE 8.~~Items for ReVIsed ABS:BW/WB~SAF. New Contentc Scale Items for Revised General (G) Scale Areas No. 1. C --can be trusted with money 2. C -—families are close knit 3.‘ E --intellectual ability 4. 9 E --desire a higher education 5. H --help their neighbors 6. ‘ H --neighbors are safe 7. J --obey job rules and regulations 8. J --enjoy working with . . . a . 9. L --reSISt arrest 10.a L --are the victims of "police brutality" ll.a P --misuse trial-by-jury 12.a P -—vote for . . . candidates for public office l3.a W --desire draft deferments l4.a W --are careful with their weapons aThe L, P, and W items were not used in this study. See text for explanation. bSee Hamersma, Paige, and Jordan (1973) for original scale development article. c . . . . C = characteristics, E = education, H = houSIng, J = jobs, L = law and order, P = political activism, W = war and mili- tary. 68 =.m: rmDOHLu :d: muoumw mo>Ho>cH coHuosuum ucHoo :.x= Losouzu :m: muoomw mw>Ho>cH coHuusuum Hmumumq o wCOmuom oquz no xomHm oumzou oocon> nuH3 o>Hucooc Hx OO:OHo> Ax. ocHaoo HouoH>cnon ouHmmoo m: ann no N HmucoesuumcH mH N N uHouu Hosuoc n o>Huoono NH uHoru wo cosmoon : coHucsHm>w asHoOE o uHmuu pousoHuuuo Hfl o>HuHcooo HH Ou uoommou nqu H: . 30H Hm Hm>oq uHmuB omNB uHoua «moooum coHuosHm>m moccuummEH Ado AH. Hm. HOV >umuHHHE can no: em a NIIIaI ~ EmH>Huom HcOHuHHOQ w cH mCOmuom HHmcoHumuo O o N ocH>Ho>cH noouo one 3cH mu moan: Ho xoon nqu muomuoucH c . .u2090\oHso3v mQOn cw .NwHooHuOSuomNn Ho mono Boo Ho mchson mm uoH>mzom m.u0uo< HOH>mnom coHumosvo Nu mo cHoEoo msowmuoucH m.u0uo¢ muHumHuouoouuzo Hm AM. Any wcoHumsun oqu .mo HHS N Hobos A>E\ocHEv HumH>mron uuo>ov mm: uHom m on» uHom No Houom or» mocoHuomxo No on: .ouo .coucoHuomxw ucouowou ou umcu mH>IMImH> H >Hucsoo >5 :H wouanuuum Ax. uooflndm muozuo Ho uoHHon n muonuo Hm uOuo< uoH>mcom acouomom ucououom AU. Amy Adv .cm0uon 0cm mEmuoEom an ow>Ho>mc N o>HuHmom x .uocuo zoom oumzoa moosuHuud .moanz use .mxoon mo :oHuuzuum OHmuoucH can ucHoo no mHm>Hmc¢ vouch onu qu mucoucom mchszII.H ouson n . a 69 labels: The United States, Kenyan, and Nigerian ver- sions used the labels 'Black' and 'White'; and the South African version used the labels 'European' and 'African.‘ Sample The sample for this research was drawn from the first year psychology students in Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Georgia, and Michigan with a control group of Ed 429 students at Michigan State University. The sub- jects were composed of black and white, male, and female students. Randomness and homogeneity with this popula- tion was assumed. The African data bank on which this research is based was gathered by professors in the g o 0 3 various African countries. Hypotheses The hypotheses for this research have been generated from three major theoretical areas: (a) cross- cultural research and instrumentation, (b) social- cultural theories of behavior, and (c) individual determinants of behavior. The hypotheses are presented with the theoretical rationale on which they are based, 3Special appreciation is expressed to Dr. F. M. M. O. Okatcha of the University of Nairobi, Kenya; Dr. Leonard Bloom of the University of Nigeria, Nigeria; and Dr. J. W. Mann of the University of Witwaterstran, South Africa. However, the interpretation of the data is strictly that of the author and is not to be attribu- ted to his African colleagues. 70 as well as the statistical procedure by which the hypotheses were tested. H-l: The ABS-BW/WB, SAF will rank order cross-culturally invariant. The instrument used in this study (ABS-BW/WB, SAF) will form a Guttman simplex across levels. The statistic is a Kaiser reliability of 02 greater than or equal to .70. According to Guttman's (1959) conti- guity hypothesis, levels that are closer together semantically will be closer statistically. The level- by-level correlation matrix will approximate a simplex, unless the items were incorrectly written or inaccurately assigned to levels. H12: There is a positive relationship between high efficacy scores and posi- tive attitudes toward the Opposite race. A high score on this variable (efficacy) indi- cates a person who feels in control of his environment and, therefore, less threatened by it. It is postulated that high scorers will have more positive racial atti- tudes. Hamersma (1969) found a positive relationship between scores on the efficacy variable and favorable attitudes toward the Opposite racial group. Dell Orto (1970) found a significant relationship for Whites 4For this hypothesis and all following hypothe— ses in which tests of significance are involved, the statement of the hypothesis is in the research form rather than the null form for purposes of clarity. 71 between efficacy and positive attitudes at level 4 (per- sonal hypothetical action) and level 5 (personal action) of the ABS-BW/WN-G. Allport and Kramer (1946) found that people who were nonefficacious had a jungle philosophy of life, viewing the world as basically evil and dangerous. The statistic employed is product moment corre- lations (r) at p < .05 level of confidence. H:3: There is a positive relationship between a high score on new methods of child rearing and favorableness toward the OppOSlte race. It has been suggested that persons who are open to innovative child rearing techniques are also open to ethnic and racial out-groups. However, Hamersma (1969) found no significant relationship between new child rearing practices and positive racial attitudes. The statistic employed is product moment corre- lations (r) at p < .05 level of confidence. H:4: There is a positive relationship between urbanity and attitudes toward the opposite race. Hamersma (1969) has tested this hypothesis for American White and Black groups and concludes that for the Black group, people who state that automation should be encouraged are inclined to have favorable attitudes towards the opposite racial group. The statistic employed is product moment corre- lations (r) at p < .05 level of confidence. .4 72 H-5: There is a positive relationship between agreement on birth control practices and positive attitudes toward the Opposite race. It has been suggested that persons in developing countries who have a favorable attitude toward birth con- trol are more tolerant of racial and ethnic groups within their society (Glasco, 1973). The statistic employed is product moment correla- tions (r) at p < .05 level of confidence. H-6: The White samples will rank order from lowest to highest (South Africa, Georgia, and MSU White) on positive attitudes toward the Opposite race. The Blacks will rank order from low- est to highest (MSU Black, Kenya, and Nigeria) on positive attitudes toward the Opposite race. I \J Some sociologists and anthropologists have attempted to explain racial behavior in terms of social- structural factors within societies and cultures. Many anthropologists have found that different societies emphasize different types of social behaviors (Benedict, 1959; Herskovits, 1964). Thus it can be postulated that Whites and Blacks will display differing degrees of attitudes toward members of the opposite race due to their social, cultural, and historical development. The statistic employed for H-6 and H-7 is analy- sis of variance (F) between paired groups at p < .05 level of confidence. 73 H-8: Racial groups which control the social- structural institutions of their soci- ety and which are dominant statistically, will display a more positive attitude toward members of the Opposite race and have a lower frequency of contact with that race than groups which dominate their social-structural institutions but are in a statistical minority. Munger (1967), de Blij (1962), and Kuper (1965) have suggested that Whites in South Africa must through necessity have a high degree of contact with Blacks yet holdainegative attitude. It is postulated that groups in a numerical minority must perpetuate segregation and repression toward the statistical majority, if they wish to hold and maintain control Of the economic, political, and legal institutions of the society. The statistic employed is mean difference .between groups at p < .05 level of confidence. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This study investigated several hypotheses (zoncerned with attitudes of Whites and Blacks in Africa ernd the United States. The Attitude Behavior Scale (ABS-SAF) was used: testing White "attitudes toward IBlacks" and Black "attitudes toward Whites." Analysis Procedure The data were analyzed on the CDC 6500 at the bdichigan State University Computer Center. Table 15 (Lpage 101) contains the basic variable list used in 1:}1is study. {agescriptive Statistics Two Frequency Column Count Programs were used to czcxmpile the frequency distributions for every item in tile instrument used in this study. This procedure was “Sieful to insure accurate representation of the data on Catrds prior to running it in computational programs. Statistical Analysis In the CDC STATROUT Program a great amount of ditta can be employed in one analysis. Separate analyses 74 75 can be done for the total group and for any number of subgroups Of partitionings of the data. For each speci- fied group, e.g., total, ABS-SAF "toward Blacks," ABS- SAF "toward Whites," etc., a number of statistics can be requested. Those used for each partitioning in the research were the means and standard deviations for each variable and the matrix of simple correlations between all variables. 7 Two sample t-tests for dependent samples were used in the analysis. Simplex Approximation Kaiser (1962) suggested a procedure for testing for a simplex approximation. Kaiser's approach may be seen as performing two functions: (a) the 'sorting' and rearranging Of adjacent pairs, and (b) the assignment of a statistic, 02, to the original and rearranged matrices. The index 02 is a descriptive one, with a range of 0.00 to 1.00. A computer program has been developed at Michigan State University which (a) reorders the Obtained level number correlations of each ABS-BW/WB, SAF matrix by Kaiser's procedure to generate the 'best' empirically possible simplex approximation, and (b) calculates the 02 for both the Obtained and the empirically best order- ing of each matrix. 76 Significance Level The .05 level was accepted as constituting sig- nificance beyond chance for correlational coefficients, and analysis of variance data in the present research. Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 The ABS-BW/WB, SAF scores will rank order cross- culturally invariant.5 The simplex approximation hypothesis was tested by use of the CDC STATROUT computer program at the Michigan State University Computer Center to produce level-to-level correlations which were then subjected to Kaiser's (1962) simplex approximation test. The obtained matrix was submitted to a procedure that "evaluates" the obtained correlation matrix, resulting in a Q2 value. The program also rearranges adjacent pairs of coefficients into the best possible simplex order and computes a "best" approximation, Qz. Table 9 represents the means and standard deviations and Q2 values for both the original matrix and for the "best apprOximation" for every group and for every category. All OQ2 and BQ2 simplex values are equal to or greater than .70, except for Georgia males where OQ2 = .58 and 5The hypotheses are stated in the research form although the statistical programs used the standard null procedures. 77 . a . . . . TABLE 9.--Samp1e Size, Means, and Standard Dev1ation for Selected Variablesb of the African- United States Racial Attitude Study. mast! tau“ nu Kenyad Range Variable of Totals Females Males Scores N M SD N M SD N M SD 1. Stereotype 8-24 152 17.24 2.48 30 16.10 2.67 122 17.52 2.36 g u 2. Normative 8-24 152 17.15 2.48 30 16.77 2.21 122 17.25 2.54 3 g 3. Moral cval. 8-24 152 16.58 3.12 30 16.87 3.22 122 16.71 3.10 3 g 4. Hypothetical 8-24 152 18.34 3.68 30 17.37 3.34 122 18.54 7.74 2 8 5. Feeling 8-24 151 19.91 2.57 30 19.60 2.34 121 19.98 2 62 6. Action 8-24 152 14.02 5.20 30 13.63 4.27 122 14.12 5.42 > 7. Stereotype 8-24 152 19.97 2.53 30 19.90 2.55 122 19.99 2.53 392 8. Normative 8-24 152 19.66 2.55 30 19.50 2.64 122 19.71 2.54 3 g 9. Moral cval. 8-24 152 20.73 2.44 30 20.93 2.27 122 20.68 2.49 3 3 10. Hypothetical 8-24 152 21.22 3.16 30 20.77 3.59 122 21.34 3.05 2 g 11. Feeling 8-24 151 21.87 2.35 30 21.87 2.39 121 21.87 2.35 12. Action 8-24 152 18.28 5.14 30 19.07 5.72 122 18.09 5.34 g 13. Efficacy--C 9-36 122 28.52 6.04 22 27.18 7.42 100 28.81 5.70 3 l4. Efficacy—~l 9-36 126 18.89 5.18 23 18.13 6.29 103 19.06 4.92 > .3 15. Sex 1-2 152 1.80 .40 30 1.00 .00 122 2.00 .00 -g 16. Age 1-5 152 1.97 .45 30 1.83 .65 122 2.01 .38 g 17. Marital 1-5 152 1.80 .49 30 1.97 .56 122 1.75 .47 g 18. Religion 1-5 152 2.68 .99 30 3.07 .79 122 2.59 1.01 5 19. Education, amt. of 1-5 152 1.09 .45 30 1.03 .18 122 1.10 .49 Q 20. Urbanity 1-4 151 3.30 .83 30 3.13 .86 121 3.34 .82 g 21. Child rearing 1-4 152 3.03 .84 30 3.07 .69 122 3.03 .88 2 22. Birth control 1—4 147 1.72 .88 29 1.97 .87 118 1.66 .87 U . u 23. Kind 1-3 147 3.82 1.72 29 4.03 1.55 118 3.76 1.76 g 24. Amount 1-5 143 3.86 1.25 26 3.96 1.40 117 3.84 1.22 2 25. Avoidance 1-5 136 3.05 1.48 24 2.25 l 60 112 2.01 l 46 8 26. Gain 1-5 137 3.55 1.10 24 3.71 1.04 113 3.51 1.12 27. Enjoyment 1-5 135 3.47 1.81 25 3.16 1.91 110 3.55 1.79 2 28. Projudicc--rcducc 1-5 132 3.58 1.67 23 3.52 1.04 109 3.60 1.20 '8 29. Racial attitude 1-5 132 2.92 .59 24 3.00 .59 108 2.90 .60 g 30. Ethnicity 1-5 132 1.53 .96 24 1.79 1.14 108 1.47 .91 2 2 2 c 0Q = .80 0Q = .80 0Q = .78 SIMPLEX ANALYSIS BQ2 = .82 BQ2 = .89 BQ2 = .85 aMeans do not always agree between tables due to problems of missing data. Based on the Attitude-Behavior Scale (ABS—BW/WB): 112270 SAF edition. Simplex analysis via the Kaiser Q2 procedure: 0Q = "original" (empirical), BQ2 = "best“ possible data. dBlacks toward Whites version (Kenya). (1 0f 7) TABLE 9.--Continued. 78 Nigeriae Range Variables of Totals Females Males Scores N M SD N M SD N M SD 1. Stereotype 8-24 87 16.32 2.28 27 15.96 1.95 59 16.46 2.42 g u 2. Normative 8-24 87 18.21 2.54 27 17.41 2.64 59 18.51 2.42 3 5 3. Moral eval. 8-24 87 19.10 2.64 27 19.52 2.42 59 18.86 2.73 3 g 4. Hypothetical 8-24 87 20.71 2.26 27 20.30 2.27 59 20.85 2.24 g 8 5. Feeling 8-24 87 20.44 2.58 27 20.26 2.18 59 20.46 2.74 6. Action 8-24 85 14.37 2.56 26 12.96 4.52 58 14.88 5.88 > 7. Stereotype 8-24 87 19.36 3.33 27 20.04 3.35 59 19.02 3.32 3_fi 8. Normative 8-24 87 19.74 3.40 27 20.00 3.36 59 19.54 3.42 3 g 9. Moral eval. 8-24 87 20.48 3.32 27 20.82 2.75 59 20.27 3.56 3 3 10. Hypothetical 8-24 87 22.09 2.44 27 22.00 2.29 59 22.10 2.54 2 5 11. Feeling 8-24 87 21.77 2.91 27 22.11 2.04 59 21.58 3.24 12. Action 8-24 85 17.31 6.02 26 16.50 5.72 58 17.55 6.17 ,g 13. Efficacy-~C 9-36 86 29.20 4.17 26 29.73 4.07 59 28.88 4.21 g 14. Efficacy--l 9-36 86 21.59 2.92 26 21.42 2.80 59 21.68 3.01 ,3 15. Sex 1-2 86 1.69 .47 27 1.00 .00 59 2.00 .00 -& 16. Age 1-5 85 2.06 .36 27 1.93 .39 58 2.12 .33 g 17. Marital 1-5 86 1.79 .41 27 1.74 .45 59 1.81 .39 g 18. Religion 1-5 84 2.56 .87 27 2.48 .64 56 2.57 .95 g 19. Education, amt. of 1-5 86 2.12 .89 27 1.70 .87 58 2.29 .84 Q 20. Urbanity 1-4 87 3.48 .75 27 3.37 1.04 59 3.53 .57 m 3 21. Child rearing 1-4 86 3.30 .69 27 3 48 .58 58 3.21 .72 .2 22. Birth control 1-4 81 2.00 .99 25 1 92 1 07 55 2 02 95 o 23. Kind 1-3 81 3.69 1.77 25 3.40 1.92 55 3.80 1.71 3 24. Amount 1-5 81 3.96 1.34 25 3.88 1.51 55 4.00 1.28 .3 25. Avoidance 1-5 80 2.10 1.55 25 1.52 1.16 54 2.32 1.61 5 26. Gain 1-5 as 4.01 1.21 27 3.70 1.51 58 4.14 1.03 (J 27. Enjoyment 1-5 84 3.67 1.81 25 4.20 1.53 58 3.48 1.88 '3 28. Prejudice--reduce 1-5 86 4.01 .99 27 3.59 1.15 58 4.19 .85 '3 29. Racial attitude 1-5 86 2.92 .56 27 2.85 .53 58 2.93 .56 (E 30. Ethnicity 1-5 84 2.87 1.10 25 2.96 1.10 58 2.81 1.10 2 2 2 c 0Q = .82 0Q = .77 00 a .82 SIMPLEX ANALYSIS BQ2 = .95 BQ2 = .82 BQ2 = .92 CSimplex analysis via the Kaiser Q2 procedure: 0Q: = "original" (empirical), e BQ = "best" possible data. Blacks toward Whites version (Nigeria). (2 of 7) TABLE 9.--Continued. 