{Ev EXPRESSIONS 0F PREIUDICE THROUGH VERBAL BEHAVIOR Thesis for the Degree of M. A.- MICHIGAN ”STATE UNWERSITY ALAN L. EVANS 1 970 N ‘5 . '3“ Huh“ 3’ amomc BY : 1" HUME & SUNS. § Max smut“ INC Y. R A R . B I L i M W fill]: f U 083 53 HI; If W W G 1 @in T W I‘HES‘S ABSTRACT EXPRESSIONS OF PREJUDICE THROUGH VERBAL BEHAVIOR By Alan L. Evans The purpose of this study was to investigate systematic differences inverbal behavior of White subjects in the presence of another White as compared to their behavior in the presence of a Black, these differences considered to be behavioral expressions of prejudice. In an experiment purporting to study student opinion on social issues, Black or White accomplices presented either a pre — pared "radical" or "conservative" viewpoint on the causes and solutions of big city racial problems in the United States to White male _S_s who were all enrolledin introductory psychology classes. The 80 Es were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: Black radical, Black conservative, White radical, and White conservative. The subjects in all four conditions were informed that they were to debate the racial issue. Their initial, Alan L. Evans uninterrupted responses (averaging approximately six minutes) were tape recorded. Two raters later listened to the tapes and tabulated the frequencies of the following behaviors per fifteen —second segment of speech: 1 . Defensiveness: Straying from the topic Making a qualification after an apparent agreement Separation of past attitudes from present (”used to") Vacillating opinion and abrupt changes in. context 2. Anxiety: P‘QQ-H’be-PD'?’ Incoherency Slips of the tongue Awkward pauses (15 seconds of silence) Clearing of the throat Voice quaver Nervous giggle Deep sighing and breathing Repeating words and phrases, aspirated speech, stuttering 3. Insecurity: a. P‘ rbmdo Excuse behavior: excuses for others' and self' 8 behavior Citing personal and others' personal experience with the racial situation Bragging Pleadingignorance of the topic Apologizing All indications of felt inadequacy 4. Dogmatism: a. b. A statement which objectively would be open to question but is presented as an absolute Citing questionable facts 10. Alan L. Evans Moving Towards: Solidarity and Agreement a. Statements of agreement with the speaker b. Empathy, sympathy, and friendliness towards actor c. Immediacy: Use of "we" Positive Regard: a. Expressing affection, positive feelings, or empathy towards others b. Mentioning others' affection, positive feelings, or empathy towards others c. General optimism Moving Away: a. Disagreement with actor' 3 position b. Non-immediacy: Use of "I" and "you" Undifferentiated Hostility: a. Mentioning violent and painful happenings, wars, smashings, burnings, riots, deaths, etc. b. Hostile feelings on the part of the subject, the objects of which are unclear--include nondirective curses Directed Hostility: a. Expressing hatred, dislike, or depreciation of others, including the actor. The objective must be clear. Includes directed cursing b. Expressing others' hatred, dislike, or depreciation of others c. Denial of hatred of any group Nonhostile Criticism: a. Mentioning shortcomings of people or groups which does not seem hostile in meaning. Negative attributes of people or groups b. Mentioning others' criticism of other people Alan L. Evans The mean score of each variable for each subject was divided by the number of fifteen- second segments the subject spoke, and the resultant quotients were used as the data for analysis. First, the data were factor analyzed to reduce the number of variables. The thirty-five initial variables were reduced to twenty- six, and an analysis of variance was done for each. Es exposed to the radical speech showed increased defensive behaviors, disagreement, and anxiety. _S_s exposed to the conserva- tive speech cited personal experience with the racial situation more often than did those exposed to the radical speech. The data indicate that Blacks elicited less direc't hostility than Whites but elicited more indirect hostility in the form of violent language, regardless of the speeches that the accomplices made. _S_s emitted more questionable facts in the presence of Blacks. It is noteworthy that no anxiety variable and no measures of defensiveness or insecurity were related to the presence of a Black; also, White accomplices elicited no more friendly overtures than those extended to the Black accomplices. Race and speech showed significant interaction effects on variables that measured disagreement with the actor' 3 position, dogmatism, and non-immediacy. These three all occurred signifi- cantly more often in the presence of Blacks. The fewest occurred Alan L. Evans in response to White radicals and in increasing frequency in the presence of White conservatives, Black conservatives, and Black radicals . EXPRESSIONS OF PREJUDICE THROUGH VERBAL BEHAVIOR By Alan Li"; Evans A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1970 DEDICATION This thesis is dedicated toMom and Dad in deep appreciation for their help and encouragement during all the past years of edu- cational pursuit. ii ACKNOW LEDGME NTS First, I would sincerely like to thank Dr. Stollak, my committee chairman, for the time, encouragement, patience, library materials and research funds he provided during the course of this study. His availability and willingness to help, even during his leave of absence, and his knowledge of the field aided immeasur- ably. The assistance of Dr. Thornton in design formulation, his provision of advice and encouragement, his helpin procedural matters of thesis preparation, and his guidance in other of my edu— cational pursuits are greatly appreciated. I am especially grateful to Dr. Messé for his considerable knowledge in statistical analysis and computer science. In addition, his stylistic, grammatical, and organizational efforts on behalf of the writing of this thesis were invaluable. To my wife, Kathy, whom during the course of this project I met, courted, betrothed, and married, much love, for her affection and support have made it all worthwhile. iii TAB LE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION History. Literature Review of Racial Prejudice Relevant Studies of Verbal Behavior in Small Groups . Immediacy. . . Affect: Hostility and Anxiety. Denial and Defensiveness Other Behaviors Experimental Design for Verbal Behavior Studies Statement of Problem 11 . ME THOD Subjects Accomplices Setting Design Procedure III. MEASURES OF VERBAL BEHAVIOR . Verbal Rating Scale . Discussion of the Categories and Variables Defensiveness Anxiety iv Page vi 11 11 ll - ll 12 13 16 16 17 17 19 CHAPTER IV. V. Insecurity . Dogmatism Moving Towards: Solidarity and Agreement . . . . Positive Regard Moving Away . Undifferentiated Hostility Directed Hostility Nonhostile Criticism DA TA ANALYSIS Method of Tape Analysis Interscorer Reliability Factor Analysis of Variables Analysis of Variance . . Analysis of Variance Results DISCUSSION Results of Speech Variable Results of the Race Variable . Race X Speech Interactions . Conclusion BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX PROP”? 313 SCRIPTS . . . . INSTRUCTIONS . . . . RATER RELIABILITIES . . . LIST OF VERBAL MEASURES . . . STANDARD DEVIATION, MEAN FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, AND MEAN TOTALS FOR TWENTY-SIX VERBAL BEHAVIORS ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE , Page 20 22 23 24 25 25 26 26 28 28 29 30 34 35 42 42 45 50 53 55 57 67 69 72 74 79 TAB LE LIST OF TABLES EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND CELL FREQUENCIES MEAN FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF DISAGREEMENT WITH AC TOR' S POSITION FOR THE FOUR EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS MEAN FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF STATEMENT OF ABSOLUTE WHICH IS OPEN To QUESTION FOR THE FOUR EXPERI- MENTAL CONDITIONS . . . MEAN FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF NON-IMMEDIACY FOR THE FOUR EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS vi Page 13 38 39 41 (III 1' I I: III I II CHAPTER I IN TRODUC TION History Literature Review of Racial Prejudice There is a paucity of literature on behavioral manifestations of racial prejudice and virtually no literature on verbal reactions to‘various ideologies concerning race relations. What studies there are on the impact of Blacks on Whites have been in the attitudinal area --the typical study involving administering paper and pencil tests after a Black-White encouter. Sumner and Hammonds (1966) administered a "self-enumerative and anonymous" questionnaire to a group of university sociology students --the questionnaire concern- ing attitudes towards Blacks. The investigators for one group‘were both White and for. the other, one was Black and one was White. The results were that more "socially acceptable," i. e. , less prejudiced, responses were more frequently reported when one of the investi - gators was a Black. One researcher attempted a more behaviorally oriented study. Pettigrew (1961) gave racial attitudeescales to Whites and then put these subjects in an experimental situation of making auto- kinetic judgments with two confederates, one Black and one White. There were no correlations of attitudes towards Blacks and agree- ment with Blacks. The author advanced several reasons for the lack of correlation: Black students may not be perceived as "Niggers, ” the racial prejudice attitude scales may not be valid, or autokinetic interactions may not be a "hot" area in regard to expressing prejudice. Other authors have cited results indicating a lack of corre- spondence between attitudes and behavior. Kenneth Berg (1966) concludes that "theory and data suggest that verbal measures towards ethnic minorities are not relatedin a direct manner to nonverbal social behavior towards members of these groups. " Similarly, Katz and Stotland (1960) report that "behavior towards ethnic minorities appears to be strongly influenced by considera- tions of adaptation to social circumstance. " The question that arises from this discussion is why are there not more studies on the behavior of Whites towards racial minorities, since the social problems arising in race relations more directly concern behavior rather than attitudes? For‘those who claim prejudicial behavior is the expression of prejudicial attitudes, the previously cited literature suggests that this is not true. The present study examined the behavioral expression of prejudice. It was an attempt to avoid the possible pitfall which Pettigrew mentioned by relating overt behaviors to an atmosphere relevant to the expression of prejudice. The task was to develop a method of assessing behaviors during the interaction of a small group. The present study explored the various verbal behaviors through which it was hypothesized prejudice can be expressed. Relevant Studies of Verbal Behavior in Small Groups Imm ediacy Weiner and Mehrabian (1968) analyzed verbal behavior in terms of literal meanings of words used. Based upon the analysis of the differential use of such words as personal pronouns, they use the term "immediacy" to describe how close or distant the members of the interactional group appear to be. For example, yo_u and I may refer to the same individuals as the term 11?: However, the latter is more immediate and, if one assumes that a person has equal possi - bilities of using either of the referents, then there must be a psychological reason for the choice of referent. Thus the use of £33 and _1_ instead of we seems to be a subtle but deliberate statement of non-immediacy, and it likely reflects a feeling of distance from the other person. While uses of immediacy vary from culture to culture, within culture variability is limited and one can assume a systematic use of a certain referent to reflect a certain psychological set towards that group. Affect: Hostility and Anxiety A group of researchers, Gottschalk, Winget, Gleser, and Springer (Gottschalk and Auerbach, 1966), have developed a series of schedules to assess affect. The scales were developed ostensibly to have instruments to measure characteristics of verbal behavior for psychotherapy research. The affective measures are largely based on psychoanalytic concepts "utilizing certain characteristics of verbal behavior as indicative of the intrapsychic state. " The major affective states measured have been anxiety and hostility. The authors report interscorer reliabilities of at least . 