79 South Africaf Range Variable of Totals Females Males Scores N M SD N M SD N M SD 1. Stereotype 8-24 180 12.31 2.48 129 12.45 2.51 51 11.96 2.42 8 u 2. Normative 8-24 179 11.88 3.56 129 11.86 3.45 50 11.92 3.85 3 5 3. Moral eval. 8-24 181 18.40 3.68 130 18.42 3.61 51 18.37 3.91 n g 4. Hypothetical 8-24 181 18.02 3.50 130 18.05 3.60 51 17.94 3.26 g 8 5. Feeling 8-24 179 21.15 3.38 129 21.23 3.27 50 20.94 3.67 6. Action 8-24 179 13.64 5.50 128 13.22 5.35 51 14.71 5.78 > 7. Stereotype 8-24 180 17.44 2.93 129 17.56 3.04 51 17.16 2.63 3': 8. Normative 8-24 179 18.18 2.96 129 18.08 3.07 50 18.44 2.67 3 g 9. Moral eval. 8-24 181 19.83 3.21 130 19.70 3.25 51 20.16 3.09 3 3 10. Hypothetical 8-24 181 19.53 3.68 130 19.50 3.67 51 19.61 3.75 2 5 11. Feeling 8-24 179 21.73 3.42 129 21.65 3.34 50 21.92 3.65 12. Action 8-24 179 15.92 5.19 128 15.81 5.25 51 16.20 5.06 g 13. Efficacy--C 9-36 180 27.96 3.78 129 28.22 3.67 51 27.29 3.98 g 14. Efficacy--1 9-36 180 20.40 3.04 129 20.42 2.74 51 20.35 3.73 _g 15. Sex 1—2 181 1.28 .45 130 1.00 .00 51 2.00 .00 ii 16. Age 1-5 181 1.17 .45 130 1.12 .43 51 1.31 .47 g 17. Marital 1-5 181 2.00 .30 130 2.02 .32 51 1.94 .24 g 18. Religion 1-5 181 3.29 1.07 130 3.36 .97 51 3.12 1.29 19. Education, amt. of 1-5 181 1.19 .46 130 1.12 .32 51 1.37 .66 3 20. Urbanity 1-4 180 3.13 .68 129 3.16 .62 51 3.06 .81 6 g 21. Child rearing 1-4 180 3.47 .68 130 3.45 .74 50 3.52 .51 5 22. Birth control 1-4 176 1.84 .95 125 1.77 .99 51 2.06 .80 23. Kind 1-3 179 3.96 1.56 128 3.87 1.62 51 4.18 1.38 8 24. Amount 1-5 179 4.15 1.13 128 4.14 1.13 51 4.18 1.61 3 25. Avoidance 1-5 181 1.65 1.43 130 1.50 1.29 51 2.02 1.69 g 26. Gain 1-5 180 3.97 1.18 130 3.87 1.25 51 3.61 1.12 U 27. Enjoyment 1-5 179 3.65 1.57 128 3.70 1.51 51 3.71 1.65 2 28. Prejudice--reduce 1-5 179 4.11 .85 128 4.02 .84 53 3.32 1.24 '8 29. Racial attitude 1-5 180 2.01 .40 129 1.99 .29 53 2.85 .72 a 30. Ethnicity 1-5 180 2.99 .78 129 3.00 .74 53 3.38 .95 c 0Q2 - 77 0Q2 = 84 0Q2 = 90 SIMPLEX ANALYSIS BQZ a .78 BQ2 _ .89 BQ2 = .90 cSimplex analysis via the Kaiser Q2 procedure: 09: = "original" (empirical). f 8Q = "best" possible data. Whites toward Blacks version (South Africa). (3 of 7) 80 TABLE 9.--Continued. Georgiag . Range Variable of Totals Females Males Scores N M SD N M SD N M SD 1. Stereotype 8-24 102 12.76 2.10 93 12.77 2.09 9 12.56 2.30 .8 u .2. Normative 8-24 102 12.50 3.26 93 12.56 3.15 9 11.89 4.43 3 g 3. Moral eval. 8-24 102 18.17 3.77 93 18.27 3.74 9 17.11 4.17 ‘3 g ‘4. Hypothetical 8-24 102 17.39 3.84 93 17.58 3.79 9 15.44 4.00 2' 8 5. Feeling 8-24 102 20.70 2.82 93 20.79 2.70 9 19.78 3.96 6. Action 8-24 102 14.16 5.34 93 14.09 5.32 9 14.89 5.84 >‘ 7. Stereotype 8-24 102 16.98 3.10 93 17.05 3.11 9 16.22 3.03 3;: 8. Normative 8-24 102 17.63 3.09 93 17.50 2.98 9 19.00 4.00 g g 9. Moral eval. 8—24 102 18.63 3.66 93 18.46 3.67 9 20.33 3.20 :ggglo. Hypothetical 8-24 102 19.28 3.58 93 19.15 3.63 9 20.56 2.96 2 g 11. Feeling 8-24 102 21.03 2.95 93 20.87 2.99 9 22.67 2.00 12. Action 8-24 102 16.56 5.06 93 16.41 4.93 9 18.11 6.45 m '313. Efficacy--C 9-36 101 27.93 3.79 92 27.83 3.73 9 29.00 4.44 5314. Bfficacy--1 9-36 101 20.44 2.58 92 20.44 2.57 9 20.44 2.83 .3 15. Sex 1-2 102 1.09 .29 93 1.00 .00 9 2.00 .00 {116. Age 1-5 102 1.47 .73 93 1.41 .63 9 2.11 1.27 g 17. Marital 1-5 102 1.98 .51 93 1.97 .48 9 2.11 .78 0‘18. Religion 1-5 102 3.12 .69 93 3.15 .69 9 2.78 .67 g 19. Education, amt. of 1-5 101 1.88 1.13 92 1.83 1.12 9 2.44 1.24 D 20. Urbanity 1-4 102 2.97 .76 93 3.03 .73 9 2.33 .87 0 2‘21. Child rearing 1-4 102 3.63 .63 93 3.63 .57 9 3.56 1.13 2 22. Birth control 1-4 100 2.23 .79 91 2.21 .77 9 2.44 1.01 u 23. Kind 1-3 102 3.85 1.60 93 3.89 1.59 9 3.44 1.67 3 24. Amount 1-5 97 3.97 1.19 88 4.02 1.17 9 3.44 1.33 3 25. Avoidance 1-5 98 1.91 1.51 90 1.76 1.43 9 3.63 1.41 g 26. Gain 1-5 102 3.93 1.15 93 3.95 1.16 9 3.78 1.09 U 27. Enjoyment 1—5 100 4.25 1.25 91 4.23 1.27 9 4.44 1.13 H 28. Prejudice-~reduce 1-5 101 3.80 .84 93 3.76 .85 8 4.25 .46 _3 29. Racial attitude 1—5 101 2.03 .26 92 2.02 .26 9 2.11 .33 5 30. Ethnicity 1-5 101 .2.71 1.02 92 2.69 .99 9 3.00 1.32 c 002 - 84 002 = 77 002 = 58 SIMPLEX ANALYSIS BQ2 g .90 BQ2 = .92 _ BQZ g .89 cSimplex analysis via the Kaiser Q2 procedure: 09: = "original” (empirical). BQ = ”best" possible data. gWhites toward Blacks version (Georgia). (4 of 7) 8C1 TABLE 9.--Continued. M.S.U. Blackh Range Variable of Totals Females Males Scores N M SD N M SD N M SD 1. Stereotype 8-24 54 14.89 3.38 37 14.46 3.41 17 15.82 3.21 g a 2. Normative 8-24 54 12.24 3.39 37 12.05 3.41 17 12.65 3.43 3 g 3. Moral eval. 8-24 54 15.82 3.42 37 15.43 3.29 17 '16.65 3.66 3 g 4. Hypothetical 8-24 54 17.33 4.24 37 16.70 4.20 17 18.71 4.12 2 8 5. Feeling 8-24 54 18.32 3.85 37 18.49 3.68 17 17.94 4.28 6. Action 8-24 51 14.35 6.05 35 14.51 5.80 16 14.06 6.75 >' 7. Stereotype 8-24 54 18.61 3.09 37 18.81 4.18 17 18.18 3.28 0 g 8. Normative 8—24 54 19.04 3.50 37 19.43 3.49 17 18.18 3.47 g g 9. Moral eval. 8-24 54 19.65 3.62 37 20.11 3.45 17 18.65 3.87 g 3 10. Hypothetical 8-24 54 19.50 3.91 37 19.87 3.43 17 18.71 4.96 i g 11. Feeling 8-24 54 20.52 3.64 37 20.84 3.30 17 19.82 4.31 12. Action 8-24 52 16.23 6.18 36 16.28 5.44 16 16.13 7.80 2 13. Efficacy--C 9-36 51 25.77 6.61 36 26.03 5.70 15 25.13 8.61 g 14. Efficacy--1 9-36 51 18.14 4.94 36 18.14 4.32 15 18.13 6.37 g 15. Sex 1-2 54 1.32 .47 37 1.00 .00 17 2.00 .00 g 16. Age 1-5 54 1.22 .57 37 1.14 .48 17 1.41 .71 g 17. Marital 1-5 54 1.93 .33 37 1.95 .23 17 1.88 .49 0‘18. Religion 1—5 54 3.61 1.35 37 3.87 1.23 17 3.06 1.48 g 19. Education, amt. of 1-5 54 1.39 .76 37 1.32 .67 17 1.53 .94 O 20. Urbanity 1-4 54 3.17 .77 37 3.24 .76 17 3.00 .79 8‘21. Child rearing 1-4 53 3.38 .74 37 3.43 .73 16 3.25 .78 E 22. Birth control 1-4 54 2.06 .74 37 2.16 .73 17 1.82 .73 U u 23. Kind 1-3 54 3.91 1.55 37 4.08 1.44 17 3.53 1.74 g 24. Amount 1-5 50 3.36 1.32 36 3.36 1.31 14 3.36 1.39 g 25. Avoidance 1-5 49 2.78 1.48 35 2.86 1.54 14 2.57 1.34 8 26. Gain 1-5 51 3.61 1.12 36 3.67 1.04 15 3.47 1.30 27. Enjoyment 1-5 51 3.71 1.65 36 3.67 1.71 15 3.80 1.57 1;; 28. Prejudice--reduce 1-5 53 3.32 1.24 37 3.38 1.28 16 3.19 1.17 '3 29. Racial attitude 1—5 53 2.85 .72 37 2.95 .71 16 2.63 .72 g 30. Ethnicity 1-5 53 3.38 .95 37 3.51 .84 16 3.06 1.12 2 2 2 z . = . = ,7 SIMPLEX ANALYSISC :32 = :8 :22 = 3: :32 _ 9: CSimplex analysis via the Kaiser Q2 procedure: 09: "original" (empirical), h BQ "best" possible data. Whites toward Blacks version (Michigan). (5 of 7) .mpwga‘ M. ,..-v.- -' 2.)”! £32 TABLE 9.--Continued. u.s.u. unitei Range Variable of Tbtals Females Males Scores N M SD N M SD N M SD 1. Stereotype 8-24 411 13.21 2.22 243 13.40 2.17 164 13.01 2.09 0 u 2. Normative 8-24 410 13.18 3.58 243 13.31 3.61 164 12.93 3.49 E 5 3. Moral eval. 8-24 411 19.18 3.45 243 19.74 3.13 164 18.51 3.53 3 g 4. Hypothetical 8-24 411 18.41 3.82 243 19.05 3.56 164 17.63 3.81 2 8 5. Feeling 8-24 410 20.83 2.73 243 21.16 2.50 164 20.44 2.94 6. Action 8-24 . 406 13.27 5.98 239 13.26 5.78 164 13.31 6.29 a 7. Stereotype 8—24 410 16.45 3.19 243 16.28 3.20 164 16.67 3.17 8:3 8. Normative 8-24 410 17.05 3.52 243 16.64 3.41 164 17.62 3.62 3 g 9. Moral eval. 8-24 411 19.33 3.46 243 19.53 3.39 164 19.16 3.29 3 3 10. Hypothetical 8-24 411 19.31 3.70 243 19.40 3.47 164 19.29 3.82 2 5 11. Feeling 8-24 410 21.46 2.79 243 21.56 2.58 164 21.35 3.07 12. Action 8-24 408 15.20 6.26 240 15.13 6.04 164 15.48 6.51 g 13. Efficacy-~C 9-36 402 27.29 4.49 237 27.22 3.55 161 27.68 5.09 g 14. Efficacy-~1 9—36 402 20.15 3.21 237 20.14 2.73 161 20.32 3.44 .3 15. Sex 1-2 410 1.42 .52 243 1.00 .00 164 2.06 .00 g 16. Age 1-5 410 1.19 .46 243 1.52 .42 164 1.23 .51 g 17. Marital 1—5 410 1.98 .30 243 1.98 .25 164 1.96 .32 g 18. Religion 1-5 410 2.94 1.21 243 2.80 1.13 164 3.16 1.30 5 19. Education, amt. of 1-5 409 1.63 .83 243 1.56 .77 163 1.74 .91 o 20. Urbanity 1-4 408 2.95 .77 242 2.93 .75 163 2.98 .79 g 21. Child rearing 1-4 409 3.67 .58 242 3.70 .56 164 3.63 .59 2 22. Birth control 1-4 406 1.94 .82 240 1.95 .87 162 1.90 .72 U u 23. Kind 1-3 409 3.39 1.63 242 3.38 1.67 164 3.43 1.59 g 24. Amount 1-5 403 3.90 1.15 237 3.87 1.17 163 3.98 1.12 g 25. Avoidance 1-5 405 2.19 1.59 240 2.11 1.60 162 2.30 1.59 8 26. Gain 1-5 405 3.97 1.17 239 4.04 1.21 163 3.88 1.11 27. Enjoyment 1-5 403 4.43 1.19 238 4.44 1.23 162 4.45 1.13 2 28. Prejudice--reduce 1-5 405 3.72 .96 240 3.79 .87 162 3.64 1.08 '8 29. Racial attitude 1-5 408 2.09 .54 242 2.07 .50 163 2.12 .59 g 30. Ethnicity 1-5 408 2.86 .84 242 2.84 .84 162 2.90 .84 2 2 2 c 0Q - .93 0Q a .90 0Q = .96 SIMPLEX ANALYSIS 892 a .93 BQZ B .95 892 . .96 3 a "original" (empirical), a "best" possible data. cSimplex analysis via the Kaiser Q2 procedure: 0Q 1 HQ Whites towards Blacks version (Michigan). (6 of 7) 813 TABLE 9. --Continued. Ed 429J Range Variable of Totals Females Males Scores N M SD N M SD N M SD 1. Stereotype 8-24 84 12.20 2.02 54 12.11 1.77 30 12.37 2.44 g u .2. Normative 8-24 84 12.94 3.44 54 13.17 3.65 30 12.53 3.06 3 5 3. Moral eval. 8-24 84 19.73 2.89 54 20.06 2.72 30 19.13 3.14 3 g ‘4. Hypothetical 8-24 84 19.38 3.29 54 19.94 2.98 30 18.37 3.62 2 8 5. Feeling 8-24 84 21.07 2.12 54 21.37 1.95 30 20.53 2.33 6. Action 8-24 84 16.40 5.22 54 16.30 5.25 30 16.57 5.24 > 7. Stereotype 8-24 84 17.32 3.45 54 17.13 3.18 30 17.67 3.93 g g 8. Normative 8-24 84 17.36 3.39 54 17.13 2.94 30 17.77 4.08 3 g 9. Moral eval. 8-24 84 19.75 3.56 54 20.19 3.22 30 18.97 4.03 3‘310. Hypothetical 8-24 84 19.47 3.41 54 20.00 2.99 30 18.50 3.92 2.511. Feeling 8-24 84 21.37 2.97 54 21.89 2.33 30 20.43 3.72 12. Action 8-24 84 17.64 4.89 54 17.54 4.92 30 17.83 4.91 .§13. Efficacy--C 9-36 82 27.85 4.38 54 28.35 3.63 28 26.89 5.50 £14. Efficacy--1 9-36 82 20.56 2.65 54 20.67 2.53 28 20.36 2.90 .315. Sex 1-2 84 1.36 .48 54 1.00 .00 30 2.00 .00 -&16. Age 1-5 84 2.14 .76 54 2.07 .84 30 2.27 .58 317. Marital 1-5 84 1.61 .76 54 1.65 .87 30 1.53 .51 o18. Religion 1-5 84 2.88 1.16 54 3.09 1.07 30 2.50 1.23 219. Education, amt. of 1-5 84 4.52 .81 54 4.42 .86 30 4.70 .70 320. Urbanity 1-4 84 3.07 .82 54 3.15 .83 30 2.93 .79 3 :21. Child rearing 1-4 84 3.63 .60 54 3.74 .44 30 3.43 .77 {322. Birth control 1-4 84 2.50 .77 54 2.50 .77 30 2.50 .78 "23. Kind 1-3 84 4.05 1.43 54 4.04 1.47 30 4.07 1.39 824. Amount 1-4 84 3.89 1.08 54 3.96 1.05 30 3.77 1.14 tg25. Avoidance 1-4 84 2.74 1.78 54 2.59 1.79 30 3.00 1.76 826. Gain 1-4 84 4.30 1.00 54 4.39 .86 30 4.13 1.22 27. Enjoyment 1-4 84 4.79 .84 54 4.91 .56 30 4.57 1.17 1328. Prejudice--reduce 1-4 84 4.17 .71 54 4.22 .54 30 4.07 .94 {329. Racial attitude 1-4 84 2.06 .48 54 2.00 .39 30 2.17 .59 g 30. Ethnicity 1-4 84 3.00 .82 54 2.98 .84 30 3.03 .81 c 00: - .85 00: - .80 09: . .74 SIMPLEX ANALYSIS HQ 8 .91 HQ 3 .86 HQ 3 .90 cSimplex analysis via the Kaiser Q2 procedure: 0Q: = "original" (empirical). BQ = "best” possible data. JWhites towards Blacks version (Ed 429). (7 of 7) 84 a . . . TABLE 10.--Means, Sample Sizes, and Differences Between A11 Pairs- of-Sam 1es on the African-United States Racial Attitude Study. c d . e , Kenya-K Nigeria-N S.Africa-S variable (152) (87) (180) o 1. Stereotype 17.23 16.32 12.18 'g.g 2. Normative 17.13 18.21 11.68 :3'3 3. Moral eval. 16.58 19.10 18.30 3 g 4. Hypothetical 18.33 20.71 17.92 «£() 5. Feeling 19.80 20.44 20.80 6. Action 13.91 14.04 13.42 5‘ 7. Sterotype 20.02 19.36 17.25 '8 4;: 8. Normative 19.71 19.74 17.88 3 g 9. Moral eval. 20.78 20.48 19.72 :3 B 10. Hypothetical 21.27 22.09 19.42 3.5 11. Feeling 21.76 21.77 21.37 12. Action 18.28 16.91 15.65 Value 13. Efficacy--C 22.68 28.86 27.65 14. Efficacy--1 15.53 21.35 20.18 :3 15. Sex 1.78 1.67 1.28 .3 16. Age 1.95 2.01 1.17 g 17. Marital 1.77 1.77 1.99 m 18. Religion 2.65 2.47 3.28 g 19. Education, amount of 1.07 2.09 1.18 c: 20. Urbanity 3.23 3.48 3.09 Chan e 21. Child rearing 2.99 3.26 3.43 9 22. Birth control 1.64 1.86 1.78 23. Kind 3.64 3.44 3.89 3 24. Amount 3.58 1.93 4.08 3 25. Avoidance 1.81 3.97 1.64 8 26. Gain 3.16 3.97 3.93 L) 27. Enjoyment 3.05 3.54 3.59 28. Prejudice--reduce 3.07 3.97 4.04 Racial 29. Racial attitude 2.50 2.89 1.98 30. Ethnicity 1.31 2.77 2.96 aMeans do not always agree between tables due to problems of missing data . bBased on the Attitude-Behavior Scale (ABS-BW/WB): 112270 SAF edition. CBlacks toward Whites version (Kenya). dBlacks toward Whites version (Nigeria). eWhites toward Blacks version (8. Africa). (1 of 7) TABLE 10.--Continued. 85 “L9 0‘3 cm 44 a I l m Variable .3 RT 3 .1? '2‘) G? a S 2‘ 2 .. 8 .2: :2 9 29 o v 9 v m 8 a a E 1. Stereotype 12.76 13.21 14.89 12.20 ,8.” 2. Normative 12.50 13.14 12.24 12.94 g 5 3. Moral eval. 18.17 19.18 15.82 18.73 jg-g 4. Hypothetical 17 39 18.41 17.33 19.38 g 8 5. Feeling 20.70 20.78 18.32 21.07 6. Action 14.16 13.08 13.56 16.39 a 7. Stereotype 16.98 16.41 18.61 17.32 ,8 4;} _ 8. Normative 17.63 17.01 19.04 17.36 3 2 9. Moral eval. 18.63 19.33 19.65 19.75 I} 3 10. Hypothetical 19 28 19.31 19.50 19.46 g E. 11. Feeling 21.03 21.41 20.52 21.37 12. Action 16.56 15.12 15.63 17.64 Value 13. Efficacy--C 27.66 26.71 24.33 27.19 14. Efficacy--1 20.24 19.69 17.13 20.07 :3 15. Sex 1.09 1.41 1.32 1.36 f; 16. Age 1.47 1.18 1.22 2.14 a 17. Marital 1.98 1.97 1.93 1.61 " 18. Religion 3.12 2.93 3.61 2.88 g 19. Education, amount of 1.86 1.62 1.39 4.52 ‘3 20. Urbanity 2.97 2.93 3.17 3.07 Change21. Child rearing 3.63 3.65 3.32 3.63 22. Birth control 2 19 1.92 2.06 2.50 4_, 23. Kind 3 85 3.38 3.91 4.05 8 24. Amount 3.78 3.82 3.11 3.89 2 25. Avoidance 1.83 2.16 2.52 2.74 8 26. Gain 3.93 3.91 3.41 4.30 27. Enjoyment 4 17 4.35 3.50 4.79 28. Prejudice--reduce 3.77 3.66 3.26 4.17 Racia129. Racial attitude 2.01 2.08 2.80 2.06 30. Ethnicity 2.69 2.84 3.32 3.00 fWhites toward Blacks gWhites toward Blacks hWhites toward Blacks iWhites toward Blacks version version version version (Georgia). (Michigan). (Michigan). (Ed 429). (2 of 7) TABLE 10.--Continued. 86 :1 Differences Between Samples Variable g s ig . K—N K-S K-G K—W 1. Stereotype 96.83 .0005 .005 .0005 .0005 .0005 3.» 2. Normative 69.14 .0005 .017 .0005 .0005 .0005 B 5 3. Moral eval. 18.81 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 ‘3 g 4. Hypothetical 9.35 .0005 .0005 .304 .042 .083 2 8 5. Feeling 6.85 .0005 .130 .004 .025 .001 , 6. Action 4.04 .001 .847 .447 .736 .128 >‘ 7. Stereotype 29.43 .0005 .124 .0005 .0005 .0005 3:3 8. Normative 17.50 .0005 .907 .0005 .0005 .0005 3 g 9. Moral eval. 5.96 .0005 .520 .004 .0005 .0005 3.3 10. Hypothetical 12.55 .0005 .083 .0005 .0005 .0005 2'5 11. Feeling 1.37 .226 .930 .275 .078 .253 12. Action 6.93 .0005 .080 .0005 .022 .0005 Value 13. Efficacy-—C 11.06 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 14. Efficacy--l 20.55 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 _g 15. Sex 31.29 .0005 .0005 .0005\ .0005 .0005 .5. 16. Age 90.04 .0005 .378 .0005 .0005 .0005 a 17. Marital 13.73 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 cm 18. Religion 10.71 .0005 .232 .0005 .001 .007 g 19. Educ., amt. of 220.25 .0005 .0005 .194 .0005 .0005 c: 20. Urbanity 7.35 .0005 .020 .108 .010 .0005 Ch 21. Child rearing 18.56 .0005 .005 .0005 .0005 .0005 a“9822. Birth control 11.03 .0005 .063 .172 .0005 .001 23. Kind 3.84 .001 .362 .174 .328 .095 -3 24. Amount 4.43 .0005 .571 .001 .273 .061 3 25. Avoidance 6.84 .0005 .580 .314 .879 .019 g 26. Gain 10.68 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 L) 27. Enjoyment 20.93 .0005 .017 .002 .0005 .0005 28. Prejud.--reduce 15.28 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 Racia129. Racial attitude 35.27 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 30. Ethnicity 64.00 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 .0005 Ratio 29/30 16/30 22/30 25/30 25/30 % 97% 53% 73% 83% 83% (3 of 7) TABLE 10.--Continued. 