85 for average total scores on both the Anxiety Scale and the Hostility Scales. Validational studies of the Anxiety Scale, involving psychiatric and "normative" samples as well as comparisons to paper and pencil tests (MMPI), were consistently significant at better than the .05 level. Three Hostility Scales were also developed by these researchers: Hostility Directed Outward, Hostility Directed Inward, and Ambivalent Hostility. Gottschalk and Gleser (1969) report many studies and statistical measures to support their conclusions, and report that additional validational measures of self -report, assess - ment, and personal inventories ”point to the conclusion that it is statistically as well as heuristically valid to separate the affect of hostility into three types based on the direction of the drive or impulse. ” They found these criteria useful when investigating the process of, and progress in, therapy using typed transcripts of therapy sessions. Many other researchers have found anxiety to be an affect which manifests itself many ways in verbal behavior; Hoch (1950) states that results of experimental studies in the motor field show that "high muscular tension accompanies the states of anxiety. " This tension tends to disrupt patterns of motor responses. Speech is a motor response that is particularly subject to anxiety. Stuttering and delay of speech are anxiety reactions mani - fested as speech disturbances. A clearing of the throat may also be a telltale sign of tension (Symonds, 1946). Subjects in whom anxiety has been experimentally aroused show various speech disturbances. Kasl and Mahl (1965) divided subjects into two experimental situations: one was an interview which was "neutral" and the other an anxiety provoking interview. The latter involved a subject being told he was being observed through a one -way mirror or being told a previously administered MMPI was an "adjustment inventory. " Among the disturbances resulting from this experimentally aroused anxiety were abrupt changes in sentence context, word repetitions, stuttering, word omissions, incomplete sentences, slips of the tongue, neologisms, and intruding incoherent sounds. Denial and Defensiveness Denial is often used as a verbal cue to a person' s attitudes. Auld and Dollard (1959) discuss how this psychoanalytic principle may be useful in examining a person' s motives, although they admit that the concept of "naming with denial" isnot entirely satisfactory. The main contention is that if a person speaks of actions and feelings and also actively maintains that a certain motive is not behind these actions and feelings, the strength of this denial in conjunction with his apparent motives leads one to infer an unconscious motive. And indeed, the previously mentioned hostility scales of Gottschalk and Auerbach (1966) include denial of hostility as one of the indices of hostility. Measures of defensiveness have been used frequently in systematic studies of therapeutic interviews. These measures include some of the concepts already mentioned. . Hogan (1952) defines a defensive form of behavior as "an unrealistic treatment of experi - ence through denial, distortion, withdrawal, justification, rationali- zation, projection, or hostility. " Other researchers have made similar conclusions. Wentraub and Aronson (1962) claim a change of subject is a defensive maneuver and that it is defined as happening when there is "a sudden shift in the literal content of the verbal communication which introduces at least two of the following: 1) a different kind of experience, 2) a different person, or 3) a different tense reference. " Wentraub and Aronson (1962) developed a verbal analysis which they applied to twenty -six male adult volunteers who had no serious psychopathology. The following were considered to have defensive functions: 1. Quantity of spoken words 2. Pauses 3. Rate of speech 4. Nonpersonal responses (3 personal clause being a clause in which reference is made to a person who is known by the speaker, including self-reference) 5. Shifting to past tense 6. Negation 7. Qualification (I suppose he is a good man.) 8. Retraction (A retractor is a word, phrase, or clause which partially or totally detracts from a statement which has immediately preceded it. Example: "John is an honest person. Of course, he has been involved in some shady deals. ") 9. Explaining (Example: because) 10. Lack of direct references 11. Little expression of feeling 12. Few evaluators Other Behaviors Other investigators have analyzed verbal behavior from a somewhat different point of view than the rather psychoanalytic per- spective of the studies cited above. Bales (1950) has developed a method of measuring small group interaction which he terms Interaction Process Analysis. He discussed two areas of the mental set of the group member: the social —emotional area and the task area. He divided the social -emotional area into positive and nega- tive reactions and the task area into questions and answers. The following types of verbal behavior listed by Bales under the social-emotional area are used in the present study: 1) §_I_I_<_)_v_v_s_ solidarity, raises others' status, gives help, reward; 2) agrees, shows passive acceptance, understands, concurs, complies; 3) c_ii_s; agrees, shows passive rejection, formality, withholds help; and 4) shows antanonism, deflates others' status, defends or asserts self. Experimental Design for Verbal Behavior Studies Communication specialists Buehler and Richmond (1957) conceive of communication in terms of "transactions among organisms" and consider these transactions, or behavioral acts, to be of interest to both the biological and social sciences. In their particular experiments they used observers behind one —way mirrors and recorded any and all behavior which occurred. They categorized the possible behaviors and for each ten -second segment of time, noted on a tally sheet behaviors which occurred. The authors found that the smallest interval of time into which it was practicable to divide the session was ten seconds, since shorter intervals were too short to give observers sufficient time to note, and then record, behavior. Argyle (1957 ) suggests that one way to study interaction is to have a judge observe behavior and then decide in which of a series of categories it should be placed. This observation can be of verbal or nonverbal behavior, as well as of tests and documents. He quotes the method of Carter gt_a_l. (1951) to compute reliabilities between observers. They correlate between observers the number of acts in each category for each subject. The problem with this method is that the "reliabilities may be artificially enlarged by null cate - gories. " The basic design of this experiment follows similarly that which is cited of Buehler and Richmond, and Argyle. 10 Statement of Problem The purpose of the present research was to examine experimentally the effects on a White male subject' 3 verbal behavior of (a) the race (Black or White) and (b) the political orientation (radi- cal or conservative) of a person with whom he was paired. It seemed reasonable to expect that racial prejudice would be manifested such that the verbal behavior of subjects paired with a Black would differ, to some extent, from that of subjects paired with a White. Further, it seemed reasonable that behavior would be influenced by the other' 8 political orientation, and that for some behaviors, there would be an interaction between that variable and race. Differences in verbal behavior by subjects speaking in the presence of Blacks versus Whites are attributable to prejudice when both the Black and the White are saying the same thing. In addition, it was expected that subjects exposed to radical racial points of view will consistently respond differently than those exposed to conservative racial philoso- phies regardless of the race of the speaker. Finally, it seemed reasonable that verbal behavior‘will vary systematically with the interactional effect of race of speaker and espoused philosophy. CHAPTER II ME THOD Subjects The subjects were eighty white males obtained from the introductory psychology classes at Michigan State University. Due to recording problems and/ or failure by subjects to follow instruc- tions, only data obtained from seventy -six subjects were actually used. All subjects were solicited by a notice on a class bulletin board asking for volunteers for "a study of social issues. " Accomplices Four male accomplices, 1 two Whites and two Blacks, were hired from the theatre department at Michigan State University. Setting A small room with a one -way mirror, two armchairs, a low table and a tape recorder-was the setting for the present research. 1The four actors were Alan Smith, Donald Trammel, Ray Price, and Glen Sussman. Their'time, efforts, and suggestions are very much appreciated. 11 12 The chairs faced each other at a slight angle. The tape recorder was placed on the table. The drapes in front of the one —way mirror were partially drawn so as not to accentuate the presence of the mirror. Design All accomplices learned both a radical and conservative script (see Appendix A for copies of the scripts). One script pre- sented a radical viewpoint about the causes and solutions of racial disorders; the other script was a conservative viewpoint about the same topic. The scripts were written so that each could be said by a Black or White accomplice. The actors worked together in learn- ing the scripts and added pauses, "you know"' 8, "I think'” 8, different tones of voice, and postural and gestural cues wherever appropriate. Raters (used by Perlman (1969)) reported that all scripts as delivered by the four actors sounded spontaneous and almost identical. _S_s were randomly assigned to one of the two races of accomplice, giving either the radical or conservative point of view. Therefore there were four-experimental conditions with nineteen Es in each condition. The experimental design and cell frequencies are summarized in Table l. 13 TAB LE 1 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND CELL FREQUENCIES Race of Accomplice Viewpoint Black White Radical N = 19 N = 19 Conservative N = 19 N = 19 Procedure The subject and the accomplice were ushered from a waiting room to the experimental room by one of two White Es. The _E then read the instructions (see Appendix B) in a uniform manner. The SS were told that the Ewas interested in studying undergraduate opinions concerning social issues in the United States. All accomplices were informally but neatly dressed for the experi - mental sessions. The accomplice and_S_were seated. Care was taken to treat the accomplice at all times as if he were any other subject. For example, when reading instructions, the _E_) looked at both the E and the accomplice with equal frequency. The _S and accomplice were told that they were to discuss one of several social issues the _E_had 14 chosen. One of them was asked to pick a piece of paper from a small box. The E then looked at a list of numbers and letters and told the Sand accomplice that according to the letter picked, they were to discuss the causes and solutions of racial problems in the United States: specifically causes and solutions of racial disorders in the larger cities; they were also told that according to the number picked, the accomplice was to speak first. 2 The accomplice "_S_" was asked to talk for up to ten minutes (he talked for the length of the script); then the real_S_ talked for up to ten minutes, giving his opinions. Finally they discussed their views for an additional ten minutes. It was made clear that for each _S' 3 initial ten-minute talk, the other was not to interrupt. To insure further that the accomplice' s talk did not appear prepared, the _S_ and accomplice were given about three minutes to think about what they wanted to say before the accomplice began. If the experimental session lasted over thirty -five minutes, theE re -entered the room and informed the pair that their time was up. The E was not present in the room during the actual session. 2The use of the selection of a number and a letter from a small box to "determine" the topic of discussion and the order of speaking avoided giving the S any insight into the true nature of the experiment. It was feared that if the S was in a dyad with a Black accomplice, then the S may have corrgctly surmised that the Black "_S" was not a subject.— 15 From the tape recordings of these sessions, the uninterrupted initial talk by the real§_was used to obtain the measures of verbal behavior presented and discussed in the following chapter. CHAPTER III MEASURES OF VERBAL BEHAVIOR Verbal Rating Scale A review of the literature on verbal behavior was made before this study. After the data were collected, theE listened to tapes to get a general picture of the verbal behaviors exhibited. The_E_ then referred again to the literature to obtain categories of behavior which could be rated by listening to tape recordings. In addition, the _E_ created additional categories to be rated because behaviors not discussed in the literature appeared relevant. It was attempted to limit verbal behavior to as objective behavior as pos - sible, though the categories reflect the different degrees to which this criterion was successfully met. It was decided to rate the verbal data on thirty -five dimen- sions. On the scoring sheet these scales were grouped under various concepts which seemed appropriate (see Appendix D). This was done for easier conception of the overall content of the scale, especially for ease of scoring. It was not necessarily intended as a formal l6 l7 categorization, which was performed a posteriori through a factor analysis. In order to clarify discussion, henceforth variable shall refer to specific behaviors rated and category shall refer to groups of variables which a priori seemed to belong together under a unifying concept. Discussion of the Categories and Variables Defensiveness To investigate verbal behaviors which indicate defensive - ness on the part of the S, the following is a list of the variables rated and the rationale for their use: 1. Strayirg from the topic: A person can defend himself from possible psychological threat by not talking directly about the topic and the events at hand. The discussion of change of subject as a defensive maneuver by Wentraub and Aronson (1962) provided the rationale for this variable. 2. Making a qualification after an apparent agieement: The use of this variable was suggested by Wentraub and Aronson (1962). However, rather than rating a neutral statement and its qualification, the nature of the experimental dyad and. the fact that this is a debate rather than a conversation suggests that ostensibly l8 agreeing with the other "subject" and then qualifying the agreement would be more likely to be the nature of this. type of defense. 3. Separation of past attitudes from present: Wentraub and Aronson (1962) claimed that using past tense instead of keeping a discussion oriented in the present has defensive manifestations. How- ever, there are other ways of separating past attitudes from the present than changing verb tense. One could say, "I used to hate person X. " Thus this variable includes not only separation by verbal tense, but also saying "used to" and other phrase forms to separate past attitudes from present. 4. Abrupt changes in context and vacillating opinion: This category is also suggested by the work of Wentraub and Aronson (1962). However, in addition to making abrupt changes in context, some people' s attitudes change back and forth, so that in the course of a conversation they have claimed to hold the full range of attitudes possible on a given topic. So abrupt changes, per se, and also the change back and forth, the vacillation from one attitude to another, are included in one category. 5. Denial: Denial is a measure of defensiveness, and denial of various attitudes could easily be a variable included in the cate- gory of defensiveness. However, the denial in this study which would be of interest is denial of hatred of a particular group. Gottschalk 19 and Auerbach (1966) included denial of hatred as an index of hostility, and this procedure will be followed for the present study. 6. Expressions of others' feelings: Wentraub and Aronson (1962) considered mentioning another! 3 feeling a defensive maneuver as it is attributing one' s feelings to other people and this attribution serves the triple purpose of expressing an attitude, projecting the attitude and the responsibility for it onto other people, and indicating that others hold the attitude as well as oneself. For this study, expres- sions of others' feelings were included in the categories of the basic attitudes expressed. Anxiety This category contained the most objective behavior of any. It does not seem necessary to list each of the variables separately and why they were used. Rather, a summary of the previously dis- cussed literature indicates that language process interference is a result of disruption of verbal motor behavior, and that this disrup- tion caused by muscle tension results from anxiety. One' s verbal productions become incoherent, one stutters, repeats words and phrases, giggles, and makes slips of the tongue. Breathing and talking interfere with each other, with the result that one takes deep breaths; speech becomes aspirated so that the rhythm of speech changes; the voice quavers due to tension of throat, larynx, and neck 20 muscles; and one clears one' s throat frequently. From these conclusions, the following indices of anxiety were indicated: 1. Incoherency 2. Slips of the tongue 3. Awkward pauses (score 1 for each 15 seconds of silence) 4. Clearing of the throat 5 . Voice quaver 6. Nervous giggle 7. Deep sighing and breatlu’nfig 8. Repeating words and phrases, aspirated speech, and stutte ri ng3 Inse curi ty Little from the literature seemed helpful for this category. The conception of insecurity is sometimes difficult to separate con- ceptually from defensiveness. However, the bifurcation is maintained for several reasons. In this study, defensiveness applies mainly to attitudes, while insecurity applies more to being unsure about oneself as a person rather than being unsure about one' 5 social attitudes. It is realized, though, that it is difficult to separate a person' 3 social 3These three behaviors were difficult, if not impossible, to separate by the raters. For this reason the behaviors were combined into one variable. 21 attitudes from attitudes about oneself, and the separation may be artificial. The following variables are organized around a nexus of maintaining self-esteem. 1. Excuse behavior: excuses for others' and self' 3 beliefs, attitudes and actions: A typical way a person defends himself or other people is to give the "reason" for these beliefs. This "reason" carries with it a subtle indication that the people involved "couldn' t help it. " This category incorporates the explaining behavior which Wentraub and Aronson (1962) found to be defensive. 2. Citing personal and others' personal experience with the racial situation: Personal experience is not an objective experi - ence; it is experience filtered through a system involving what a person believes the situation to be. However, these experiences are usually considered by a person to be objective; these "objective" experiences are used to defend a person' s attitudes towards a situa- tion, a situation whose observations were distorted by the very atti - tudes which are being supported. These attitudes have a built-in defense through selective perception. Thus citing personal experi - ence is a defensive operation and is indeed a very powerful defense against attitude change. 3. Bragging: Building oneself up in front of another person would only be done by one who perceives the other person as thinking 22 one is in some way deficient. This belief about the other person' s perception of oneself is influenced by one' s own attitudes about one- self. Bragging could be conceived as a defense against others' low opinions of oneself, one' s own low opinions of oneself, and/ or a combination of both. 4. Pleading ignorance of the topic: One way to avoid revealing attitudes, and thus avoid loss of self -esteem by having the wrong attitude, is to play dumb. 5. Apologizing: Another way to defend against loss of self - esteem is to be sorry for one' s attitudes. Thus one admits one' 3 true attitudes but hopefully maintains status in the other person' 3 eyes by apologizing. 6. All indications of felt inadequacy: One way to maintain self-esteem is to beat the opposition to the punch by admitting a felt inadequacy to disarm the opponent of his criticism. This is also a sort of catch -all variable for verbal behaviorwhich seems to indicate felt inadequacy but doesn' t meet the requirements of the previous five categories. Dogmatism When people argue or debate, they often make exaggerated statements to support their case. They misrepresent or misquote 23 various facts and figures to strengthen their cause. Since the subjects in this study were in a debate situation, the various stresses may have pushed them to be very dogmatic in their statements. To tap this possibility, the following two variables were created: 1. A statement which objectively would be open to question but is presented as an absolute 2. Citing questionable facts Moving Towards: Solidarity and Agreement This category was intended to measure positive feelings towards the other person in the two -person experimental situation. There are, however, several ways to show positive feelings. Often agreement or partial agreement is used as a friendly overture. Then too, sometimes people are direct in their expressions of friendship and positive regard. The following three variables are designed to measure moving towards others: 1. Statements of agreement with the speaker: For this variable, Bales' (1950) variable Agrees from the Social -Emotional Area: Positive Reactions was used. Verbal behavior which indicates the subject understands, agrees, or accepts is considered to belong to this variable. 24 2. Empathy, sympathy, and friendliness towards actor: This variable is intended to measure direct positive regard expressed by the subject to the other person in the dyad. 3. Immediacy: use of "we": The concepts of immediacy postulated by Weiner and Mehrabian (1966) were utilized for this variable. To score for this variable, a straightforward count of the number of we' 3 was used. Positive Regfiard The difference between this category and the previous is that this category was designed to measure the regard the subject expresses for others outside his immediate social situation, i. e. , towards people other than the actor. This may be an indirect method of regard for the actor, however, or at least indicative of his general state of mind. Positive regard may be expressed directly, or indirectly by speaking of other people' s regard. In addition, this positive orienta- tion may be expressed by a general optimism that things will work out. The variables of this category were: 1. Expressing_affection, positive feelings, or empathy towards others 2. Expressing others' affection, positive feelings, or empathy towards others 25 3 . General optimism Moving:Away The opposite of moving towards is moving away, and like the aforementioned category, the references for this category are the same. Bales' (1950) disagreement variable is used, as well as Weiner and Mehrabian' s (1966) concept of non-immediacy. 