87 3 Differences Between Samples Variable K-B K-E N-S N-G N-W 0 l. Stereotype <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 g g 2. Normative <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 .0005 <.0005 .fi 3 3. Moral eval. .154 .0005 .069 .058 .829 3 g 4. Hypothetical .081 .033 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 sac) 5. Feeling .003 .003 .389 .583 .361 6. Action .702 .002 .421 .857 .161 7. Stereotype .006 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 8 331: 8. Normative .212 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 3 g 9. Moral eval. .032 .023 .079 <.0005 .004 3 m 10. Hypothetical .002 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 u E 11. Feeling .016 .384 .350 .118 .350 "i 12. Action .005 .433 .099 .687 .010 Value 13. Efficacy--C .141 <.0005 .192 .249 .011 14. Efficacy--1 .043 <.0005 .073 .129 .006 .3 15. Sex <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 .a 16. Age <.0005 .007 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 g 17. Marital .024 .005 <.0005 .001 <.0005 8' 18. Religion <.0005 .122 <.0005 <.0005 .001 8 19. Education, amt. of .010 <.0005 <.0005 .041 <.0005 :3 20. Urbanity .605 .134 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 Chan e21. Child rearing .005 <.0005 .067 .001 <.0005 g 22. Birth control .004 <.0005 .458 .012 .621 4J 23. Kind .320 .071 .036 .085 A .773 g 24. Amount .026 .091 .025 .672 .413 -g 25. Avoidance .005 <.0005 .149 .674 .220 .8 26. Gain .211 <.0005 .809 .833 .713 27. Enjoyment .061 <.0005 .800 .006 <.0005 28. Prejudice--reduce .297 .0005 .603 .224 .022 Racial 29. Racial attitude .005 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 30. Ethnicity .005 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 Ratio 20/30 24/30 17/30 18/30 22/30 % 67% 80% 57% 60% 73% (4 of 7) ’ {xii-t . i A 88 TABLE 10.--Continued. _I;"_ Differences Between Samples Variable N-B N-E S-G s-w S-B l. Stereotype .001 <.0005 .049 <.0005 <.0005 .8.o 2. Normative <.0005 <.0005 .048 <.0005 .287 3 8 3. Moral eval. <.0005 .232 .744 .004 <.0005 23': 4. Hypothetical <.0005 .017 .245 .126 .305 2 8 5. Feeling <.0005 .188 .786 .910 <.0005 6. Action .640 .008 .305 .523 .852 7. Stereotype .183 <.0005 .506 .004 .007 6.3' 8. Normative .236 <.0005 .559 .004 .027 3'3 9. Moral eval. .149 .152 .009 .190 .861 :3 8 10. Hypothetical <.0005 <.0005 .733 .713 .860 5‘2 11. Feeling .026 .430 .409 .865 .091 "'* 12. Action .209 .422 .213 .308 .928 Value 13. Efficacy-~C <.0005 .124 .940 .137 .003 14. Efficacy--l <.0005 .096 .886 .282 <.0005 c) 15. Sex <.0005 .002 .002 .002 .588 :3 16. Age <.0005 .102 <.0005 .709 .494 .3 17. Marital .036 .014 .847 .685 .351 cm 18. Religion <.0005 .016 .254 .001 .049 g 19. Education, amt. of <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 <.0005 .082 o 20. Urbanity .023 .001 .216 .021 .565 Chan 6 21. Child rearing .688 .001 .029 .001 .286 g 22. Birth control .207 <.0005 <.0005 .073 .040 23. Kind .101 .017 .835 .001 .903 t3 24. Amount .014 .331 .064 .030 <.0005 3 .25. Avoidance .030 .001 .316 <.0005 <.0005 g 26. Gain .012 .086 .934 .845 .009 27. Enjoyment .854 <.0005 .003 <.0005 .714 28. Prejudice--reduce <.0005 .246 .045 <.0005 <.0005 Racial 29. Racial attitude .448 <.0005 .745 .117 <.0005 30. Ethnicity .001 .108 .020 .172 .014 Ratio 21/30 18/30 11/30 15/30 15/30 9 70% 60% 37% 50% 50%~ (5 of 7) 89 TABLE 10.--Continued. _F_ Differences Between Samples Variable ‘S-E G-W G-B G-E W-B 1. Stereotype .893 .085 <.0005 .116 <.0005 '8.» 2. Normative .005 .082 .654 .381 .062 3 5 3. Moral eval. .002 .007 <.0005 .002 <.0005 23.2 4. Hypothetical .003 .012 .886 <.0005 .040 g 8 5. Feeling .519 .796 <.0005 .428 <.0005 6. Action <.0005 .090 .547 .009 .580 >‘ 7. Stereotype .847 .111 .003 .484 <.0005 .353 8. Normative .245 .096 .014 .598 <.0005 S g 9. Moral eval. .903 .057 .069 .023 .520 3.3 10. Hypothetical .891 .895 .707 .717 .708 g 5 11. Feeling .947 .300 .358 .489 .058 12. Action _ .010 .026 .353 .210 .556 Value 13. Efficacy-~C .635 .230 .006 .663 .022 14. Efficacy--1 .849 .333 <.0005 .810 .001 _3 15. Sex .170 <.0005 .004 <.0005 .174 ii 16. Age <.0005 <.0005 .006 <.0005 .612 g 17. Marital <.0005 .854 .462 <.0005 .458 CI 18. Religion .007 .128 .009 .146 <.0005 g 19. Education, amt. of <.0005 .005 <.0005 <.0005 .036 c: 20. Urbanity .818 .649 .145 . .401 .040 Ch 21. Child rearing .036 .792 .010 .924 .002 - ange 22. Birth control <.0005 .006 .387 .016 .274 u 23. Kind ‘ .483 .011 .827 .436 .029 3 24. Amount .291 . .746 .004 .562 <.0005 2 25. Avoidance <.0005 .059 .010 <.0005 .110 8 26. Gain .027 .853 .014 .049 .007 27. Enjoyment .0005 .299 .011 .007 <.0005 28. Prejudice--reduce .418 .418 .008 .016 .014 Racial 29. Racial attitude .391 .377 <.0005 .619 <.0005 30. Ethnicity .723 .133 <.0005 .023 .001 Ratio 14/30 8/30 18/30 14/30 14/30 % 47% 27% 60% 47% 47% (6 of 7) TABLE 10.--Continued. 90 §_ Differences Between Samples Siluary Variable W-E B-E Ratio % l. Stereotype .001 <.0005 18/21 86% 8.» 2. Normative .623 .234 14/21 67% g 8 3. Moral eval. .179 <.0005 14/21 67% 9'2 4. Hypothetical .026 .002 14/21 67% 2 8 5. Feeling .451 <.0005 10/21 48% 6. Action <.0005 .005 6/21 29% 7. Stereotype .019 .022 15/21 71% n.5' 8. NOrmative .394 .005 13/21 62% '3'8 9. Moral eval. .297 .839 9/21 43% fl 8 10. Hypothetical .711 .909 10/21 48% 3‘2 11. Feeling .887 .133 2/21 10% < *‘ 12. Action <.0005 .048 9/21 43% Value 13. Efficacy-~C .580 .022 11/21 52% 14. Efficacy--1 .537 .001 12/21 57% ‘3 15. Sex .385 .611 16/21 76% .c 16. Age <.0005 <.0005 16/21 76% g‘ 17. Marital <.0005 <.0005 15/21 71% 18. Religion .704 <.0005 15/21 71% g 19. Education, amt. of <.0005 <.0005 19/21 91% c: 20. Urbanity .137 .506 10/21 48% Ch 21. Child rearing .830 .012 15/21 71% ange 22. Birth Control <.0005 .004 13/21 62% +, 23. Kind .001 .637 6/21 29% g 24. Amount .669 .001 9/21 43% -g 25. Avoidance .002 .430 11/21 52% 8 26. Gain .011 <.0005 . 13/21 62% 27. Enjoyment .017 <.0005 17/21 81% 28. Prejudice--reduce <.0005 <.0005 15/21 71% Racial 29. Racial attitude .823 <.0005 14/21 67% 30. Ethnicity .159 .054 15/21 71% Ratio 14/30 21/30 % 47% 70% (7 of 7) 91 BQ2 = .80. This low 002 value may be attributed to the small sample--N = 9. The simplex matrices are in Appen- dix C. Thus the hypothesis is supported: the ABS-BW/WB, SAP is regarded as cross-culturally invariant. Hypothesis 2 r There will be a positive relationship between efficacy scores and positive attitudes toward the oppo- site race. The efficacy scale "was designed to measure atti- E tudes toward man and his environment and attempts to determine the respondent's view of the relationship between man and his environment" (Hamersma, 1969, p. 98). It was postulated that persons who scored high on the efficacy variable would have more positive attitudes as measured by the ABS-SAP. This hypothesis was tested by correlating scores on the efficacy scale with scores on the ABS-SAP. Table 11 presents the correlations between the efficacy variable and the seven groups (Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Georgia, MSU White, MSU Black, and Ed 429). The significance level for each correla- tion is also indicated. The data indicates a generally positive rela- tionship between efficacy and racial attitudes toward the opposite race, but only 9 of the 42 correlations were significant correlations. The significant ones occurred 592 TABLE 11.--Corre1ations Between the ABS and Four Variablesl(Efficacy, Urbanity, Child Rearing, and Birth Control). K N S G M-W M-B 429 Variable (152) (87) (180) (102) (411) (S4) (84) H-2: Efficacy_(13) 1. Stereotype -08(38) 11(28) 02(81) -09(36) 05(35) 15(28) 07(54) 2. Normative -02(78) 05(64) 05(53) ~15(12) -01(90) ~29(03) 13(25) 3. Moral eval. 01(87) 04(71) -03(71) -02(97) 13(007) 01(95) 06(58) 4. Hypothetical 01(88) 11(28) 01(92) -07(50) 10(04) 29(03) 02(84) 5. Feeling -03(7l) 22(03) -O4(56) -12(21) 13(007) 24(08) 25(02) 6. Action 03(74) -02(88) 07(37) -25(01) 27(00005) 38(006) 10(38) H-3: Urbanity (20) 1. Stereotype 14(09) 03(77) -Ol(86) 05(60) 00(92) 09(52) -18(O9) 2. Normative 04(58) 01(89) 01(86) 13(20) 00(88) -01(9S) -24(02) 3. Moral eval. 03(72) 09(42) -00(98) 11(25) 07(14) 23(09) 20(06) 4. Hypothetical 23(003) 14(19) 09(22) 14(16) 06(21) 22(10) 26(01) 5. Feeling 13(09) 22(03) 12(10) 17(08) 09(05) 25(06) 22(04) 6. Action 06(42) 03(75) 04(58) 14(16) 14(004) 01(97) 25(02) H-4: Child Rearing (21) 1. Stereotype 06(43) -14(20) -15(04) -28(004) -03(55) -37(004) -19(08) 2. Normative —05(51) -13(23) -O6(39) -04(66) -O6(24) -02(86) -06(59) 3. Moral eval. 10(22) 16(14) 00(97) 19(05) 14(005) -03(82) 29(06) 4. Hypothetical 24(003) 12(26) -06(45) 07(45) 09(08) 03(82) 05(66) 5. Feeling 01(86) 17(12) 03(73) 30(001) 16(001) 08(58) 15(15) 6. Action 06(43) -21(05) 11(13) 19(05) 02(76) 04(77) -03(78) H45: Birth Control (22) l. Stereotype -O7(37) 04(69) -00(96) -lO(31) 06(20) -OS(71) -ll(30) 2. Normative -04(66) 24(03) 18(01) -04(70) 07(16) -22(09) -10(37) 3. Moral eval. 01(88) 11(34) 12(10) -00(96) 09(07) -12(39) 12(28) 4. Hypothetical -07(38) 09(40) 18(01) 07(47) 14(003) 11(42) 15(16) 5. Feeling -O7(36) 08(45) 15(03)_ -10(33) 05(35) 03(80) 02(83) 6. Action 29(0004) 36(001) 24(001) 28(004) 46(00005) 36(007) 46(00005) IV .‘I 1See Table 15 for variables. 93 with the MSU Black and White samples, with the MSU White sample having a positive significant correlation between efficacy and attitudes toward the opposite race in the levels of moral, hypothetical, feeling, and action; and the MSU Black sample correlating positively on the levels of normative, hypothetical, and action. There was only one significantly negative correlation, that of the Georgia sample on the level of action. Although 67% of the correlations were positive, only 21% were acceptable at the level of significance. Therefore the overall hypothesis cannot be supported. It was supported for certain sample groups and for some levels more than others. This again indicates the multidimensionality of attitudes as shown in Table 11. Hypothesis 3 There will be a positive relationship between urbanity scores (the rural-urban dichotomy) and positive attitudes toward the Opposite race. Sociologists have found in the United States, as well as other countries, that rural residents tend to be more conservative and closed-minded regarding ethnic and racial outgroups, whereas urban residents tend to be more liberal and open-minded toward outgroups. For the urbanity variable (Table 11), 88% of the correlations were positive (37 out of 42) but only 94 17% of these were significant (8 out of 41). Four of the 8 significant correlations were in the Education 429 group (normative, hypothetical, feeling, action). MSU Whites contained two significant correlations (feeling and action) and one each in Kenya (hypothetical) and Nigeria (feeling). Although the percentage of positive correlation was high the percentage of significant posi- tive correlations was low. Therefore, the overall hypothesis dealing with urbanity cannot be supported although it was supported for four of the six levels in the Ed 429 group. Hypothesis 4 There will be a positive relationship between new methods of child-rearing scores and positive atti- tudes toward the Opposite race. It has been theorized that persons who are open to innovative child-rearing techniques are also open and accepting of ethnic and racial outgroups. For the vari- able, new methods of child rearing (Table 11), child- rearing practices and positiveness toward the opposite race were positively correlated. There were six positive significant correlations and four negative ones. Of those correlations which were positive and significant one was found in the Kenyan sample (hypothetical), two in MSU White (moral and feeling). and three in the Georgia 95 sample (moral, feeling,and action). Three of the nega- tive significant correlations were at the stereotypic level (South Africa, Georgia, and MSU Blacks). Sixty percent of the correlations were positive, but only 14% were positive and significant. Therefore, this hypothe- sis was not supported. Hypothesis 5 There will be a positive relationship between “*3 gun-n- . agreement on new methods of birth control practices and positive attitudes toward the opposite race. It has been suggested that persons in develOping countries, as well as industrialized countries, who hold a favorable attitude toward birth control are more tolerant of racial and ethnic groups. For the birth control variable (Table 11) 66% of the correlations were positive (28 out of 42) but only 29% were significant (13 out of 42). 0f the 13 signifi- cant correlations, 4 were in South Africa (normative, hypothetical, feeling, and action). The most relevant finding on the birth control variable is its high sig- nificance for all groups at the action level. This indicates that an action oriented behavior like birth control is also highly related to positive overt actions in the racial area. The hypothesis was not supported in total but was highly supported at level 6 (overt action). 96 Hypothesis 6 The White sample will rank-order from lowest to highest (South Africa, Georgia, and MSU White) on posi- tiveness of attitudes toward the opposite race (Table 12). Sociologists and anthropologists have attempted to explain racial behavior in terms of social-cultural fac- tors within societies and cultures. Many anthropologists have found that societies emphasize different types of social behavior regarding ethnic and racial outgroups. This hypothesis assumes that the three White samples vary in degree of positive racial attitude and that this difference can be based on the differing social-cultural definitions of race and expected behaviors toward Blacks within their specific societies. An analysis of Table 12 indicates that only two of the empirical rank orders agreed with the predicted ranking. For the stereotypic and normative levels, the predicted and empirical ranked positions concur. That is, South African Whites have the least positive atti- tudes toward Blacks on the stereotype level and on the level of what other persons' attitudes are toward Blacks. MSU Whites, on the other hand, have the most positive attitudes on these two social levels. MSU White was highest on all levels except action. The probability of two or more agreements between the predicted and empirical ranking (Yes) is .26. Therefore, the overall hypothesis must be rejected. 97 oz cm.eaazo v mm.eaazc v ~o.oa.zo omum ncoauom .o no» ee.o~azo v Hm.maazc v mm.raazo «mum mcaaoom .m no» Ha.omazv v em.maazo v mm.maazv «mum Hooauoouodaz .6 no» mm.maazc v mm.oaazo v ~m.maazv emum .Ho>o Houoz .m no» H~.maazv v ma.caazv v e~.~Hazo emum o>anmsuoz .m oz e~.maazv v ~m.oaazo v mm.caazv 2 v x v m: emum oozoomuoum .H Hmpuo Hmouo “mono HMUHHHQEW ooumasumom omcmm Hm>mq Hofl>m£ m mmHmEmm Monam nooouauud Ifluud GO mmHQEmm =xomam= .momm muflmommo may ouo3oe mopsu on» mo Hoouo xcmm om>mflnom paw omumasumomln.ma mqmfie oz oa.eflaoo v vo.maamo v m~.maazo emum mcoauo< .o oz oa.o~azo v mH.H~ano v oa.o~aoo emnm mcaaoom .m oz He.maazo v mo.maamc v mm.aaaoc emum Hooauocuodzz .4 oz ma.maazv v oe.maamc v ma.maaov emum .Hoao H6902 .m now ma.maazo v om.maaoo v mm.aaamv omum o>auosuoz .N no» ov.maazo v on.~aaoo v Hm.~H.mo 32 v o v m «mum ommuooadom .H “mono Hmpuo “mono HMOflHHQEM pmumasumom mmcmm Hw>oq Hofl>mnmm mwameom muagz noocuauua .momm muwmommo on» pum3oa mops» nauud co noademm ampere: on» no noouo room oo>oacod can counaaouoouu.ma momma 98 Hypothesis 7 The Black groups will rank-order from lowest to highest (MSU Black, Kenya, Nigeria) on positiveness of attitudes toward the opposite race (Table 13). This hypothesis, as the above hypothesis, assumes that Blacks will respond to Whites according to the social norms present in their specific culture. 