1. Disagreement with actor' 3 position 2. Non-immediacy(count of you' s and _I" s) Undifferentiated Hostility The two variables in this category were from the Hostility Scale developed by Gottschalk, Winget, Gleser, and Springer (Gott- schalk and Auerbach, 1966). Both are items from the covert thematic categories of the Hostility Directed Outward Scale. They are termed undifferentiated hostility rather than covert hostility. It seems more concise to say that these verbal productions are nondirected than to say they are "covert manifestations of an inner feeling of hostility. " The variables for this category are: 1. Mentioningiolent and painful happenings, wars, smash- ings, burnings, riots, deaths, etc. 2. Hostile feelings on the part of the subject, the objects of which are unclear--include nondirective curses 26 Directed Hostility The source for this category is from the same source as Undifferentiated Hostility. These are overt measures of hostility taken from the overt thematic categories of the Hostility Directed Outward Scale of Gottschalk, Winget, Gleser, and Springer (Gott- schalk and Auerbach, 1966). The variables measure direct hostility towards actor, towards others, others' hostility towards others, and the variable of denial of hatred. The variable names are as follows: 1. Expressing hatred, dislike, or depreciation of others, including towards the actor (objective must be clear-- includes directed cursing) 2. Expressing others' hatred, dislike, or depreciation of others 3. Denial of hatred of any group Nonhostile Criticism While Gottschalk et al. included criticism within their Hostility Scale, it seems reasonable to postulate that criticism may be constructive in nature and hence not of hostile intent. Therefore, a separate category was created for criticism, still incorporating the ideas of Gottschalk. The variable names are: 27 Mentioning shortcoming of people or groups which does not seem hostile in meamlig. Negative attributes of people ogroups . Mentioning others' criticisms of other people. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS Method of Tape Analysis Two raters1 were employed to judge the tapes on the thirty- five variables. As a first step, they were given the printed rating forms (see Appendix C) which they then discussed with respect to the meanings and intent of the variables. This also served to familiarize the coders with the rating sheet format. Next they were trained on the four experimentally unusable tapes. Criteria for suf- ficient training was a . 80 interscorer reliability after all categories had been used at least ten times. The four pilot tapes did not pro- vide enough data to obtain a reasonable index of reliability for some categories, so tapes from which the actual data were collected were selected at random to provide more material to rate. 2 Even so, some of the categories were not being used enough to get an adequate 1The raters were Loretta Bustos and Bruce Laycock. I am very grateful for their dedication and enthusiasm for a task which often seemed unrewarding, frustrating, and time -consuming. The_E_was careful not to coach the raters on specific details from the tapes so as to not contaminate the experimental results. 28 29 number of observations to judge scorer accuracy before commencing with the actual ratings. When about three-fourths of the variables had occurred with sufficient frequency to allow determinance of ade - quate reliability, it was then decided to proceed with rating the actual data. As noted below, indices of reliability between scorers indicate that training was more than sufficient for all but one of the variables. Both coders rated all of the tapes. To rate the tapes, a specific tape was played once through to get an accurate count of 1' s, 163' s and 13' s and to get the general flow of the recording. Then the tape was replayed in fifteen -second segments. A segment was played and then scored as to the occur- rence of the variables. A variable could only be scored once per segment. It took an average of half an hour to rate this initial uninterrupted portion of the subject' 3 speech. Thelength of this portion ranged from three to fifteen minutes, with most subjects speaking approximately seven to eight minutes. Interscorer Reliability A product -moment correlation coefficient for the respective coder' 5 ratings was computed for each variable. The lowest reli - ability was . 540 (makirg a qualification after an apparent aggement) and the highest was . 997 (awkward pauses). The mean rating was .906. 30 (See Appendix C for a listing of the correlation coefficients of the coders' ratings. ) The higher r' s consistently belonged to the more frequently used categories. Factor Analysis of Variables In an attempt to reduce the number of variables to a more workable number, to seek evidence supporting the conceptual organi- zation of the variables, and to avoid doing ananalysis of variables which were highly correlated, all of the coded data were factor analyzed before further statistical analyses were conducted. For the factor analysis, the Factor AA program of the Computer Institute for Social Science Research at Michigan State University was used. The correlation matrix was factor analyzed on the CDC 6500 com- puter. Guttman communalities were placed in the diagonal and the resultant factors with Eigen values greater than 1. 000 were rotated to Varimax criterion. The statistical criteria for including a particular variable in a factor were that it have its highest loading on that factor and that the next highest loading of the particular variable be at least .20 below the highest loading and that this second loading in no case be above .25. If a variable met these requirements and if a logical case could be made for its inclusion, then it would be included in the scor- ing for a general factor. 31 Variables showing highest loadings of Factor I were: expressing others' hatred, dislike, or depreciation of others (. 92), mentioning others' criticism of other people (.83), and denial of hatred, dislike, or depreciation of others (. 50). The ratings of these three variables were-summed since all three were defensive in nature (denial and projection) and also involved negative evaluation. It is interesting that at least one aspect of criticism and hostility seem to have a close relationship, supporting the work of Gottschalk, Winget, Gleser, and Springer (Gottschalk and Auerbach, 1966), who include criticisms as a measure of hostility. The name given Factor I is Defensive Negative Affect. Three variables from the category of insecurity loaded highest on Factor 11: pleading ignorance of the topic (.81), apologiz - ing (. 53), and excuses for self' 3 and others' behavior (.78). All three behaviors involve some aspect of compensation for self - perceived deficiencies and are options for rectifying these deficiencies. People may simply admit short -comings, apologize for them, or rationalize them. The ratings for the three behaviors were summed and the resultant factor was given the name Deficiency Rectification. Three behaviors which seemed conceptually unrelated loaded highest on Factor 111. They were: mentioning violent happenings (.66), expressing affection, positive feelings, or empathy (.77), and 32 nonhostile criticism (.80). These three apparently do not fit together because they have some type of similar intent. Rather, it seems that this is a measure of general arousal. These three are the most "happening" variables in terms of amounts of behavior the subjects exhibited. The members of this factor are behaviors from various parts of the continuum from hostility to affection. It seems likely some subjects were able to exhibit the full range of emotionality while others were more careful and revealed less affect in any direction. In order to test this general reactibility and yet test the individual, discrepant behaviors involved, the three behaviors were analyzed independently 323 the result of the combination of the three variables was analyzed, this new combination variable being termed Emotionality. Earlier, it was stated that expressing what others' feelings are (projection) may be useful as an index of expression of the par- ticular feeling or as an index of defensiveness. In this case, the latter applies. The defense strayinfig from the topic loaded . 84 on Factor IV and expressing others' positive feelings towards others loaded . 81. These two variables were combined under the rubric of Evasiveness. Factor V indicated a very close relation between undirected, free -floating hostility and clearly expressed hostility in which the person affirms hostility directly towards a specific object. The 33 variables hostile feelings on the part of the subject, the objects of which are unclear and expressing hatred, dislike, or depreciation of others, including the actor both loaded . 90 on Factor V. The combined ratings of these two factors were termed Hostility. Factor VII lends evidence that two measures of anxiety, slips of the tongue (loading of . 77) and voice quaver (. 76) could be combined; thus they were combined and given the term Nervousness. Incoherency and making a qualification after an apparent agreement showed loadings, respectively, of . 78 and . 77 on Factor VIII. Despite the fact that one variable was listed under the category of anxiety and the other under defensiveness, a case can be made for their combination. When a person makes a qualification of a state- ment, he is being unclear as to his true feeling. Being incoherent is another way of hiding true feelings. Also, often when one qualifies his statements, his true intent becomes lost in a jumble of verbal production and this production sounds incoherent. The term Unclarity will be applied to these two principals of Factor VIII. Like Factor VIH, Factor XII indicates a combination of variables from two different categories. The tension variable nervous giggle loaded . 68 while the insecurity variable all indications of felt inadequacy loaded . 76. Since feeling inadequate results in anxiety, it is reasonable to assume the nervous giggle, which is a 34 sign of tension, comes about due to feeling unsure of oneself, which relates it to the insecurity variable. For lack of a unifying term, this variable will be given no name. Factors VI, IX, X, and XI had only one variable member with a sufficiently high loading and there were ten other variables which had no singly high loading. They were: awkward pauses, bragging, empathy and friendliness towards the actor, vacillating Opinion and abrupt changes in context, statements of agreement with the speaker, clearing of the throat, deep breathiggfiand sighfl. stuttering, repeatingwords and phrases, aspirated speech, citing personal and others' personal experience with racial situation, dis- ngreement with actor' 5 position, statement which objectively would be open to question but is presented as an absolute, citing question- able facts, and general optimism. In addition, the immediacy and non-immediacy data were collected separately, and were not factor analyzed. Analysis of Variance Two (race) by two (political orientation) analyses of variance for the twenty-four variables were completed on the CDC 3600 com- puter at Michigan State University. The program used was the Agricultural Experiment Station STAT Series Analysis of Variance with Equal Frequency in Each Cell. 35 Since subjects talked for varying lengths of time, and the number of ratings for a particularé for a given behavior was partly a function of time, before the raw data were analyzed, each data element was divided by the number of segments (the number of fifteen -second periods the S spoke). Summarized below are the results for each variable. Relevant means are presented for those variables that were significantly affected by one or both of the inde - pendent variables . Analysis of Variance Results3 Variable 1 --Defensive negative affect. There were sig- nificantly more defensive negative behaviors shown towards the radical speech (mean = . 0051) as compared to the conservative speech (mean = .00171) (F = 11.82, P < .001). Variable 2 --Deficiency rectification. There were no sig- nificant effects for race, speech, or their interaction. Variable 3 --Mentioning violent happeningn. Shbjects men- tioned significantly more violent happenings in the presence of Blacks (mean = . 24775) than in the presence of Whites (mean = . 07883) (F = 7. 90, P < .006). There was no significant speech effect or interaction. 3See Appendix E for means and standard deviations. See , Appendix F for the complete analysis of variance. 36 Variable 4--Expressing affection, positive feelings, or empathy. There were no significant effects for this variable. Variable 5 --Nonhostile criticism. There is a very strong tendency for subjects to show more criticism towards the radical speech (mean - . 12169) than towards the conservative speech (mean .08913) (F = 3.55, P < .063). There were no other significant effects for this variable. Variable 6 --Emotionality. There were no significant effects indicated. Variable 7 -—Straying from the topic and expressing others' positive feelingn. There were no significant effects indicated. Variable 8--Hostility. There was a trend towards subjects expressing more hostility towards White (mean towards Black (mean . 