0n five of the six levels, MSU Blacks ranked lowest as predicted, with the exception being the action level. The Kenyan group ranked second on all levels except stereotypic and action; and the Nigerian group ranked highest on five levels, except the stereotypic. The result was that four of the six empirical rankings agreed with predic- tion (Yes). The probability of getting four or more correct rank orderings by chance is .008. Thus, the hypothesis was largely supported. A more detailed analysis of the specific social-cultural factors influencing the three Black groups' attitudes toward Whites will be examined in Chapter V. Hypothesis 8 Racial groups which control the social-structural institutions of their societies and which are in a sta- tistical majority will display a more positive attitude toward members of the opposite race and have a lower fre- quency of contact with that race than groups which con- trol their social-structural institutions but are in a 99 statistical minority. This hypothesis predicts that groups such as South Africa and Georgia, which control the social structure, will have a high degree of contact with Blacks but a less positive attitude toward them, than groups such as MSU White, Kenya, and Nigeria, which control their social structure but have a low degree of contact with their opposite racial group and more posi- tive attitudes toward them. Table 14 contains the data for Hypothesis 8. The data presents a complex network of relationships. South Africa scores lowest as predicted on two levels (stereotypic and normative), and second lowest on the action level, but highest on the feeling level. MSU Whites scored third highest on two levels (stereotypic and normative) as predicted, highest on the moral level, second highest on hypothetical and feeling level, but lowest on the action level. Thus, the MSU White group appears in the contradictory position of saying that the "most" should be done for Blacks (moral evaluation level) but in actual practice (action level) ranks the lowest with a southern state, Georgia, ranking second highest of the five national samples. The probability of one or more predicted and empirical relationships occurring is 0.49. Thus, the hypothesis reaches significance. ‘-‘r‘- in 1:10...» r! u 1 100 r .aiallr oz 2.3an v 3.36. v «0.33: v $628 v 8825 emum ucofloa .6 oz 3423 v 3625 v 2.02.8 v 3.8an v 8.33: emum mcfloom .m oz :28.an v 3.32.: v 3.30: v No.33: v 3.265 dd Hmoflofiomaz .6 oz 3.3:: v 3.3an v 3828 v 5.38. v 3.30: «mum .85 specs .m no» Ho.aaaz.”.ma.naazo”.ma.maazo”vom.maaoonvmm.aaamo gmum o>aumsuoz .N 02 vN.hHAMVuvwm.mHsz”VAN.MHASVuvmh.NHvauva.NHAmv Z v M V 2 v O v m vmlm mmhuomumum .H Hmouo Hopuo Hmownwmfim mmuoom Honucoo pom Guam mo :oHuHmom Hmzom mm Ho>mq sow>msmm $6332 .oomm ouauommo on» 696309 noosuauoa co muofloom Hanna Cw cowuflmom umzom an mmsouw Hmwomm mo Hmpuo xcmm om>oH504 new cougasumomll.¢a mqmcfi 1(31. TABLE 15.-~ABS-BW/WN: Basic Variable Listaby IBM Card and Column. Type Variable Card Range Column Page Item 1. Stereotype 1 8-24 21 alter to 35 1-2 1 alter to 15 g u 2. Normative 2 8-24 21 alter to 35 3-4 17 alter to 31 3 5 3. Moral eval. 3 8-24 21 alter to 35 5-6 33 alter to 47 3 g 4. Hypothetical 4 8-24 21 alter to 35 7-8 49 alter to 63 2 8 5. Feeling 5 8-24 21 alter to 35 9—10 65 alter to 79 6. Action 6 8-24f 21 alter to 35 11-12 81 alter to 95 m 5. 7. Stereotype 1 8-24 22 alter to 36 1-2 2 alter to 16 g-; 8. Normative 2 8-24 22 alter to 36 3—4 18 alter to 32 g 5 9. Moral eval. 3 8-24 22 alter to 36 5-6 34 alter to 48 3 g 10. Hypothetical 4 8—24 22 alter to 36 7-8 50 alter to 64 a H 11. Feeling 5 8-24 22 alter to 36 9-10 66 alter to 80 12. Action 6 8-32 22 alter to 36 11-12 82 alter to 96 Value 13. Efficacy--C 1-6 9-36 54 alter to 70 6,7D 113 alter to 129 14. Efficacy-—l 1-6 9-36 55 alter to 71 6,70 114 alter to 130 .3 15. Sexb 1—6 1—2 38 1-0 97 fi. 16. Age 1-6 1-5 39 1-0 98 S 17. Marital 1-6 1-5 40 1-0 99 g 18. Religion 1-6 1-5 41 2-0 100 o 19. Educ., amt. 03 1-6 1-5 42 2—D 101 9 20. Urbanity 1-6 1-4 53 5-0 112 Ch 21. Child rearing 1-6 1-4 43 2-D 102 ange 22. Birth control 1-6 1-4 44 2-0 103 u 23. Kind 1-6 1-3 45 3-D 104 g 24. Amount l-6 1-5 46 3-D 105 g 25. Avoidance 1-6 1-5 47 3-D 106 8 26. Gain 1-6 1-5 48 3-D 107 27. Enjoyment 1-6 1-5 49 4-D 108 28. Prejudice-—reduce 1-6 1—5 50 4-D 109 Racial 29. Racial attitude 1-6 1-5 51 4-D 110 30. Ethnicity 1-6 1-5 52 4-D 111 3 31. Nation 1—6 -- 1-3 -— -- m 32. Group (interest)C 1-6 -- 4-5 -- -- :1 33. Subject no. 1-6 -- 6-8 -— -- u 34. Card no. 1-6 -- 9 -- -- 'H d _- g -- -_ g 35. Deck no. 1-6 10 g 36. Group (adm.) 1-6 -- 11—12g -- -- H 37. Attitude areae 1-6 -- 13g -- -- aOn the 112270 version of the 8Attitude areas in SAP (Col. 13) ABS-WB/BW (S. Africa-SAF). C - characteristics — 1 b E - education - 2 Sex (Col. 38) H - housing - 3 J - jobs - 4 1 - female G - South Africa - 9 2 - male f 1 _ II n CGroup adm. (Col. 4-5) Leyeo 6 rgsgore 03 - students 2-1 4—3 dDeck no. (Col. 10) g. 1 Kenya (067) Study Column and Codes 2 Nigeria (096) 10 11 12 13 3 Rhode51a (196) 067 Kenya 1 blank -- 9 (SAP) 4 0.5., Gé°rfila ‘13?) 096 Nigeria 2 blank -- 9 (SAP) 5 0.8., Michigan-White (133) 106 Rhodesia 3 ru>datayet -- 9 -- 6 U°S-' M?Ch}gan'alaCk (133) 123 South Africa 9 0 1 (White) 9 (SAP) 7 0.5., Michigan-Edm429(l33) 133 U.S.-Georgia 4 blank 3 (Georgia) 9 (SAF) 9 5°“th Afrlca (115)* 133 U.S.-MSU-White 5 blank 1 (White) 9 (SAP) *coding error - SAP is coded 133 U.S.“MSU-BlaCk 6 blank 2 (BlaCk) 9 (SAP) CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of the Study This chapter will briefly review the purpose of the study, will summarize the main points stressed in the review of the literature, and will summarize the results of the data and hypotheses. Lastly, the impli- cations and recommendations for further research will be discussed. Purpose The purpose of the study was to test racial attitudes in three African countries and compare them to race attitudes in the United States. A further purpose was to validate the South African form of the Attitude Behavior Scale (ABS-SAF) (Smith and Jordan, 1973). This form differs from Jordan's "general" racial attitude scale (Hamersma, Paige, and Jordan, 1974) in that it does not include items in the areas of military, law and order, and political activism. 102 no.4 2")» V- w' 217751 - ‘.._.._ 103 Literature The review of literature includes the history of Guttman facet design, and the extension of this design as well as the formation of attitude-behavior scales based on Guttman's facet analysis of attitudes. A review of racial attitudes in the United States and Africa was presented along with a theoretical framework by which racial behavior between groups can be predicted. Instrumentation and Methodology Jordan and Hamersma (1969) constructed a series of attitude scales based on the facet methods of Guttman (1959). The scale used in this study, ABS-BW/WB-SAF, is one in this series of scales. These Attitude-Behavior Scales have been applied to numerous "minority" groups cross-culturally. Design and Analysis Theory and construction of the attitude items followed a systematic a priori method instead of the Likert method of intuition or the Thurstone use of judges. Guttman's (1959) facet theory specifies that the attitude universe represented by the item content can be substructured into behavioral profiles which are sys- tematically related according to the number of identical conceptual or semantic elements they hold in common. The substructuring of an attitude-behavior universe into 104 facets and elements facilitates an a priori sampling of items within each of the derived profiles and also enables the prediction of relationships between various profiles of the universe. The sample for this research was drawn from first year psychology students in Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Georgia, and Michigan with a control group of Ed 429 students at Michigan State University. The sub— jects were composed of Black and White, male, and female students. There were 1,070 subjects sampled; 411 in the MSU White group, 84 in the Ed 429 group, 152 in the Kenya group, 87 in the Nigeria group, 180 in the South African group, 54 in the MSU Black group, and 102 in the Georgia group. The statistics employed were the Kaiser Q2 for simplex approximation, analysis of variance, and simple correlations. Research Findings The results indicate that the ABS-SAF is cross- culturally invariant. The Kaiser Q2 test for simplex approximation was > .70. The hypotheses dealing with efficacy (H-Z), urbanity (H-3), new child-rearing prac- tices (H-4), and new techniques of birth control (H-S) were not supported. The remaining hypotheses (H-6, 7, and 8) dealt with the socio-structural aspects of racial 105 behavior. The groups were ranked according to size and control of social power. Hypothesis 6 was not supported but Hypotheses 7 and 8 were. Discussion Hypothesis 1 tested the cross-cultural invariance _ of the ABS-SAP. It was found that across nations and across cultural subgroupings the South African form of the ABS is both valid and reliable for racial attitude research. A Kaiser Q2 test of simplex approximation ~ > .70 was obtained. Therefore it can be projected that the South African form of the ABS can be employed for future cross-cultural and subcultural investigations of racial attitude. The major purpose of this study was to examine the social, psychological, and structural influences of racial behavior in the United States and Africa. Previ- ously social scientists have attempted to analyze inter- group social relationships from one specific approach. These approaches range from the historical implications of racial relations to Specific psychological explana- tions. The problem with explaining human behavior by employing one approach is that each approach does not take into account the total variance of racial behavior between two groups. Hypotheses 2-8 deal with these 106 factors as they relate to racial behavior. Hypotheses 2-5 reflect the "psychological" aspects of behavior and Hypotheses 6-8 reflect the "sociological" determinants of behavior. However, as Pettigrew (1960) points out, it is apparent that the psychological and sociological aspects of prejudice are interdependent. Hypothesis 2 focused on the individuals' percep— tion of the laws of control within his social- psychological space. That is, a high efficacy score reflects an individual's belief that he has a high degree of control over his environment.’ Hypothesis 2 tests the relationship between efficacy scores and racial attitude scores. The data indicates a generally positive rela- tionship between efficacy and racial attitudes toward the Opposite race, but only 9 of the 42 correlations were significant. The MSU White sample had a positive correlation between efficacy and racial attitudes on the attitude levels of moral, hypothetical, feeling, and action. The MSU Black group correlated positively on the attitude levels normative, hypothetical, and action. The overall hypothesis was not supported. How- ever, a detailed analysis of Table 11 indicates that the social-cultural factors of modernity and technological advancement may be contributing to the high efficacy scores for the MSU White and Black groups. 107 Hypothesis 3 analyzes the relationship between the rural-urban dichotomy (urbanity) as it influences positive racial attitudes. There is a positive rela- tionship between urbanity and positiveness toward the opposite race. However, it did not reach significance. Eight of the 42 correlations were significant, and four F: of these were found in the Education 429 group. Since this group differs educationally from the other five groups, it should not be taken as representative of the 5 whole sample. When the Education 429 group is separated from the other 5, two positive correlations occur with the MSU White group (feeling and action) and one each with Nigeria (feeling) and Kenya (hypothetical). No pattern occurs among the groups when the remaining posi- tive correlations are studied. Therefore it must be con- cluded that this hypothesis cannot be supported for the overall levels or any individual levels. The failure to find significant results for the urbanity factor of racial behavior may be due to the type of sample. All subjects in all six groups were college students. This may explain a lack of rural-urban dichotomy which would influence the relationship between urbanity and posi- tiveness of racial behavior. Hypothesis 4 attempts to test the relationship between new child-rearing practices and positiveness toward the Opposite race. Hypothesis 5 attempts to control and positive attitudes toward the Opposite race. These two hypotheses are based on the assumption Of 108 analyze the relationship between new methods Of birth Open-mindedness and generalizability. That is, indi- viduals who are Open and favorable tO new child-rearing practices and new birth control techniques will also F3 generalize this Openness to members of the Opposite race. Neither hypothesis was supported at > .05 level Of significance. However, there was a high number Of i positive correlations for all groups. For Hypothesis 4 there were six positive significant correlations and four negative ones. Of those correlations which were positive and significant one was found in the Kenyan sample (hypothetical), two in MSU White (moral and feel- ing) and three in the Georgia sample (moral, feeling, and action). Three Of the negative Significant correla- tions were at the stereotypic level (South Africa, Georgia, and MSU Blacks). Sixty percent of the correla- tions were positive, but only 14% were positive and significant. For Hypothesis 5 (Table 11) 66% of the correlations were positive (28 out Of 42) but only 29% were significant (13 out of 42). Of the 13 significant correlations, four were in South Africa (normative, hypothetical, feeling, and action). The most relevant finding on the birth control variable is its high sig- nificance for all groups at the action level. This 109 indicates that an action oriented behavior like birth control is also highly related to positive overt actions in the racial area. For all the samples, Open-mindedness and gen- eralizability only occurred at Level 6 (action). Thus, it can be concluded that in the substructures Of cona- tive and cognitive aspects Of racial attitudes there is neither Open-mindedness nor generalizability regarding racial behavior and its correlates, new child-rearing practices and new birth control techniques. Hypotheses 2-5 dealt predominantly with the psychological factors Of racial behavior. It can be Observed that with these African and United States groups the psychological variables such as efficacy, urbanity, child-rearing practices and birth control techniques do not significantly differentiate racial attitudes. Thus it may be concluded that for this study, the psychologi- cal factors Of racial behavior are not predictors Of that behavior. Hypotheses 6-8 deal with social-structural aspects Of racial behavior. It has been postulated that both statistical size Of racial groups and the control of social institutions (Glasco, 1973) are important influences Of intergroup racial behavior. Hypotheses 6 and 7 rank the White and Black groups from lowest to highest on the numerical dimension Of size. 110 For the White group an analysis of Table 12 indi- cates that only two of the empirical rank orders agreed with the predicted ranking. For the stereotypic and normative levels, the predicted and empirical ranked positions concur. That is, South African Whites have the least positive attitudes toward Blacks on the stereotypic : level and on the level Of what other persons' attitudes are toward Blacks. MSU Whites, on the other hand, have the most positive attitudes on these two social levels. b MSU Whites were highest on all levels except action. For the Black groups (Table 13) the MSU Black group ranked lowest as predicted on all levels except for level 6 (action). The Kenyan group ranked second on all levels except stereotypic and action, and the Nigerian group ranked highest on five levels, except the stereotypic. The result was that four Of the six empirical rankings agreed with prediction (Yes) . For the White groups, the probability that the empirical rank would agree with the predicted rank two or more times was .263. For the Black group the proba- bility Of getting four or more agreements by chance is .008. Thus the hypothesis for Black groups was greatly supported but was rejected for the White groups. An analysis Of Table 12 indicates that in the cognitive substructuring of attitude profiles (stere- otypic and normative) the South African group ranked 111 lowest as predicted but in the conative substructure (moral and hypothetical) the Georgia group ranked lowest. This means that the Georgia group which was predicted to rank second lowest on feelings, i.e., having more posi- tive feeling for Blacks than the South African group has, the reverse occurred and it was found that the Ft Georgia group had the most negative feelings towards I Blacks. It may be seen, therefore, that the South African and Georgian groups hold the most negative g attitudes toward Blacks and that in the two substruc— turing areas, OOgnitive and conative, it might be sug- gested that they would be homogenous groups. Another very striking finding among the White groups was that the MSU White group ranked lowest on action but highest on all other levels. It may be con- cluded then that a group in statistical majority can hold positive attitudes in areas Of cognitive and cona- tive but in the area Of action may hold unfavorable attitudes due to little or nO "meaningful" personal contact. Therefore groups in statistical majority which hold positive attitudes in the stereotypic and feeling substructure but negative attitudes in the action sub- structure may not support an integration policy regard- ing the minority group due to the fact that little if any contact on the action level can occur because Of social-structural factors such as residential patterns, 112 local autonomous institutions, education and religion, and a kinship and social interaction pattern structured by polarization and segregation. Hypothesis 8 deals with another aspect Of the sociological dimension of racial behavior: the impor- tance of group domination and control of societal institutions. This hypothesis predicted that groups such as South Africa and Georgia, which control the social structure, will have a high degree of contact i with Blacks but a less positive attitude toward them, than groups such as MSU White, Kenya, and Nigeria, which control their social structure but have a low degree Of contact with their Opposite racial group and more positive attitudes toward them. Table 14 contains the data for Hypothesis 8. The data presents a complex network Of relationships. South Africa scores lowest as predicted on two levels (stereotypic and normative), and second lowest on the action level, but highest on the feeling level. MSU White scored third highest on two levels (stereotypic and normative) as predicted, highest on the moral level, second highest on hypo- thetical and feeling levels, but lowest on the action level. Thus, the MSU White group appears in the contra- dictory position of saying that the "most" should be done for Blacks (moral evaluation level) but in actual practice (action level) ranks the lowest with a southern 113 state, Georgia, ranking second highest Of the five national samples. The probability Of one or more pre— dicted and empirical relationships occurring is 0.49. Thus, the hypothesis reaches significance. When both the control Of power and statistical majority-minority factors are employed as a classifi- F: cation system for ranking nations relative to racial behavior, those nations which are in statistical minority positions but control the means Of power and dominate the g socio-cultural institutions, have an unfavorable attitude in the substructural attitude area of action. Those groups that are in statistical majority and control power and social institutions hold a favorable attitude toward the Opposite race. However, if the Opposite race is a numerical minority such as in the northern United States, the majority racial group has little if any personal interaction with that minority and thus holds an unfavorable attitude in the action substruc- tural area. Thus, it can be postulated that for the five nations under study, the most important aspects of racial behavior are those Of the social-structural and cultural influences. Recommendations It is recommended that for a greater under- standing Of the social-structural, cultural, and 114 psychological implications of racial behavior and Of attitudes toward race that a more inclusive sample be drawn from the general population in each nation. Since the subjects were college students they do not reflect typical racial attitudes of each country and region. Therefore, a replication Of this study should be imple- Ta mented, employing a stratified representative sample : from each nation. E An attempt should be made to administer the i questionnaire to groups which occupy a minority social- structural position in their society such as the African Blacks (Bantu) so that a further extension of the minority-majority and social power aspects of racial behavior can be understood. A most interesting study could be undertaken in light of the data gathered on the MSU White population which indicates that they hold positive attitudes toward Blacks but have little if any contact with them. ~Such a study might develop the social and psychological tech- niques whereby groups could interact in a positive rela- tionship and thus intergroup racial behavior could be improved. Since Hypotheses 2 through 5 were not supported, and in fact several levels Of the ABS were Significant in the negative direction, it can be hypothesized that the predictor variables which are employed for all ABS 115 scales are not valid predictors for race attitudes. Hamersma (1969), Williams (1970), Brodwin (1973), and Irvine (1974) have all used the ABS-BW/WN-G to inves- tigate the attitudes Of various groups toward the Opposite race. Hamersma, in develOping the ABS-BW/WN-G, used items and predictor variables from the mentally retarded scale developed by Jordan (1968 and 1971). The pre- dictor variables are valid for the mentally retarded scale (Jordan, 1968) but may not be valid for the Black/White scale. Hamersma (1969) found that the pre- dictor variables(efficacy, stated importance Of religion, new methods Of child-rearing, automation, and age)were not significant in predicting favorable attitudes toward the Opposite race. In fact, for his Black group (adult residents Of the Detroit inner city),some sample differ- ences were in the Opposite direction and were large enough to be significant if a non-directional test had been used. Irvine (1974) also found group differences which would be significant in the Opposite direction if a non-directional test had been applied. He sampled 50 Black and White ministers from five national churches and found no significance for the predictor variables Of age, education, geographic area, automation, effi- cacy, income, and socio-economic level . 116 Brodwin (1973) and Williams (1970) also admin- istered the Black/White scale to college students and policemen, respectively. Williams found that a negative relationship between age and favorableness of attitudes toward members Of the Opposite race along with a posi- tive relationship between education and favorable atti— T‘ tudes and high efficacy scores and favorable attitudes were not supported. Williams attempted to identify a change component such as new methods Of birth control or k automation which would predict favorableness of atti- tudes toward the Opposite race with the police pOpula— tion. For the Black police group the best predictor -seemed to be the birth control aspect of change, and for the White police group the "prejudice component" seemed tO be the best predictor. However, the best predictor for both groups was "enjoyment Of contact" with the Opposite race. The contact variable was confirmed as a predictor Of attitudes for all groups at almost every level Of the Black/White scale. Brodwin was the only researcher to find a significant relationship between high efficacy scores and high favorableness of attitudes toward the Opposite race using the Black/White scales. However, only levels 4 (hypothetical) and 5 (feeling) were sig- nificant at the .05 level and a negative result was Obtained for level 1 (stereotypic). These positive 117 relationships on level 4 and 5 were Obtained only through combining his three administrative groups. It may be that the predictor variables which are valid for the physically handicapped group as an attitude-Object may not be valid for the racial group as an attitude-Object. Further detailed analysis Of all Guttman facet analysis research in the area Of attitude- ‘u‘q. - behavior must be undertaken to establish whether the 7.1 "I... predictor variables are valid across attitude-Object categories. Research such as this may establish the hypothesis presented in this thesis that certain social- structural, cultural, and historical factors may play a larger role in the determinance Of racial attitudes than psychological and demographic factors. With research that focuses on the non-psychological dimension of atti- tudes, social Science theory in the area of racial behavior may be advanced enough that the factors which produce negative racial behavior interactions can be identified and corrected. REFERENCES 118 REFERENCES Adorno, T. W.; Frenkel-Brunswik, E.; Levinson, D. J.; and Sanford, R. N. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row, 1950. Allport, G. W. and Kramer, B. M. Some roots of preju- Journal Of psychology, 1946, 22, 9-39. dice. Allport. G. W. The nature of prejudice. Garden City: Addison-Wesley Publishing CO., Inc., 1958. Macmillan, Anastasi, A. Psychological testing. London: 1968. Bell, E. H. Social foundations of human behavior. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Patterns Of culture. Cambridge: Benedict, R. F. Houghton, Mifflin CO., 1959. Biesheuvel, S. A technique for measuring attitudes of educated Africans. Proceedin s of South African Psychological Association, 19 3, 4, 13-20T The measurement of African attitudes Biesheuvel, S. towards EurOpean ethical concepts, customs, Journal Of laws, and administration Of justice. the National Institute for Personnel Research, Resume in Colonial Review (Lon- 1958, 6, 5:72 don) 1955, 9(3). Methodology in the study of attitudes Of Biesheuvel, S. Journal Of Social Psychology, 1957, Africans. 47, 169-184. Further studies on the measurement Of Biesheuvel, S. attitudes toward Western ethical concepts. Journal Of the National Institute for Personnel Biesheuvel, S. The influence Of some circumstances on the attitudes Of educated Africans. The South African Journal Of Science, 1971, 53, 309-314. 119 120 Bloom, L.; de Crespigny, A.; and Spence, J. An inter- disciplinary study Of social, moral, and political attitudes Of white and non-white South African University students,Journa1 of Social Psychology, 1961, 54, 3-12. Bogardus, E. S. Comparing racial distance in Ethiopia, S. Africa, and the United States. Sociology and Social Research, 1968, 52, 149-156. Brett, E. A. African attitudes: A study Of the social, racial, and political attitudes of some middle class Africans (a fact paper). South Africa Institute Of Race Relations, NO. 14, 1963. Brink, W. J. and Harris, L. The Negro revolution in America. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1964. Brink, W. J. and Harris, L. Black and White: A study of U.S. racial attituggs today. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1967. Brodwin, M. G. A facet theory analysis of "What's in a Name": Black versus Negro. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Brophy, I. N. The luxury Of anti-Negro prejudice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1964, 9, 456-466. Campbell, A., and Schuman, H. Racial attitudes in fif- teen American cities. Supplemental studies for the National Advisory Commission on Civil Dis- orders, Government Printing Office, June, 1968. Carlson, E. R. Attitude change through modification of attitude structure. Journal Of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1956,152, 256-261. Carter, C. A. and Mitchell, L. E. Attitudes of Negro pupils toward Whites. Journal of Human Relations, 1955-56, 4, 90-98. CBS News. White and Negro attitudes toward race related issues and activities. New York: CBS, 1968. Cook, S. V. and Sellitz, C. Some factors which influ- ence the attitudinal outcomes Of personal contact. International Social Science Journal, 1955, 7, 51-58 0 121 Cox, 0. C. Caste, class, and race: A study in social dynamics. New York: Doubleday, 1948. Cox, 0. C. Race and exploitation: A Marxist view. In Race and social difference, ed. P. Baxter and B. Sansom. Baltimore: Penguin Books, Inc., 1972, 205-220. Crijns, A. G. J. Race relations and race attitudes in South Africa. Janssen, Nijunegen, 1960. Dawson, J. L. M. Race and intergroup relations in Sierra Leone, Part 1. Race, 1964, 6, 83-99. Dawson, J. L. M. Race and intergroup relations in Sierra Leone, Part 2. Race, 1965, 217-231. Dawson, J. L. M. Attitudinal consistency and conflict in West Africa. International Journal of Psy- chology, 1969, 4, 39-53. de Blij, H. J. Africa South. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1962. Dell Orto, A. E. Guttman facet analysis Of the racial attitudes of rehabilitation counselor trainees. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Dell Orto, A. E. and Jordan, J. E. A multivariate analysis of racial attitudes; Structure, content, and determinants, Rehabilitation Psychology, 1973, 20, 3, 126-135. Deutsch, M. and Collins, M. E. Interracial housing: A psychological evaluation of a social experiment. Minneapolis: University Of Minnesota Press, 1951. Dollard, J.; DOOb, L.; Miller, N.; Mowrer, O. and Sears, R. Frustration and aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939. DOOb, L. W. Attitude surveys in West Africa. In Educa- tional and occupational selection in West Africa, ed. A. Taylor. London: Oxford University Press, 1962, 1-6. Down, W. J. A Guttman facet analysis Of attitudes toward the war-disabled in the Republic of Viet- Nam: Content,structure, and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1974. 8.1:.,.l1.trL..p to II 122 Droba, D. D. Education and Negro attitudes. Sociology and Social Research, 1932, 17, 137-141. Ehrlich, H. J. The social_psychologyyofprejudice. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1973. Engel, G. Some college students' responses concerning Negroes Of differing religious background. Journal of Social Psychology, 1968, 74, 275-283. Glasco, R. W. The Obsessive concern with self. Psy- chology Today, December, 1973, 43-64. Guttman, L. The problem of attitude and Opinion measurement. In Measurement and prediction, eds. S. A. Stouffer et al. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1950, 46-59 (a). Guttman, L. The basis for scalogram analysis. In Mea- surement and prediction, eds. S. A. Stouffer et al. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1950, 60-90 (h). Guttman, L. A structural theory for intergroup beliefs and action. American Sociological Review, 1959, 24, 318-328. Guttman, L. Measurement as structural theory. Psycho- metrika, 1971, 36, 329-347. Hamersma, R. J. Construction Of an attitude-behavior scale Of Negroes and whites toward each other using Guttman analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Hamersma, R. J.; Paige, J. and Jordan, J. E. Construc- tion Of a Guttman facet designed cross-cultural attitude-behavior scale toward racial-ethnic interaction. Educational and psychological measurement, 1974, in press. Harding, J. and Hogrefe, R. Attitudes of White depart- ment store employees toward Negro co-workers. Journal of Social Issues, 1952, 8, 18-28. Hatch, J. C. Nigeria: the seeds Of disaster. Chi- cago: H. Regnery CO., 1970. Iharskovits, M. J. Cultural anthropology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964. 123 Himelstein, P., and Moore, J. C. Racial attitudes and the action Of Negro- and White—background figures as factors in petition-signing. Journal Of Social Psychology, 1963, 61, 267-272. Holtzman, W. H. Attitudes of college men toward non- segregation in Texas schools. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1956, 20, 559-569. Hoyt, C. J. Test reliability estimated by analysis Of variance. In Principles Of educational and psyghological measurement, eds. W. Meherns and and R. Ebel. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967. Irvine, G. 8., Jr. Radical attitudes of Black and White Ministers: A Guttman facet theoryanalysis. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State UniverSity, 1974. Jahoda, G. Nationality preferences and national stere- otypes in Ghana before independence. The Journal Of Social Psycholggy, 1959, 50, 165-174. Jahoda, G. Aspects Of Westernization: A study Of adult-class students in Ghana: Part I. Brit. Journal of SOOiOlOSY, 1961, 12(4), 375-386. Jahoda, G. Aspects of Westernization: A study Of adult-class students in Ghana: Part II. Brit. Journal Of Sociology, 1962, 13(1), 43-56. Jordan, J. E. Attitude-behavior research on physical- mental-social disability and racial-ethnic dif- ferences. Psychological Aspects Of Disability, 1971, 18, 5-26 (a). Jordan, J. E. Construction Of a Guttman facet designed cross-cultural attitude-behavior scale toward mental retardation. American Journal Of Mental Deficiency, 1971, 76, 201-219 (b). Jordan, J. E. Attitudes toward education andyphysically disabledpersonsin eleven nations. East Lansing: Latin American Studies Center, Michigan State University, 1968. Jordan, J. E. Attitude-behaviors toward mentally retarded persons: A cross-cultural analysis. Final Report, U.S. Office of Education, Grant NO. OE6-0-8-00126-0197, Project NO. 7-E-126, Washing- ton, D.C. 1970. 124 Jordan, J. E. A cross-cultural facet theory paradigm for studying attitude-behaviors toward race- ethnicity-tribalism. Abstragts Of Proceedings, XX International Congress OfiPsychOlogy, August 13-19, 1972. Tokyo. Kaiser, H. F. Scaling a simplex. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 155-162. Kaple, J. Development Of an attitude-behavior toward drug users scale employing Guttman facet design and analysis. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 1971. Kelly, J. G.; Ferson, J. E. and Holtzman, W. H. The measurement Of attitudes toward the Negro in the South. Journal Of Social Psychology, 1958, 48, 305-317. KonOpka, G. Group therapy in overcoming racial and cultural tensions. American Journal of OrthOpsychiatry, 1947, 17, 693-699. Kuper, L. An African Bourgeoisie. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965. Larson, R. F.; Ahrenholz, G. L. and Graziplene, L. R. Integration attitudes Of college students at the University Of Alabama. Journal of Social Psy- chology, 1964, 63, 327-352. Lever, H. A comparative study Of social distance among various groups in the white high school popu- lation Of Johannesburg. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Witwatersrand, 1966. Lever, H. Reducing social distances in South Africa. Sociology and Social Research, 1967, 51, 494- 502. Lever, H. Ethnic attitudes Of Johannesburg youth. Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press, 1968. Lever, H. and Wagner, 0. Father's education as a fac- tor affecting social distance. Journal Of Social Research (Pretoria), 1965, 14, 21-30. Lobban, G. M. The effects Of the position of Africans in South African society on their choice of ethnic reference and identification groups and 125 ' their self concepts and attitudes towards social change. Unpublished B.A. thesis, University Of Witwatersrand, South Africa, 1971. Lombardi, D. N. Factors affecting changes in attitudes toward Negroes among high school students. Journal Of Negro Education, 1963, 32, 129-136. MacCrone, I. Psychological factors affecting the atti- tude Of White to Black in South Africa. South African Journal of Science, 1930, 27, 591-598. MacCrone, I. Race attitudes: An analysis and interpre- tation. Handbook on race relations in South Africa. Cape Town, 1949, 669-705 (a). MacCrone, I. Race attitudes: An analysis and inter- pretation. Handbook Of race relations in South Africa, ed. E. Hillemann. London: Oxford University Press, 1949 (b). MacCrone, I. An experimental scale for measuring the attitudes of Whites to the Native. South African Journal Of Science, 1932, 29, 826-830. MacCrone, 1. Race attitudes in South Africa. London: Oxford University Press, 1937 (a). MacCrone, I. A quantitative study Of stereotypes. South African Journal Of Science, 1937, 33, 1104-1111—7157. MacCrone, I. A comparative study of European and non- European differences in race preferences. South African Journal Of Science, 1938, 35, 412-416. MacCrone, I. Race attitudes and personality traits. South African Journal of Science, 1949, 46, 117(0) . MacCrone, I. and Starfield, A. A comparative study in multiple-factor analysis of "neurotic" tendency. Psychometrika, 1949, 14, 1-20. MacCrone, I. Ethnocentric ideology and ethnocentrism. Proceedings of the South African Psychological Association, 1953, NO. 4, 21-24. MacCrone, I. Parental origins and pOpular prejudices. Proceedings of the South African Psychological AssociatiOn, 1954, NO. 5, 10-12. 126 MacCrone, I. Factoral concomitants Of ethnocentrism. Proceedings ofghe South African Psychological Assoéiation, 1955, NO. 6, 8-10. Maierle, J. P. An application Of Guttman facet analy- sis tO attitude scale construction: A method- ological study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Mann, J. Attitudes to other racial groups. In Th3 Baumannville Community, ed. W. C. Hallenback. Institute for Social Research, University Of Natal, 1955, 182-196. Mann, J. Attitudes towards ethnic groups. In South Africa: Sociological perspectives, eds. H. Adan and K. Adan. London: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1971. Mann, J. W. Group relations and the marginal person- ality. Human Relations, 1958, II, 77-92. Mann, J. W. Rivals Of different rank. Journal Of Social Psychology, 1963, 61, 11-27. Mast, R. Some theoretical considerations in the study Of ifiternational rgce relations. Institute of Race RelatiOns, 1971 (a). Mast, R. The forces of change in the U.Si: Ethnicity, class and culture. Institute of Race Rela- tions, London, 1971 (b). McGuire, W. J. The nature Of attitudes and attitude change. In The handbook Of social psychology, Vol. III, eds. G. Lindzey and E. Aronson. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1969, 136-314. McLean, H. V. Psychodynamic factors in racial rela- tions. The Annals Of American Academy of Political and Social Science, Philadelphia, 1946, 244, 159-166. Melamed, L. A re-examination Of MacCrone's race atti- tude scale. Psychological Science, 1967, I, 19-20. Merton, R. K.; West, P. S. and Jahoda, M. Social fic- tions and social facts: The dynamics Of race relations in Hilltown. New York: Columbia Uni— versity Of Applied Social Research, 1949 (mime- ographed). 127 Munger, E. S. Afrikaner and African nationalism: South African parallels and parameters. London: published for Institute Of Race Relations by Oxford University Press, 1967. Mussen, P. H. The psychological development of the child. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Nash, M. Race and the ideology Of race. In Race and social differences, eds. P. Baxter and B. San- som. Baltimore: Penguin Books, Inc., 1972, 111-121. Ogot, B. A. Racial consciousness among Africans. East Africa Journal, 1965, Vol. 2, 17-23. Orpen, C. Ethnocentrism and authoritarianism in the White population of South Africa. Unpublished M. A. thesis, University Of Cape Town, 1966. PaulOS, T. H. Attitudes toward the deaf: A Guttman facet analysis Of their content, structure, and determinants. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, Michigan State University, 1970. Pettigrew, T. F.; Allport, G. W. and Barnett, E. O. Binocular resolution and perception of race in South Africa. British Journal Of Psychology, 1958, Vol. 49, 265-278. Pettigrew, T. Social distance attitudes of South African students. Social Forces, 1960, 38, 254-63. Phillips, N. The tragedy Of gpartheid. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961. de Ridder, J. The personality_of the urban African in South Africa. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961. Reader, D. African and Afro-European Research: A summary of previously unpublished findings in the National Institute for Personnel Research. Psychologia Africana, 1963, 10, 1-18. Report Of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. New York: Bantam Books, Inc., 1968. Rogers, C. A. A study Of race attitudes in Nigeria. Rhodes-Liviggstone Institute Journal, 1959, 26, 51-64 0 128 Rogers, C. A. and Frante, C. Racial themes in Southern Rhodesia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1962. Rosberg, C. G. and Nottingham, J. C. The myth of "Mau Mau"; Nationalism in Kenya. New York: Praeger, 1966. Russell, M. A. A study of a South African interracial neighborhood. Durban: University Of Natal, 1961. Sherif, M. and Sherif, C. W. Groups in harmony and ten- sion; An integration Of studies on intergroup relations. New York: Harper, 1953. Sherwood, R. The Bantu clerk: A study Of role expecta- tions. Journal of Social Psychology, 1958, 47, 285-316. Smith, W. J. and Jordan, J. E. A Guttman facet analysis of racial attitudes in the United wtates and Africa. Proceedings Of American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada, 1973. Snyder, L. L. Race: A history of modern ethnic the- ories. New York: Longmand, Green & CO., 1939. Stephenson, C. M. The relation between attitudes toward Negroes of White college students and the college or school in which they are registered. Journal Of Social Psychology, 1952, 36, 197-204. Stouffer, S. A., ed. Measurement and_prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Trent, R. D. The relation between expressed self- acceptance and expressed attitudes towards Negroes and Whites among Negro children. Journal of Genetic PsychologY: 1957, 91, 25-31. Tyler, Sir E. B. Anthropology; An introduction tO the study Of man and civilization. New York: Appleton, 1900. Tyler, Sir E. B. Anthropology. Ann Arbor, University Of Michigan Press, 1960. van den Berghe, P. L. Race attitudes in Durban, South Africa. Journal of Social Psychology, 1962, 57, 55-72. 129 Warner, W. L. American class and caste. In Race and social difference, eds. P. Baxter and B. Sansom. 1972, 364-367. Weller, L. The relationship of personality and non- personality factors to prejudice. Journal of Social Psychology, 1964, 63, 129-137. Williams, R. L. Cognitive and affective components Of southern Negro students' attitudes toward aca- demic integration. Journal of Social Psychology, 1968, 76, 107-111. Williams, W. S. Attitudes of Black and White policemen toward the Opposite race. Unpublished Ph.D. dis- sertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Wilner, D. M.; Walkley, R. P. and Cook, S. W. Residen- tial proximity and intergroup relations in public housing. Journal of Social Issues, 1952, 8, 45-70. Yarrow, M. R.; Campbell, J.D. and Yarrow, L. F. Inter- personal dynamics in racial integration. In Readings in social psychology, eds. E. E. McCoby, T. M. Newcomb, and E. L. Hartley. New York: Rinehart and Winston, 1958, 623-636. APPENDICES 130 APPENDIX A ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE: BLACK/WHITE, SOUTH AFRICAN FORM 131 APPENDIX A SAF ATTITUDE‘BEHAVIOR’SCALE’BW-G Directions This booklet contains statements of how people behave in certain situations or feel about certain things. You, yourself, or other Blacks Often behave in the same way toward Whites. You also have some general ideas about yourself, about other Black persons like you and about Whites. Sometimes you feel or behave the same way toward everyone and sometimes you feel or behave dif- ferently toward Whites. This questionnaire has statements about ideas and about behavior. Each statement of this questionnaire is dif- ferent from every other section, although some of the statements in each section are similar. Your answers in one section, therefore, may be the same as answers in another section, or your answers may differ from section to section. Here is a sample statement: Sample I Other Blacks believe the following things about Whites as compared to Blacks: 1. Chance Of Whites being taller (12:) less chance than Blacks . about the same 3. more chance than Blacks If other Blacks believe that Whites have less chance than Blacks to be taller, you should circle the number 1 as shown above or if you are using an IBM answer sheet, make a heavy dark line on the answer sheet between the two lines after the number as follows: l. l I... 2. ==== 3. ==== 4. ==== 5. ==== 112270 133 SAF Sample II Next you should indicate how sure you were of your answer. If you felt sure, your complete answer would be as follows: l. Chance Of Whites being taller 2. How sure are you Of this answer? (;) less chance than Blacks 1. not sure . about the same 2. fairly sure 3. more chance than Blacks ® sure 1. 1.. 2:: 3:: 4:: 5:: 2. 1:: 2:: 3— 4:: 5:: * * * * * *DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THE BOOKLET* * * * * * ABS-I-BW—G Directions: Section I This section contains statements about ideas which other Blacks have about Whites. Circle or fill in the answer sheet number that indicates how other Blacks compare Whites with themselves. Please answer all questions. Other Blacks believe the following things about Whites as compared to Blacks: l. Whites can be trusted with money 2. How sure are you of this answer? 1. less than Blacks 1. not sure 2. about the same as Blacks 2. fairly sure 3. more than Blacks 3. sure 3. White families are closely knit 4. How sure are you Of this answer? 1. less Often than Black ones 1. not sure 2. about as often as Black ones 2. fairly sure 3. more Often than Black ones 3. sure 5. Whites' intellectual ability is 6. How sure are you of this answer? 1. less than Blacks' 1. not sure 2. about the same as Blacks' 2. fairly sure 3. more than Blacks' 3. sure 112270 134 SAF 7. Whites desire a higher education 8. How sure are you Of this answer? 1. less Often than Blacks 1. not sure 2. about as often as Blacks 2. fairly sure 3. more Often than Blacks 3. sure 9. Whites help their neighbors 10. How sure are you Of this answer? 1. less than Blacks 1. not sure 2. about the same as Blacks 2. fairly sure 3. more than Blacks 3. sure 11. White neighborhoods are safe 12. How sure are you Of this answer? 1. less Often than Black ones 1. not sure 2. about as Often as Black ones 2. fairly sure 3. more Often than Black ones 3. sure 13. Whites Obey job rules and 14. How sure are you regulations of this answer? 1. less than Blacks 1. not sure 2. about the same as Blacks 2. fairly sure 3. more than Blacks 3. sure 15. Blacks enjoy working with 16. How sure are you Whites of this answer? 1. less than Whites dO with 1. not sure Blacks 2. fairly sure 2. about the same as Whites 3. sure 3. more than Whites dO with Blacks ABS-II-BW-G Directions: Section II This section contains statements about things which many other Blacks like you may believe about Whites. Please choose the answer that indicates what you think most others believe about Whites. Most Blacks generally believe the following about inter- acting with Whites: 112270 17. 19. 21. 23. 25. 27. 29. 135 Blacks believe they can trust Whites with money 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree Blacks believe that White families are as closely knit as their own 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree Blacks believe the intellec- tual ability Of Whites is the same as Blacks 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree Blacks desire to share their higher education with Whites 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree Blacks like tO help White neighbors 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree Blacks believe that White neighborhoods are safe to live in 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree Blacks believe Whites Obey job rules and regulations the same as Blacks do 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 112270 18. 20. 22. 24. 26. 28. 30. SAF How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 136 31. Blacks believe they enjoy working with Whites l. 2. 3. Directions: disagree uncertain agree ABS-III-BW-G Section III 32. SAF How sure are you of this answer? 1. 2. 3. not sure fairly sure sure This section contains statements about ways in which you, Please choose the answer that indicates how you feel you should believe. yourself, should act toward Whites. In respect to Whites, do you,yourself, believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 33. 1 2 3 35. To as is l. 2. 3. 37. TO TO trust Whites with money is usually wrong undecided usually right expect White families to be closely knit as Black ones usually wrong undecided usually right expect Whites' intellectual ability tO be same as Blacks is l. 2. 