442 1 6) than .31591) accomplices (F 3.29, P < .074). Variable 9--Awkward pauses. There were no significant effects for this variable. Variable 10--Nervousness. There were more slips of the tongue and voice modulation problems after presentation of the radical speech (mean . 30655) than after presentation of the con- servative speech (mean .13311) (F = 7.88, P < .006). Variable 11 --Unclarity. There were no significant effects for this variable. 37 Variable 12 --Bragging. There was significantly more bragging behavior after presentation of the radical speech (mean = .01883) than after the conservative speech (mean = .00524) (F = 5.59, P < .021). Variable 13—-Empathy and friendliness towards actor. No significant effects were indicated. Variable 14-.-Nervous giggle and feelings of inadequacy. There were no significant effects for this variable. Variable 15 --Vacillating opinion. There were no signifi - cant effects for this variable. Variable 16-- Statements of agreement. There were no sig- nificant effects for this variable. Variable l7 "Clearingof the throat. There were no sig- nificant effects for this variable. Variable 18_--§i_ghing and deep breathing. There were no significant effects for this variable. Variable 19--Stuttering, aspirated speech, and repeating words and phrases. There were no significant effects for this vari— able. Variable 20--Citing personal and others' personal experi - ences with the racial situation. The trend was for this behavior to be exhibited more frequently in reaction to the conservative speech 38 (mean = .21078).than to the radical speech (mean = .09602) (F = 3.28, P < .074). Variable 21 --Disagreement with actor' 3 position. For this variable there was a significant interaction effect between race and type of speech (F = 5.43, P < .023). Relevant means are presented in Table 2 . TABLE 2 MEAN FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF DISAGREEMENT WITH ACTOR '8 POSITION FOR THE FOUR EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS Speech Race Radical Conservative Black . 496 . 342 White . 304 . 47 1 To explore the nature of this interaction, tests of simple effects were performed. These tests indicated that within the variable of the radical speech condition the number of disagreements with the White actors tended to be lower than the number of disagreements with the Black actors. This difference is marginally significant (F = 3. 88, P < .07). Contributing to the significant interaction effect was the type of speech within the Black variable. Disagreement 39 with a Black radical was higher than with a Black conservative, though not significantly so. Also contributing to the interaction effect was the type of speech within the White variable. Disagree- ment with a White radical was less than disagreement with a White conservative (F = 2. 93, nonsignificant). Variable 22 - - Statement which objectively would be open to question but is presented as an absolute. There was a significant main effect for race; more dogmatic statements were made in the presence of a Black than in the presence of a White (F = 10. 45, P < . 002). TABLE 3 MEAN FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF STATEMENT OF ABSOLUTE WHICH IS OPEN TO QUESTION FOR THE FOUR EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS Speech Race Radical Conservative Black . 565 .413 White . 204 . 367 Moreover, the interaction between race and speech was also sta- tistically significant (F = 6. 21, P < .015) with the lowest number 40 of dogmatic statements made in response to White radicals, and in increasing frequency, more made in the. presence of White conserva- tives, Black conservatives, and Black radicals. Analysis of simple effects revealed that a single factor, the race of the speaker within the radical speech variable, was the main contributor to the inter- action effect (F = 16. 390, P < .01). Presented on the previous page is a table of the interaction means (Table 3). Variable 23 --Citing questionable facts. Significantly more questionable facts were expressed in the presence of Blacks (mean = . 02712) than in the presence of Whites (mean = .01114) (F = 4. 97, P < .02 9). There were no other significant effects. Variable 24 --General optimism. There were no significant effects indicated for this variable. Variable 25 --Immediacy. There were no significant effects indicated for this variable. Variable 26--Non-immediacy. There were highly significant main effects for both race (F = 26. 77, P < .001) and type of speech (F 7. 83, P < . 01). The interaction effect was also significant (F 18. 92, P < .005). Non-immediacy was greatest in the presence of Black radicals and occurred with decreasing frequency in the presence of Black conservatives, White conservatives, and White radicals, respectively. Relevant means are presented in Table 4. 41 TAB LE 4 MEAN FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE OF NON-IMMEDIACY FOR‘THE FOUR EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS Speech Race Radical Conservative Black 2. 712 1. 454 White 1. 035 1.309 Analysis of simple effects revealed that three conditions contributed significantly to the overall significant interaction effect. For the race condition within the radical speech, Black radicals elicited sig- nificantly more non-immediacy than White radicals (F = 26. 78, P < .001). For the type of speech given by Blacks, Black radicals elicited significantly more non-immediacy than Black conservatives (F = 7. 12, P < _. 01). For the type of speech given by Whites, White conservatives elicited significantly more non-immediacy than White radicals (F = 4.87, P < .05). CHAPTER V DISCUSSION Results of Speech Variable According to the results, subjects exposed to the radical speech were more critical, became more defensive and more anxious, and acted more insecure and more hostile than those exposed to the conservative speech. There are at least two reasons for the added expression of criticism towards the radical speech. First of all, subjects were critical of the speech because they dis - agreed withit; their reactions indicate they were often very con- servative and they disagreed with such a radical approach. In addi-' tion, the contention of Gottschalk and Auerbach (1969) is that criticism is but a more subtle form of hostility. This conception and the additional finding of the existence of a significantly increased amount of hostility expressed towards proponents of the radical view suggest that the criticism is a function of underlying hostility. In other 'words, the criticism is more than mere neutral disagreement, but rather a manifestation of hostility towards what is said and the person who is expressing the radical point of View. 42 43 The radical speech elicits hostility in several ways; it presents a point of view which is an anethema to many of the white middle class, of which most male undergraduates are members. This radical racial point of view brings forth the total passions involved in the racial issue. The subjects expressed a deep -seated, acculturated hostility towards a despised ideology. In addition, the radical speech uses expletives and four -1etter words which are characteristically used in political statements by the more radical element in our society. These words would probably elicit the hostility of those towards whom the verbalizations are directed regardless of the accompanying textual content of the message. The presence of the often socially unacceptable words may also account for the higher anxiety shown by those exposed to the radicalism. However, the presence of anxiety plus the added insecurity indicate an additional dimension, an aspect inherent in the message. These subjects confronted by the radical proponents were being told, for the most part, that they were personally responsible for American racism; they were being told that their philosophy was wrong. Accusations lead to anxiety arousal, anxiety which acts as a trigger for mobilization of a person' s defenses. This explains the added defensiveness of the subjects after exposure to the radical Speech. 44 When one is told that one' s conceptualizations and one' 8 view of the world are wrong, one denies facts, changes the subject, attributes feelings to other people, and uses other mechanisms to defend oneself against the intruding attitude, an attitude which would require considerable cognitive reorganization to integrate. To pre- vent the change, people use defensive mechanisms to disarm the opposing attitude. The number of times a subject separated himself verbally from one of the accomplices by use of ynn orlwas significantly higher when the actor was presenting the radical speech as compared to when the actor was presenting the conservative point of view. The subjects showed their distaste for‘radicals by distancing themselves through interpersonal communication. Subjects made it distinctly clear they felt no "we -ness" with those of radical persuasion. When they referred to either themselves or the other participant, they reduced mutuality by using exclusive personal pronouns. Keeping indications of interpersonal attraction minimal lowered the threat value of the radical speech. The subjects, by not becoming per- sonally involved with the accomplices, avoided the very anxiety- provoking situation of friendship with a person who has a radically different viewpoint. The citing of personal experience with the racial situation more often after being exposed to the conservative speech was not 45 anticipated. Rather, it was hypothesized that when presented with the radical point of view a person would give personal experiences with the racial situation as evidence against the radical stance. How- ever, this unexpected turn of events can be reasonably explained. When subjects were confronted with the radical speech, they did not speak their true mind nor relate their personal experiences. When faced with the conservative point of view, these mostly conservative subjects felt free to express their personal experiences with the racial situation and used them to support a point of view critical of and hostile towards racial minorities. Results of the Race Variable At first glance, the results of the data on the hostility Variables present a contradiction. There was a tendency for more direct hostility to be expressed towards Whites, but an indirect measure of hostility, a measurement of amount of violent language, was more frequent when _S_s were paired with a Black than with a White. There is, however, atenable explanation. Societal condi - tions in the large university setting from which the subjects come are such that it is inappropriate to express feelings of hostility and prejudice directly towards Black people. At many gatherings in 46 which Blacks are not present, it becomes quite evident that people who do not act overtly prejudicial towards Blacks harbor considerable resentment just the same, and in fact, because of this prejudice, try extra hard in the presence of Blacks to not show behavioral mani - festations of their attitudes. Therefore the results from the direct hostility variable may be looked at as not a significantly higher expression of direct hostility towards Whites but rather a signifi - cantly Inflamount of overt hostility expressed towards Blacks. This plus the indirect hostility results suggest that these hostility feelings seek expression; but due to cultural mores against prejudicial acts toWards Blacks, overt hostile expression is blocked and the feelings are covertly expressed. It could be expected that, if subjects felt hostile towards Blacks but had to block overt expression of this emotion, subjects should show greater anxiety in the presence of Blacks. The results for the measure of anxiety are, however, rather inconclusive on this matter. No verbal anxiety variable was significantly related to the presence of a Black person, nor were measures of insecurity. The nonsignificant difference of amount of anxiety may indicate Blacks do not elicit higher amounts of anxiety; or it may indicate that the experimental situation was so anxiety arousing that anxiety was at its peak for all participants, and that in a less anxiety arousing 47 situation a differential amount of anxiety would be the result of different races of accomplice. Data lending support to this latter conclusion are available from Perlman (1969) who, in studying non- verbal expressions of prejudice in the same subjects, found that nonverbal expressions of anxiety, such as tenseness in arms and hands, shifting in a chair, changing trunk position, and nervous picking and scratching were significantly more prevalent in the presence of a Black as compared to a White. Further research on the role of anxiety in prejudice is called for; several questions remain: Is there some verbal manner in which Whites express anxiety in the presence of Blacks? If there is nonverbal but not verbal expression of anxiety, why this dichotomy? Interestingly too, the White actors elicited no more friendly overtures than those extended to Blacks. One might expect that the subjects would show more friendliness towards people they perceived as like them, or at least show less friendliness towards Blacks, a group of people towards whom they are prejudiced. Or, it is con- ceivable that the White subjects would show more overt friendliness towards Blacks to cover covert feelings of hostility. However, the lack of any difference leads to the conclusion that prejudice involves the manipulation and valence of negative feelings but that friendly overtures are not part of the behavioral repertoire as pertains to verbal expression of prejudice. 