3. 39. TO usually wrong undecided usually right expect Whites to desire a higher education as much as Blacks is 1. 2. 3. 112270 usually wrong undecided usually right 34. 36. 38. 40. How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 137 SAF 41. To expect Blacks to help White 42. How sure are you neighbors is Of this answer? 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 43. TO expect Blacks to believe 44. How sure are you that White neighborhoods are Of this answer? safe for them is 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 45. TO expect Blacks to Obey job 46. How sure are you rules and regulations the same of this answer? as Whites is 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 47. TO expect Blacks to enjoy work- 48. How sure are you ing with Whites is Of this answer? 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure ABS-IV-BW-G Directions: Section IV This section contains statements about how you think you would act toward Whites. Choose the answer that indi- cates how you think you would act. In respect to a White person, would you, yourself: 49. I would trust Whites with 50. How sure are you money of this answer? 1. no 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. yes- 3. sure 112270 51. 53. 55. 57. 59. 61. 63. 138 I would want my family to be as closely knit as White families are 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes I would want the same intel- lectual ability as Whites 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes I would want to have the same desire Whites do for a higher education 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes I would help White neighbors 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes I would want Black neighbor- hoods tO be as safe as White ones 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes I would Obey job rules and regulations the same as Whites 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes I would enjoy working with Whites 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 112270 52. 54. 56. 58. 60. 62. 64. SAF How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 139 SAF ABS-V-BW-G Directions: Section V This section concerns actual feelings that Black peOple may have about Whites. You are asked tO indicate how you feel about the following statements. How do you actually feel toward Whites: 65. When Blacks trust Whites with 66. How sure are you money I feel of this answer? 1. bad 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. gOOd 3. sure 67. When Black families are as 68. How sure are you closely knit as I think White of this answer? families are I feel 1. bad 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. good 3. sure 69. When Blacks' intellectual 70. How sure are you ability is the same as Whites Of this answer? I feel 1. bad 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. good 3. sure 71. When Whites desire a higher 72. How sure are you education as much as Blacks of this answer? do I feel 1. bad 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. good 3. sure 73. When Blacks help White neigh- 74. How sure are you bors I feel Of this answer? 1. bad 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. good 3. sure 112270 140 SAF 75. When Blacks are safe in White 76. How sure are you neighborhoods I feel of this answer? 1. bad 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. good 3. sure 77. When Whites Obey job rules and 78. How sure are you regulations with Blacks I feel Of this answer? 1. dissatisfied 1- not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. satisfied 3. sure 79. When Blacks enjoy working with 80. How sure are you Whites I feel of this answer? 1. bad 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. good 3. sure ABS-VI-BW-G Directions: Section VI This section concerns actual experiences you have had with Whites. Try to answer the following questions from the knowledge Of your own experiences. Experiences or contacts with Whites: 81. I have trusted Whites with 82. How sure are you money Of this answer? 1. no experience 1. no experience 2. no 2. not sure 3. uncertain 3. fairly sure 4. yes 4. sure 83. I have seen that White fami- 84. How sure are you lies are as closely knit as Of this answer? Black ones 1. no experience 1. no experience 2. no 2. not sure 3. uncertain 3. fairly sure 4. yes 4. sure 112270 85. 87. 89. 91. 93. 95. 141 My intellectual ability is equal to the Whites I know no experience no uncertain . yes bWNH I have wanted a higher educa- tion as much as the Whites I have known . nO experience . nO . uncertain . yes bUNl-d I have helped a White neighbor 1. no experience nO uncertain yes I have felt safe when in White neighborhoods . no experience . no . uncertain . yes QWNH I have seen that Whites Obey job rules and regulations when working with Blacks no experience no . uncertain . yes thH O I have enjoyed working with Whites 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 112270 86. 88. 90. 92. 94. 96. SAF How sure are you of this answer? . no experience . not sure . fairly sure . sure bWNH How sure are you of this answer? no experience not sure . fairly sure . sure #0030!“ O 0 How sure are you of this answer? 1. no experience . not sure . fairly sure . sure «>qu How sure are you of this answer? 1. 2. 3. 4. no experience not sure fairly sure sure How sure are you Of this answer? . no experience . not sure . fairly sure . sure bWNH How sure are you of this answer? 1. 2. 3. 4. no experience not sure fairly sure sure 142 SAF ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE--ABS-BW-D This part Of the questionnaire deals with many things. For the purpose Of this study, the answers of all persons are important. Part Of the questionnaire has to do with personal infor- mation about you. Since the questionnaire is completely anonymous or confidential, you may answer all of the ques- tions freely without any concern about being identified. It is important to the study tO Obtain your answer to every question. Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions. Please answer by circling the answer or mark- ing the space on the IBM answer sheet. 97. Please indicate your sex. 1. Female 2. Male 98. Please indicate your age as follows: 1. Under 20 2. 21-30 3. 31-40 4. 41-50 5. 51-over 112270 143 SAF 99. What is your marital status? 1. Married Single Divorced Widowed Separated 100. What is your religion? 1. I prefer not to answer Catholic Protestant Jewish Other 101. Please indicate level Of education First year university Second year university Third year university Fourth year university Graduate student 102. Some people feel that in bringing up children, new ways and methods should be tried whenever possible. Others feel that trying out new methods is dangerous. What is your feeling about the following statement? "New methods of raising children should be tried whenever possible." 1. 2. 3. 4. 112270 Strongly disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Strongly agree 103. 104 O 105. 106 0 112270 144 SAF Family planning on birth control has been discussed by many peOple. What is your feeling about a mar- ried couple practicing birth control? 1. It is always wrong 2. It is usually wrong 3. It is probably all right 4. It is always right The following questions have to do with kinds of experiences you have had with Whites. If more than one experience applies, please choose the answer with the highest number. 1. I have read or studied about Whites through reading, movies, lecture or observation. 2. A friend or relative is a White person. 3. I have personally worked with Whites as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, child care, etc. Considering all of the time you have talked, worked or in some other way had personal contact with Whites, about how much has it been altogether? 1. Only a few casual contacts. 2. Between one and three months. 3. Between three and six months. 4. Between six months and one year. 5. More than one year Of contact. When you have been in contact with Whites, how easy for you, in general, would you say it would have been to avoid being with them? 1. I have had no contact. 2. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only at great cost or difficulty. 3. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only with considerable difficulty. 107. 108. 109. 112270 145 SAF 4. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts but with some inconvenience. 5. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts without any difficulty or inconveni- ence. If you have ever worked with Whites for personal gain (for example, for money or some other gain) what Opportunities did you have (or do you have) to work at something else instead; that is, some- thing else that was (is) acceptable tO you as a job? 1. NO such experience. 2. NO other job available. 3. Other jobs available not at all acceptable to me. 4. Other jobs available were not quite acceptable to me. 5. Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me. How have you generally felt about your experiences with Whites? 1. NO experience. 2. I definitely dislike it. 3. I did not like it very much. 4. I like it somewhat. 5. I definitely enjoyed it. Which of the following do you think would have the greatest effect of reducing racial prejudice? Circle only one or mark only one on the IBM answer sheet. 1. Integration Of schools. 2. Publicity campaigns to promote integration. 3. Fair employment legislation. 146 SAP 4. Open housing legislation. 5. Direct, personal contact between members Of various racial groups. 110. How would you rate your own racial attitudes as compared tO the average person? 1. Very much more prejudiced. 2. Somewhat more prejudiced. 3. About the same. 4. Somewhat less prejudiced. 5. Very much less prejudiced. 111. TO which racial group do you belong? l. Prefer not to answer. 2. White 3. Black 4. Oriental 5. Other 112. Where were you mainly reared or "brought up" in your youth (that is, up to age 21)? 1. Country 2. Country town 3. City suburb 4. City 112270 147 LIFE SITUATIONS SAF This section Of the booklet deals with how people feel about several aspects Of life or life situations. indicate how you feel about each 113. 115. 117. 119. 121. It should be possible to eliminate war once and for all 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Success depends to a large extent on luck and fate 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree Someday most Of the mys- teries Of the world will be revealed by science 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree By improving industrial and agricultural methods, poverty can be eliminated in the world . strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree abuts)?“ With increased medical knowledge, it should be possible to lengthen the average life span to 100 years or more 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 112270 Please situation by circling the answer you choose or marking on the IBM answer sheet. 114. 116. 118. 120. 122. How sure do you feel about your answer? 1. not sure at all 2. not very sure 3. fairly sure 4. very sure How sure do you feel about your answer? . not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure waH How sure do you feel about your answer? 1. not sure at all 2. not very sure 3. fairly sure 4. very sure How sure do you feel about your answer? not very sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure bUNH 0.00 How sure do you feel about your answer? 1. notvery sure at all 2. not very sure 3. fairly sure 4. very sure 148 123. Someday the deserts will be converted into gOOd farming land by the appli- cation Of engineering and science 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 125. Education can only help people develop their natural abilities; it cannot change 124. 126. people in any fundamental way 1. strongly agree 2 agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 127. With hard work anyone can succeed 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 129. Almost every present human problem will be solved in the future 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 112270 128. 130. SAF How sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure «>me o o o o How sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure bUNl-J How sure do you feel about your answer? . not sure at all 2. not very sure 3. fairly sure 4. very sure 1 How sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure DWNH 0000 97 APPENDIX B ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE: WHITE/BLACK, SOUTH AFRICAN FORM 149 APPENDIX B SAF ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE WB-G Directions This booklet contains statements Of how people behave in certain situations or feel about certain things. You, yourself, or other White persons Often behave in the same way toward Blacks. You also have some general ideas about yourself, about other White persons like you and about Blacks. Sometimes you feel or behave the same way toward everyone and sometimes you feel or behave differently toward Blacks. This questionnaire has statements about ideas and about behavior. Each statement Of this questionnaire is dif- ferent from every other section, although some Of the statements in each section are similar. Your answers in one section, therefore, may be the same as answers in another section, or your answers may differ from section to section. Here is a sample statement: Sample I Other Whites believe the following things about Blacks as compared to Whites: l. Chance Of Blacks being taller less chance than Whites 2. about the same 3. more chance than Whites If other Whites believe that Blacks have less chance than Whites to be taller, you should circle the number 1 as shown above or if you are using an IBM answer sheet make a heavy dark line on the answer sheet between the two lines after the number as follows: 1c 1 H.- 2 ===: 3 :::: 4 :::: S ==== 112270 150 151 Sample II SAF Next you should indicate how sure you were Of your answer. If you felt sure your complete answer would be as follows: 1. 1. * * * * * DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THE BOOKLET * * * * * * Directions: Chance Of Blacks being taller less chance than Whites . about the same 3. more chance than Whites 1— 2:: 3:: 4:: 5:: ABS-I-WB-G Section I 2. How sure are you Of 2. this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure sure 1:: 2:: 3.. 4:: 5:: This section contains statements about ideas which other Whites have about Blacks. sheet number that indicates how other Whites compare Blacks with themselves. Please answer all questions. Other Whites believe the following things about Blacks as compared to Whites: 1. Blacks can be trusted with money 1. less than Whites 2. about the same as Whites 3. more than Whites Black families are closely knit 1. less Often than White ones 2. about as Often as White ones 3. more Often than White ones Blacks' intellectual ability is 1. less than Whites' 2. about the same as Whites' 3. more than-Whites' 112270 2. 6. How sure are you this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure Circle or fill in the answer Of of Of 11. 13. 15. Directions: 152 Blacks desire a higher educa- tion 1. less Often than Whites 2. about as Often as Whites 3. more Often than Whites Blacks help their neighbors 1. less than Whites 2. about the same as Whites 3. more than Whites Black neighborhoods are safe 1. less Often than White ones 2. about as Often as White ones 3. more Often than White ones Blacks Obey job rules and regu- lations 1. less than Whites 2. about the same as Whites 3. more than Whites Whites enjoy working with Blacks 1. less than Blacks do with Whites 2. about the same as Blacks 3. more than Blacks do with Whites ABS-II-WB-G Section II 10. 12. 14. 16. SAF How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure This section contains statements about things which many other Whites like you may believe about Blacks. Please choose the answer that indicates that you think most others believe about Blacks. Most Whites generally believe the following about inter- acting with Blacks: 112270 "‘Wgfi. ..,r "I“ ~ g.— A m .R..N\!L..rbyp . W a F -— 17. 19. 21. 23. 25. 27. 29. 153 Whites believe they can trust Blacks with money 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree Whites believe that Black families are as closely knit as their own 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree Whites believe the intellec- tual ability Of Blacks is the same as Whites 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree Whites desire to share their higher education with Blacks 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree Whites like to help Black neighbors 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree Whites believe that Black neighborhoods are safe to live in 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree Whites believe Blacks Obey job rules and regulations the same as Whites do 1. disagree 2. uncertain 3. agree 112270 18. 20. 22. 24. 26. 28. 30. SAF How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 154 SAF 31. Whites believe they enjoy 32. How sure are you working with Blacks of this answer? 1. disagree 1. not sure 2. uncertain 2. fairly sure 3. agree 3. sure ABS-III-WB-G Directions: Section III This section contains statements about ways in which you, yourself, should act toward Blacks. Please choose the answer that indicates how you feel you should believe. In respect to Blacks, do you, yourself, believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 33. TO trust Blacks with money 34. How sure are you is of this answer? 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 35. To expect Black families to 36. How sure are you be as closely knit as White of this answer? ones is 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 37. To expect Blacks' intellec- 38. How sure are you tual ability to be the same of this answer? as Whites is 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 39. TO expect Blacks to desire a 40. How sure are you higher education as much as Of this answer? Whites is 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided , 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 112270 155 SAF 41. To expect Whites to help 42. How sure are you Black neighbors is Of this answer? 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 43. To expect Whites tO believe 44. How sure are you that Black neighborhoods are of this answer? safe for them is y 1. usually wrong 1. not sure ; 2. undecided 2. fairly sure ‘ 3. usually right 3. sure f 45. To expect Whites to Obey job 46. How sure are you 2 rules and regulations the Of this answer? ‘ same as Blacks is E 1. usually wrong 1. not sure I 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 47. TO expect Whites to enjoy 48. How sure are you working with Blacks is Of this answer? 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right ~3. sure ABS-IV-WB-G Directions: Section IV This section contains statements about how you think you would act toward Blacks. Choose the answer that indi- cates how you think you would act. In respect to a Black person would you, yourself: 49. I would trust Blacks with 50. How sure are you money of this answer? 1. no 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure 112270 51. 53. 55. 57. 59. 61. 63. 156 I would want my family to be as closely knit as Black fami- lies are 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes I would want the same intel- lectual ability as Blacks 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes I would want to have the same desire Blacks do for a higher education ‘ 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes I would help Black neighbors 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes I would want White neighbor- hoods tO be as safe as Black ones 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes I would Obey job rules and regulations the same as Blacks 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes I would enjoy working with Blacks 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 112270 52. 54. 56. 58. 6o. 62. 64. SAP How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure Directions: 157 ABS-V-WB-G Section V SAF This section concerns actual feelings that White people may have about Blacks. feel about the following statements. How do you actually feel about Blacks: 65. 67. 69. 71. 73. When Whites trust Blacks with money I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When White families are as closely knit as I think Black families are I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Whites' intellectual ability is the same as Blacks I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Blacks desire a higher education as much as Whites do I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Whites help Black neigh- bors I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good 112270 66. 68. 70. 72. 74. You are asked to indicate how you How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 75. 77. 79. Directions: 158 When Whites are safe in Black neighborhoods I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. gOOd When Blacks Obey job rules and regulations with Whites, I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Whites enjoy working with Blacks, I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good ABS-VI-WB-G Section VI 76. 78. 80. SAF How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. 2. 3. not sure fairly sure sure This section concerns actual experiences you have had with Blacks. the knowledge of your own experiences: Experiences or contacts with Blacks: 81. 83. I have trusted Blacks with money 1. 2. 3. 4. no experience no uncertain yes I have seen that Black fami- lies are as closely knit as White ones nO experience . no uncertain . yes 112270 82. 84. Try to answer the followifig questions from How sure are you of this answer? . no experience not sure fairly sure sure hUNH How sure are you of this answer? no experience not sure fairly sure sure bUNH 85. 87. 89. 91. 93. 95. 159 My intellectual ability is equal to the Blacks I know . no experience no uncertain yes ubWNH I have wanted a higher educa- tion as much as the Blacks I have known . no experience no uncertain yes bWNI—J I have helped a Black neighbor no experience no uncertain yes fiWNI—J I have felt safe when in Black neighborhoods 1. no experience no uncertain . yes 2 3 4 I have seen that Blacks Obey job rules and regulations when working with Whites 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have enjoyed working with Blacks no experience no uncertain yes humid o o 0 112270 86. 88. 90. 92. 94. 96. SAF How sure are you Of this answer? 1. no experience 2. not sure 3. fairly sure 4. sure How sure are you Of this answer? 1. no experience 2. not sure 3. fairly sure 4. sure How sure are you Of this answer? . no experience not sure fairly sure sure kUNH o How sure are you Of this answer? 1. no experience 2. not sure 3. fairly sure 4. sure How sure are you Of this answer? no experience not sure fairly sure . sure .54-UN.“ o o How sure are you Of this answer? no experience not sure fairly sure sure bWNI—J o o o uf-l" 160 SAF ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE--ABS-WB-D This part Of the questionnaire deals with many things. For the purpose Of this study, the answers Of all per- sons are important. Part Of the questionnaire has to do with personal infor- Eh mation about you. Since the questionnaire is completely anonymous or confidential, you may answer all Of the questions freely without any concern about being iden- tified. It is important to the study to Obtain your answer to every question. Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions. Please answer by circling the answer or marking the space on the IBM answer sheet. 97. Please indicate your sex. 1. Female 2. Male 98. Please indicate your age as follows: 1. Under 20 2. 21-30 3. 31-40 4. 41-50 5. Sl-Over 112270 161 SAF 99. What is your marital status? 1. Married 2. Single 3. Divorced 4. Widowed 5. Separated 100. What is your religion? 1. I prefer not to answer 2. Catholic 3. Protestant 4. Jewish 5. Other 101. Please indicate level of education 1. First year university 2. Second year university 3. Third year university 4. Fourth year university 5. Graduate student 102. Some people feel that in bringing up children, new ways and methods should be tried whenever possible. Others feel that trying out new methods is dangerous. What is your feeling about the following statement? I"New methods of raising children should be tried whenever possible." 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree 112270 103. 104. 105. 106. 112270 162 SAF Family planning on birth control has been discussed by many peOple. What is your feeling about a mar- ried couple practicing birth control? 1. It is always wrong 2. It is usually wrong 3. It is probably all right 4. It is always right The following questions have to do with kinds of experiences you have had with Blacks. If more than one experience applied, please choose the answer with the highest number. 1. I have read or studied about Blacks through reading, movies, lecture, or observation. 2. A friend or relative is a Black person. 3. I have personally worked with Blacks as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, child care, etc. Considering all Of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contact with Blacks,about how much has it been altogether? 1. Only a few casual contacts 2. Between one and three months 3. Between three and six months 4. Between six months and one year 5. More than one year Of contact When you have been in contact with Blacks, how easy for you, in general, would you say it would have been to have avoided being with them? 1. I have had no contact. 2. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only with great cost or difficulty. 3. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only with considerable difficulty. B; 107. 108. 109. 163 SAF 4. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts but with some inconvenience. S. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts without any difficulty or inconveni- ence. If you have ever worked with Blacks for personal gain (for example, for money or some other gain) what Opportunities did you have (or do you have) to work at something else instead; that is, some- '5 thing else that was (is) acceptable to you as a job? “ 1. NO such experience 2. NO other job available 3. Other jobs available not at all acceptable to El me 4. Other jobs available were not quite acceptable to me 5. Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me How have you generally felt about your experiences with Blacks? 1. NO experience 2. I definitely dislike it 3. I did not like it very much 4. I like it somewhat 5. I definitely enjoyed it Which Of the following do you think would have the greatest effect Of reducing prejudice? Circle only one or mark only one on the IBM answer sheet. 1. Integration of schools 2. Publicity campaigns to promote integration 3. Fair employment practices 4. Open housing legislation 5. Direct, personal contact between members Of various racial groups 112270 164 SAF 110. How would you rate your own racial attitudes as compared to the average person? 1. Very much more prejudiced 2. Somewhat more prejudiced 3. About the same 4. Somewhat less prejudiced 5. Very much less prejudiced -1 111. To which racial group do you belong? l. Prefer not to answer 2. White 3! 3. Black 4. Oriental 5. Other 112. Where were you mainly reared or "brought up" in your youth (that is, up to age 21)? 1. Country 2. Country town 3. City suburb 4. City LIFE SITUATIONS This section of the booklet deals with how people feel about several aspects of life or life situations. Please indicate how you feel about each situation by circling the answer you choose or marking on the IBM answer sheet. 113. It should be possible to 114. How sure do you feel eliminate war once and about your answer? for all not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 112270 bUNH :v 4 165 115. Success depends to a large 116. part on luck and fate 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 117. Someday most of the mys- 118. teries Of the world will be revealed by science . strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree kUNH 119. By improving industrial 120. and agricultural methods, poverty can be eliminated in the world 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 121. With increased medical 122. knowledge, it should be pos- sible to lengthen the average life span to 100 years or more . strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree QWNH 123. Someday the deserts will be 124. converted into good farming land by the application Of engineering and science strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree bWNH o o o 0 112270 SAF How sure do you feel about your answer? 1. not sure at all 2. not very sure 3. fairly sure 4. very sure How sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure . very sure bUNI“ . . . How sure do you feel about your answer? 1 . not very sure at all 2. not very sure 3. fairly sure 4. very sure How sure do you feel about your answer? not very sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure DOOM): o o o o How sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 350030!“ 0 o o o 166 125. Education can only help people develop their natu- ral abilities; it cannot change people in any fun- damental way. 1. 2. 3. 4. 127. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree With hard work anyone can succeed 1. 2. 3. 4. strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree 129. Almost every present human problem will be solved in the future 1. Obi-HM o o 0 112270 strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree 126. 128. 130. SAF How sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure . very sure bWNH How sure do you feel about your answer? . not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure bWNH How sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure bWNH APPENDIX C SIMPLEX DATA 167 APPENDIX C SIMPLEX DATA TABLE 16.--Simplex Matrix for ED 429 Sample (84). O‘U'IQUJNH o o o o c o __ l. 34 -- 2 2. 08 17 -- 09 85 3. 06 22 46 -- 4. 06 oo 34 47 -- 5. 10 05 29 48 1g -- 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 34 -- 2 17 08 -- BQ '91 21 06 46 -- 05 10 29 48 -- oo 06 34 47 16 -- *1 2 3 4 *5 6 TABLE 17.--Simplex Matrix for Kenya Sample (152). l. -- 1. -- 2. 22 -- 2 2. 22 -- 2 3. 13 31 -- 0° '80 3. 28 21 -- 3° 91 4. 20 20 33 -- 4. 20 20 59 -- 5. 28 21 33 59 -- 5. 13 31 33 33 -- 6. 24 25 23 29 15y -- 6. 24 25 15 29 23 -- l 2 3 4 5 6 l 2 3* 4 5 6 TABLE 18.--Simplex Matrix for Nigeria OWWI§UNH o o o o o o —— 1. 24 -- 2 2. 04 28 -- 00 82 3. 15 27 38 -- 4. 10 32 31 64 -- 5. 22 31 19 28 32 —- 6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Sample (87). 22 -- 2 24 31 __ BO .95 10 32 32 -- 15 28 28 64 -- 04 19 29 31 40 -- l 2 3 4 5 6 168 Y 169 TABLE 19.--Simplex Matrix for South Africa Sample (180). 1. -- 2 1. -- 2. 12 -- oo .77 2. 12 -- 2 3. 14 14 -- 3. 12 29 -- BQ '78 4. 12 29 54 -- 4. 01 37 47 -- 5. 01 37 33 47 -- 5. 14 14 54 33 -- 6. 08 29 33 17 9;_ -- 6. 08 29 17 03 33 -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 .. 1..."; 1. -- 1. -- 2. 23 -- 2 2. 23 -- 2 3. 14 57 -- OQ '89 3. 14 57 -- BQ '89 4. 29 29 60 -- 4. 29 29 60 -- 5. 20 22 56 75 -- 5. 20 22 56 75 -- 6. 01 26 20 55 3g -- 6. 01 26 20 55 38 -- l 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 TABLE 21.--Simplex Matrix for MSU White Sample (411). 1. -- 1. -- 2 2. 36 -- 2 2. 37 -- BO .93 3. 23 36 -- OQ '93 3. 23 36 —— 4. 32 34 66 -- 4. 32 34 66 -- 5. 06 08 46 48 -- 5. 06 08 46 48 -- 6. 07 15 26 38 21 -- 6. 06 15 26 37 21 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4* 5 TABLE 22.--Simplex Matrix for Georgia Sample (102). 1. -- 1. -- 2. 34 -- 2 2. 34 -- 2 3. 44 35 -- OQ '84 3. 35 44 -- BQ '90 4. 37 34 62 -- 4. 35 37 62 -- 5. 3o 21 49 48 -- 5. 32 35 53 52 -- 6. 35 32 53 52 38 -- 6. 21 3o 49 48 39 -- 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 .h. E! 1.153.715 u. - i‘l ..I..I.l 4' 11.1IIIII" . "71111111111411.1111“