48 White subjects responded to Blacks significantly more often with dogmatic statements. It is reasonable that a prejudiced person would distort and manufacture information in order to maintain his prejudicial attitudes. This tenacity of maintaining questionably true "facts" seems to be the major mode of defensiveness shown by Whites in the presence of the Black actors. In psychoanalytic terms, the major defense involved here is denial, denial of the possibility that other people' s world views and philosophies may contain elements of truth and morality. By flatly rejecting the other' 3 statement and presenting one' s own ideas as absolute fact, one keeps intact one' 8 world view and eliminates cognitive dissonance. The dogmatism variable also showed a significant interaction effect. As previously stated, the mean for this variable was sig- nificantly higher for _S_s in the presence of Blacks than in the presence of Whites. A considerable proportion of the difference was due to the significantly higher number of dogmatic statements in the pres- ence of Black radicals than in the presence of White radicals. Statements which objectively would be open to question but are pre- sented as absolutes were made most often in the presence of Black radicals and in decreasing frequency in the presence of Black con- servatives, White conservatives, and White radicals. The interest- ing result is that White radicals elicited the fewest dogmatic 49 statements while Black radicals elicited the most. One would expect that White conservatives would elicit the least defensiveness in the subjects. Apparently Whites do not feel threatened by liberalism or radicalism when it is espoused by a White, a person who, since he looks and acts like the subject' s self, must not be too "radical, " or at least would not be saying something which threatens destruction of his own race. A radical statement which is identical to that stated by his White counterpart but is given by a Black is interpreted differently. There may be a complicating factor in the results of the dogmatism variable. This category called for a decision by the raters as to what was an objective statement and what was a sub- jective, dogmatic, and questionable statement. Thus, even though both variables intended to tap dogmatism were highly significant, it is possible the ratings of biasness on the part of the subjects towards Blacks may be a reflection of the philosophy of the raters. How— ever, since they not only did not know the race of the person to whom the subject was responding but did not know the type of speech, it is unlikely that if a bias was responsible for the difference, it did not also appear in the reaction to the speech. Therefore the dogmatism ratings are almost certainly objective and a measure of the subjects and not the raters. 50 While the adjusted mean number of times a White used 1?. in the presence of a Black accomplice was lower than it was in the presence of a White accomplice, the difference was not significant. However, the number of times a subject separated himself socially from the actor by use ofynn orlwas significantly higher in the presence of Blacks than Whites. Significant differences would be expected given our racist traditions and awareness of ethnic dif- ferences, for it is difficult to picture a typical White person experi- encing an equal awareness of "we -ness" with a Black as with a White. Non-immediacy is a particularly subtle form of prejudice, yet this verbal separation from Blacks showed the highest significance of any effect in this study. The non-immediacy results were strikingly similar to the results of the analysis of the hostility and friendliness variables; subjects used _y_ou_ and I to distinguish themselves from Blacks, but showed no increased immediacy with Whites by using 16; Subjects showed little tendency to move towards Whites but showed their‘prejudice by moving away from Blacks. Race X Speech Interactions There was a highly significant interaction effect for the non-immediacy variable, with significant differences for three simple main effects. Again of interest is the fact that subjects were most distant from Black radicals and least removed from White radicals. 51 The impression of this is that the subjects were phoney liberals; they acted more at ease with White radicals than with White conservatives, but when the real test of liberality came, interacting with a Black radical, they moved away. It was less threatening to interact with a Black who was an "Uncle Tom" than a radical Black. Because all three significant interaction effects showed the same pattern, the discussion for the three is combined. An attempt is made to explain why White radicals are the least threatening and Black radicals the most threatening when it would be expected that White conservatives would be the least threatening. Although there were no significant differences for either of the independent variables, there was a significant interaction effect regarding disageement with the actor' 8 position. Disagreement was highest with Black radicals, and following from next highest .to lowest were disagreement with White conservatives, Black conserva - tives, and White radicals, respectively. The main source of sig- nificance in the interaction was the difference of race within the radical speech; however, fairly large differences between the means of the two different speeches given by Blacks and differences between the mean number of disagreements with the two different speeches given by Whites also contributed to the significance of the interaction effect. These results show a close similarity to the previously 52 discussed dogmatism and non--' immediacy interaction results. In all three cases White radicals elicited the fewest negative reactions (disagreements, dogmatic statements, and separation by non- imme- diacy), while the Black radicals elicited the most. Apparently Whites can agree with, and are little threatened by a radical point of view if the speaker is White, but disagree considerably with, are threatened by, and move away from a radical Black. These are very noteworthy results, for they show extreme sensitivity to the personal source of the communication, and that source has considerable effect on the interpretation of the message. The White subjects conceptualize the situation differently if the radical speaker is a White than if the speaker is a Black. When the speaker and the listener are of the same race, thelistener can be confident that the speaker will not hold beliefs and espouse points of view destructive of their own mutual race. In other words, no matter what a White radical says, the subject assumes that he would not put American Whites in jeopardy. Thus the White "radi calism" seems to be more liberal than radical. However, when a threatening speaker is seen by the subject as being a member of a distinctly dif- ferent group and that speaker is expressing hostility towards, and making threats to, a group of which the listener is a member, and putting forward a point of view which carries no threat of harm to 53 the speaker since he is not a member of the group he is attacking, the message can be interpreted differently and to a greater extreme. This research supports the idea that Whites can exert more influence on Whites with respect to racial issues than can Blacks, for if a White is talking about radical solutions to racial problems, White are confident a fellow White will not suggest any- thing destructive to Whites, so they can lower their defenses a bit and listen to the message. Of course, for those Blacks who do preach destruction of the White race, White radicals can be of little help, for a White preaching destruction of his own race as a solution to Black problems must certainly suffer a credibility gap. But if one' 8 goal is a conciliatory one between Blacks and Whites, then Whites can and should play a role in re -educating the White prejudiced segments of our society. Conclusion The general implications of the total study are that even in the ”liberal" atmosphere of a major university, prejudice does exist and it is expressed behaviorally. Regardless of whether or not non- prejudicial attitudes are held, prejudicial behavior very frequently is exhibited, albeit subtly. To point out this behavior may not change prejudiced persons, but those who are attitudinally and intellectually 54 unprejudiced will be able to use this information to reshape their often prejudicial behavior. More research is needed. Studies need to be done in less contrived and more naturalistic surroundings. Additional informa— tion is needed about women' s and nonstudents' attitudes towards Blacks as well as various persons' attitudes towards Black females and towards uneducated Blacks as well as Blacks who are of the educated middle and upper classes. To understand the essence of expressions of prejudice may provide us additional insights and tools which are so desperately needed to re -educate those people whose actions are such that at the present time our multi ~racial society is on the verge of collapse. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Argyle, M. The Scientific Study of Social Behavior. London: Mulhuen and Co. , Ltd. , 1957. Auld, F. , and Dollard, F. Scoring Human Motives. New Haven, Conn. : Yale University Press, 1959. Bales, R. F. "A Set of Categories for the Analysis of Small Group Interactions." American Socioloflal Review, XV (1950) 146-159. Berg, K. "Ethnic Attitudes and Agreement with a Negro Person. " Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; IV, No. 2 (1966), 215 -220. Buehler, R., and Richmond, J. F. "Interpersonal Communication Behavior Analysis: A Research Method. " Journal of Com- munication, XIII, No. 3 (1963),.146-155. Gottschalk, L. A. , and Auerbach, A.. H. Methods of Research in Psychotherapy. New York: Appleton -Century -Crofts, 1966. Gottschalk, L. A., and Gleser, G. C. The Measurement of Psycho- logical States through the Content Analysis of Verbal BEHavior. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Cali- mess, 1969. Hoch, P. H., and Zubin, J. Anxiety. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1950. Hogan, R. A. ”A Measure of Client Defensiveness. " Success in Psychotherapy. Edited by W. Wolf and J. A. Precker. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1952. 55 56 Kasl, S. V , and Mahl, G. F. "The Relationship of Disturbances and Hesitations in Spontaneous Speech to Anxiety." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, No. 5 (1965), 425- 433. Katz and Stotland. "Verbal Attitudes and Agreement with a Negro Person. " Journal of Personality and Social Psychologl, IV, No. 2 (1966), 215 -220. Perlman, B. "Nonverbal Expressions of Prejudice. " Unpublished Master' 3 thesis, Michigan StateUniversity, 1969. Pettigrew, T. F. "Social Psychology and Desegregation Research. " American Psychologigt, XVI (1961), 105-112. Sumner, G. , and Hammonds, A. ”The Effect of Racial Character- istics of Investigator on Self -Enumerated Responses to a Negro Prejudice Scale." Social Forces, XLIV, No. 4 (1966), 515-518. Symonds, P. M. Dynamics of Human Adjustment. New York: D. Appleton-Century, 1946., Weiner, W. , and Mehrabian, A. Language within Language: Immediacy, a Channel in Verbal Communication. New York: Appleton -Century -Crofts, 1968. Wentraub, W. , and Aronson, H. "The Application of Verbal Behavior Analysis to the Study of Psychological Defense Mechanisms: Methodology and Preliminary Report. " Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases, CXXXIV (1962), 169-181. APPENDICES APPENDIX A SCRIPTS Conservative Speech OK. I think that one of the main causes of racial disorders in the cities is a communist conspiracy. Communists organized the riots so we would look bad to other countries. That' 3 why Stokely Carmichael is always in Cuba and North Viet Nam. There wouldn' t be any riots if the policemen would just enforce the laws they have. The problem is all those damn intellectuals who have raised such a big fuss that the officers are afraid to enforce the law, because when they do, they get in trouble themselves. Now, what kind of country is this where cops get in trouble for enforcing the laws? Breaking the law by anyone must not be tolerated, because when laws are allowed to be broken, the victims are the peaceful, law abiding citizens, and the Negro in the past, I think, has not been a respon- sible citizen. I think he' s rioted and looted and burned and deserves much of the punishment he' s gotten. Now I know the-white man in the past hasn' t been any angel, either, but times have changed and 57 58 the Negro shouldn' t use past grievances as an excuse to break the laws. Now maybe one of the reasons why integration--at least pushy integration--has not worked is because there is such a cultural difference between the races. Negroes have their own world, and I think most Negroes would want to stay to themselves. They have their own world and aren't interested in white values and ideals. All they really want is to have a few middle —class comforts--a good car, a T. V. , you know. And there are plenty of jobs available for Negroes who want to work. The middle class Negro works—~he doesn't riot. He stays home and is a good citizen. Ithink the people who riot are the ones who haven' t worked their way up. They just want to get the same material things that the hard -working members of the middle class have gotten for themselves. The large and growing Negro middle class is proof that all the Negro has to do is work as hard as his white counterpart and he will get what he wants. The trouble is coming from those who don' t give a damn about going through the usual channels to achieve economic and personal success. The ghetto Negro is an easy -going hedonist who wants to join the hard- working class, but unless he changes his values, he' 5 never going to get in; and rioting is going to hurt his goals. (Pause.) In fact, I' m not sure he wants to get in. 59 Another trouble is, everybody told the Negro that if he! d just make a little trouble, the government would give him everything he wants. Now, that' s like giving candy to a little boy for being bad rather than rewarding him for being good. And the government, I think has encouraged riots, because every time the Negroes burn the town down, the government gives them a nice new one. Now the Negro thinks the solution is to destroy what he has so that the govern- ment will give him better. Why can' t the lower class Negro work like everybody else to integrate himself. Many minority groups have felt persecuted by the main stream American culture. As soon as they worked a little bit and got ahead, it! 3 funny how they stopped feeling victimized. And I think the Negro who really wants to will do the same thing. The middle class Negro-~he doesn't feel victim- ized and go out in the street and riot and loot, because he' s worked hard, and he has accomplished something—-and he' s integrated. And the solution to racial disorders is to enforce the laws, stop the rioting and stop giving rewards to law breakers. Stop molly -coddling people who don' t appreciate this great country of ours. And find the Commies who are stirring up all this trouble, and punish them. Within the law, of course. And we, we have to support the police, because if the police are made powerless, who' 8 going to defend us from this lawlessness. We' ve got communists everywhere. In fact, 60 a lot of Negroes wouldn' t be rioting and looting if it wasnt t for communists. Most of them are pretty satisfied right where they are--onwelfare or out in the streets «and they‘weren' t complain- ing until the communists came along. The Negro must learn the white man' s way of achieving his aims. There just aren' t any shortcuts. And trying to take short- cuts results in the lawlessness which we are witnessing today. All the Negro has to do is follow the lead of his more industrious black brothers. It can be done. It' s the American way. And even the black leadership is doing it. Look at the way they publish books. They' re getting royalties from these books. So, you know they' re being industrious and earning their-way. And the people who promise the pot of gold to the Negro will have to be silenced for they are adding fuel to the flames. And I think we must be patient. Integration takes time. The Negro must learn to postpone immediate gratification for future goals. It will take time for the Negro to fit in, and we have to wait and keep this country in one piece while we wait. Negro Radical Speech First of all, Whitey, you are a racist. Now, not all whites are Whiteys, but all Whiteys are racists. You' ve killed blacks. When you can' t kill blacks directly, you do it legally, economically, and socially. Racists put blacks in the slums, charge higher prices 61 for shitty goods, charge fucked -up rent, rape our women, pay us less at work, hire blacks last and fire us first. Racism, racism against the black ranges through unions, colleges, management, welfare, government, and everywhere. Now politically, blacks have about as many rights as before the Civil War. Black communities are run by white carpetbaggers, right now--today. Legislation is loopholed so all the laws sound just great on paper, but you know they don't mean shit--you just have to work a little harder to fuck the black man. And the police-- hell, we all know the police are pigs. Capital punishment is real handy for eliminating blacks, and your generals in the Armed Forces always try to use up the blood of the black man so he doesn' t lose any of his precious white boys. Of course, the situation doesn' t improve. You know, we really can' t vote --we can' t even register down South and everywhere else everybody screws up the districts or throws our vote out. And then there' 8 the social structure. The middle class and its careful choice of friends, like, you know, frats, country clubs, and all that shit. Of course, now, every party has to have its black couple--the super -nigger type--sort of like a badge saying, "I like Negroes. You know, "I once had a friend who was Negro. ' You' re getting real subtle, real subtle, but you' re still a racist. You know it, we know it, so let' 3 drop the act, man. You dig! 62 You've seen to it that we have no past. We got lots of "White Knights" but what about some black heroes. You know, there have been lots of them. You know -- or didn' t you know? Like DuBois, Cleaver, Stokely Carmichael, Leroi Jones. You've heard of them? We do have a history. Black children are tired of learn- ing about white Dick and Janes doing their thing in nice little white houses when all they see is a world which is cruel, hostile and filled with empty promises. Now, what to do about this situation? As I see it, get rid of you Whiteys. Just get him clear the hell out of here. If it isn' t done soon and peacefully, then someone is going to get ripped off, and it ain' t going to be the black man. It' 8 going to be good -bye Whitey--George Wallace, Daley, cops, college presidents, the establishment, and even some blacks. You know, some Negroes look black on the outside but they' re really Whiteys on the inside. Blacks must be given power--power to run our own businesses, schools, apartments, towns, and governments. And some laws with guts -have to be passed -- not this messing aroUnd with laws aimed at tokenism but at real, relevant problems. Laws are needed to pro- tect the black man from Whitey and to protect Whitey from himself. And they there' s all this flabout law and order--like old J. Edgar saying justice is only incidental to law and order and Nixon wanting 63 to jail people before they commit a crime --we know who is going to get screwed by that kind of a deal. Economically, all the government has to do is to spend a little less money on wars and stop screwing the black man and give us some credit for a lot of blood, sweat, and grief. You owe us more than you could ever pay for in a million years. You people owe it and we' re going to collect from those who wrenched us from our homeland, enslaved us, lynched us, beat and tortured us, humiliated us, stripped away our heritage, our pride, our dignity, our humanness. You're trying to keep us slaves, even today -- trying to coop us up into little stinking ghettos sitting with the rats underneath the freeway. The unions have to be opened up, equal hiring laws have to be enforced, the welfare system has .to be re- organized. There' s got to be black controlled businesses and gov— ernment for black communities and schools. We blacks must have real power over our own real problems, not this piddling shit we've been getting. And finally, you've got to learn, one way or the other, that the black man is going to change this country, and if Whitey resists, he' 3 going to have one hell of a fight on his hands. Caucasian Radical Speech First of all, Whitey' s a racist. Now, not all whites are Whiteys, but all Whiteys are racists. Whites kill blacks. When 64 they can't kill blacks directly, they do it legally, economically, and socially. Racists put blacks in the slums, charge higher prices for crummy goods, charge ridiculous rent, rape black women, pay less at work, hire blacks last and fire them first. Racism, racism against the working black ranges through unions, colleges, manage- ment, welfare, government, and everywhere. Now politically, blacks have about as many rights as before the Civil War, black communities are run by white carpetbaggers, right now-«today. Legislation is loopholed so all the laws sound just great on paper, but Whitey knows they don' t mean shit--he just has to work a little harder to fuck the black man. And the police--hell, we all know the police are pigs. Capital punishment is real handy for eliminating blacks, and the Whitey generals in the Armed Forces always try to use up the blood of the black man so he doesn' t lose any of the precious white boys. Of course, the situation doesn' t improve. You know, blacks really can' t vote--they can! t even registerdown South and everywhere else everybody screws up the districts or throws the black vote out. And then there' s the social structure. The middle class and its careful choice of friends, like, you know, frats, country clubs, and all that crap. Of course, now, every party has to have its black couple--the super-nigger type-- sort of like a badge saying, 65 "I like Negroes. " You know, "I once had a friend who was Negro. " Whitey' 3 getting real subtle, real subtle--but he' s still a racist. He knows it, we know it, so let' 3 drop the act, man. Whitey has seen to it that the blacks have no past. There are lots of "White Knights" but what about some black heroes. You know, there have been lots of them. You know--or didn' t you know? Like Jimmy Brown, Stokely Carmichael, Leroi Jones. You' ve heard of them? Blacks have a history. Black children are tired of learning about white Dick and Janes doing their thing in nice little white houses when all they see is a world which is cruel, hostile and filled with empty promises. Now, what to do about this situation? As I see it, get rid of Whitey. Just get him clear the hell out of here. If it isn' t done soon and peacefully, then someone is going to get wiped off the face of the earth, and it ain' t going to be the black man. It' 3 going to be good- bye Whitey--George Wallace, Daley, cops, college presidents, the establishment, and even some blacks. You know, some Negroes look black on the outside but they' re really Whiteys on the inside. Blacks must be given power--power to run their own businesses, schools, apartments, towns, and governments. And some laws with guts have to be passed--not this messing around with laws aimed at tokenism but at real relevant problems. Laws are needed 66 to protect the black man from Whitey and to protect Whitey from himself. And then there' 5 all this shit about law and order--like old J. Edgar saying justice is only incidental .to law and order and Nixon wanting to jail people tiff}: they commit a crime——we all know who is going to get screwed by that kind of a deal. Economi- cally, all the government has to do is to spend a little less money on wars and stop screwing the black man and give him the due share of money he has paid in--and give some credit for a lot of blood, sweat, and grief. The white man owes more than he could ever pay for in a million years. Whitey owes it and they' re going to collect from those who wrenched them from their homeland, enslaved them, lynched them, beat and tortured them, humiliated them, stripped away their heritage, their pride, their dignity, their humanness. and he' s trying to keep them slaves, even today--trying to coop them up into little stinking ghettos sitting with the rats underneath the freeway. The unions have to be opened up, equal hiring laws have .to be enforced, and the welfare system has to be reorganized. There' s got to be some black controlled business and government for black communities and schools. Blacks must have real power over their own real problems, not this piddling shit they' ve been getting. And finally, Whitey' s got to learn, one way or the other, that the black man is going to change this country, and if Whitey resists, he' 3 going to have one hell of a fight on his hands. APPENDIX B INSTRUC TION S The purpose of this study is to obtain undergraduate opinions concerning certain social issues in the United States. To determine which social issue you will discuss, will one of you pick a piece of paper from this box. According to the letter picked, you two will discuss the causes and solutions to racial disorders in the United States, specifically in the big city. You will speak first (point to the accomplice). You will speak for up to ten minutes concerning your viewpoints as .to the causes of racial disorders and solutions to the problem. After you speak, the other subject will speak for up to ten minutes. While one of you is speaking, we would appreciate no interruptions from the other person. Immediately after the second person is done speaking, you will have ten minutes to discuss your opinions between yourselves. Feel free to offer your opinion no matter what it is. The purpose of this study is to gain YOUR opinions to certain social issues. You can use any language, comparisons, or examples you 67 68 like if it helps you in expressing your view. This session is being tape recorded. All that is said here is confidential and will be known only to the experimenters. To give you a chance to organize your thoughts, you will have about three minutes to think about what you will say. When you are done, please leave the room. One of the experimenters will meet you in the hallway. If you have any questions, please ask them now. APPENDIX C RATER RE LIABILITIE S Variable r 1. Straying from the topic . 972 2. Making a qualification after an apparent agreement . 547 3. Expressing others' hatred, dislike, or depreciation 964 of others ' 4. Vacillating opinion and abrupt changes in context . 794 5. Slips of the tongue .837 - 6. Statements of agreement with the speaker . 95: 7. Empathy, sympathy, and friendliness towards actor . 989 8. Incoherency . 948 9. Awkward pauses (15 second silence) .997 10. Clearing of the throat . 859 11. Voice quaver . 936 12. Nervous giggle . 989 13. Deep sighing and breathing . 966 69 70 Variable r 14. Repeating words and phrases, aspirated speech, 981 and stuttering ' 15. Pleading ignorance of the topic . 728 16. All indications of felt inadequacy . 958 17. Apologizing . 921 18. Excuse behavior . 887 19. Citing personal and others' personal experience 920 with the racial situation ' 20. Bragging . 969 21. Disagreement with actor' s position . 894 22. Statement which objectively would be open to 813 question but is presented as an absolute ' 23. Citing questionable facts . 931 24. Mentioning violent and painful happenings, wars, 980 smashings, burnings, riots, deaths, etc. ' 25. Hostile feelings on the part of the subject, the 994 objects of which are unclear ’ 26. Expressing hatred, dislike, or depreciation of 967 others, including the actor ' 27. Denial of hatred of any group . 878 28. Expressing affection, positive feelings, or empathy 944 towards others ' 29. Expressing others' affection, positive feelings, or 730 empathy towards others 71 Variable r 30. General optimism . 875 31. Mentioning shortcomings of people or groups which . 943 does not seem hostile in meaning 32. Mentioning others' criticisms of other people . 892 Total 29. 894 Mean . 906 APPENDIX D LIST OF VERBAL MEASURES Defensiveness: Straying from the topic Making a qualification after an apparent agreement Separation of past attitudes from present ("used to") Vacillating opinion and abrupt changes in context Anxiety: wars» 9.09”.” Incoherency Slips of the tongue Awkward pauses (15 second silence) Clearing of the throat Voice quaver Nervous giggle Deep. sighing and breathing Repeating words and phrases, aspirated speech, stuttering Insecurity: 5"!” 3"me0 Excuse behavior: excuses for others' and self' 3 behavior Citing personal and others' personal experience with the racial situation Bragging Pleading ignorance of the topic Apologizing All indications of felt inadequacy 72 10. 73 Dogmatism : a. A statement which objectively would be open to question but is presented as an absolute b. Citing questionable facts Moving Towards: Solidarity and Agreement: a. Statements of agreement with the speaker b. Empathy, sympathy, and friendliness towards actor c. Immediacy: Use of "we" Positive Regard: a. Expressing affection, positive feelings, or empathy towards others b. General optimism Moving Away: a. Disagreement with actor's position b. Non-immediacy: Use of "I" and "you" Undifferentiated Hostility: a. Mentioning violent and painful happenings, wars, smashings, burnings, riots, deaths, etc. b. Hostile feelings on the part of the subject, the objects of which are unclear--include nondirective curses Directed Hostility: a. Expressing hatred, dislike, or depreciation of others including the actor. The objective must be clear. Include directed cursing b. Expressing others' hatred, dislike, or depreciation of others c. Denial of hatred of any group Nonhostile Criticism: a. Mentioning shortcomings of people or groups which does not seem hostile in meaning. Negative attributes of people or groups b. Mentioning others' criticisms of other people APPENDIX E STANDARD DEVIATION, MEAN FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE, AND MEAN TOTALS FOR TWENTY -SIX VERBAL BEHAVIORS Mean Race Totals Behavior Speech of Negro Caucasian Speech 1. Defensive negative Radical . 00616 . 005 65 . 00591 affect Conservative . 00242 . 00099 . 00171 S. D. = . 00565 Mean Totals .00429 . 00332 of Race 2 . Insecurity Radical . 24786 . 28967 . 26877 S. D. = . 2975 Conservative . 18438 . 17371 . 17904 Mean T°ta13 .21612 .23169 of Race 3. Mentioning violent and Radical . 32799 . 07903 . 20351 painful happenings Conservative . 16751 . 07863 . 12307 S. D. = . 27633 Mean Totals .24775 . 07883 of Race 4. Expressing affection, Radical . 44184 . 44005 . 44095 positive feelings, or Conservative .40047 . 46532 .43289 empathy towards Mean Totals . 42116 .45268 others of Race S. D. = . 30877 74 75 Mean Race Totals Behavior Speech of Negro Caucasian Speech 5. Nonhostile criticism Radical . 10405 . 13934 . 12169 S. D. = . 07664 Conservative . 09271 . 08555 . 08913 Mean T°tals .09838 . 11244 of Race 6. Emotionality Radical . 14994 . 18827 . 16911 S. D. = . 10308 Conservative . 15532 . 18651 . 17091 Mean Totals . 15263 . 18739 of Race 7. Evasiveness Radical . 03929 . 04605 . 04267 S. D. = . 02383 Conservative . 04279 . 05336 . 04808 Mean T°tals .04104 .04970 of Race 8. Hostility Radical . 33699 . 43159 . 38429 S. D. = . 30437 Conservative . 29482 . 45273 . 37377 Mean T°tals .31591 .44216 of Race 9. Awkward pauses Radical . 12845 . 04060 .08453 S. D. = . 23418 Conservative . 13213 . 12790 . 13001 Mean T°tals . 13029 .03425 of Race 10. Nervousness Radical . 39937 . 24374 . 30655 S. D. = . 28269 Conservative . 09795 . 16826 . 13311 Mean T°tals .23366 .20600 of Race 76 Race Mean Behavior Speech T0513 Negro Caucasian Speech 11. Unclarity Radical . 02018 . 04698 . 03358 S. D. = . 08480 Conservative . 04336 . 03676 . 04006 Mean T°tals .03177 .04187 of Race 12. Bragging Radical . 02838 . 00927 . 01883 S. D. = . 08480 Conservative .00536 . 00512 . 00524 Mean T°ta13 .01687 .00719 of Race 13. Empathy and friendli - Radical . 00075 . 00014 . 00045 ness towards actor Conservative .00000 .00244 . 00122 SD. = .00530 Mean Totals .00038 . 00129 of Race 14. Nervous giggle and Radical .06000 . 03776 .04888 feelings of inadequacy Conservative . 00166 .04825 .02496 S. D. = . 14315 Mean Totals . 00038 . 00129 of Race 15. Vacillating opinion and Radical . 35895 . 27158 . 31526 abrupt changes in con- Conservative .402 63 . 35684 . 37974 text Mean Totals S. D. = .31657 of Race '38079 '31421 16. Statements of agree- Radical . 17753 . 06305 . 12029 ment with speaker Conservative . 06816 . 06505 . 06661 S. D. = . 19308 Mean Totals . 12284 . 06405 of Race 77 Mean Race Totals Behavior Speech 0 f Negro Caucasian Speech 17. Clearing of throat Radical . 04528 . 02484 . 03506 S. D. = . 05339 Conservative . 03921 . 02527 . 03224 Mean Toms .04224 .02506 of Race 18. Sighing and deep Radical . 00969 . 01210 . 01090 breathing Conservative . 01184 . 01160 . 01172 SD. = .02642 Mean Totals . 01077 .00185 of Race 19. Stuttering and Radical . 00154 . 00097 . 00126 aspirated speech Conservative . 00240 . 00161 . 00201 S. D. = . 00333 Mean Totals . 00197 .. 00129 of Race 20. Citing personal Radical . 11508 . 07696 . 09602 experience with racial Conservative . 17112 . 25045 .21078 Situation Mean Totals . 14310 . 16371 of Race 21. Disagreement with Radical . 49637 . 30424 . 40031 actor' 3 position Conservative . 34159 .47106 . 40633 SD. = . 30587 Mean Totals .41898 . 38765 of Race 22. Absolute which is Radical . 56521 . 20426 . 38474 open to question Conservative . 41368 . 36700 . 39034 SD. = .29879 Mean Totals .48945 .28563 of Race 78 Race Mean Behavior Speech Tofils Negro Caucasian ' Speech 23. Citing questionable Radical . 02141 . 00837 . 01489 facts Conservative . 03284 . 01392 . 02338 SD. = .03197 Mean Totals .027” 001114 of Race 24. General optimism Radical . 00553 . 00866 . 00709 S. D. = . 01753 Conservative . 00357 . 00779 . 00568 Mean T°tals .00455 .00323 of Race 25. Immediacy Radical . 1628 . 1642 . 1635 S. D. = . 1727 Conservative . 0807 . 1347 . 1077 Mean T°tals . 1217 .2989 of Race 26. . Nonimmediacy Radical 2. 7 12 1. 035 1 . 873 SD. = .716 Conservative 1.454 1.309 1.381 Mean T°tals 2. 083 1. 172 of Race APPENDIX F ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Source df ms F P Behavior 1 Defensive negative affect Race (A) 1 0. 00001763 0. 62166 .433 Speech (B) 1 0. 00033516 11. 82102 . 001 A X B 1 0. 00000398 0.14050 . 709 Error (W) 72 0. 00002835 Behavior 2 Insecurity Race (A) 1 0. 00460358 0. 05125 . 822 Speech (B) 1 0. 15295645 1. 70280 .196 A X B 1 0. 01308169 0. 14563 .704 Error (W) 72 0. 08982648 Behavior 3 Mentioning violent and painful happenings Race (A) 1 0. 54215212 7. 90202 . 006 ' Speech (B) 1 0. 12296380 1. 79223 . 185 A X B 1 0. 12172803 1. 77422 . 187 Error (W) 72 0. 06860928 Expressing affection, positive feelings, or empathy Behavmr 4 towards others Race (A) 1 0. 1888426 0. 19125 . 663 Speech (B) 1 0. 00123205 0. 01248 . 911 A X B 1 0. 02108889 0. 21358 . 645 Error (W) 72 0. 09873912 79 80 Source df ms F P Behavior 5 Nonhostile criticism Race (A) 1 0.00375908 0. 66323 .418 Speech (B) 1 0. 02015008 3. 55517 . 063 A X B 1 0.00855421 1.50926 .223 Error (W) 72 0. 00566783 Behavior 6 Emotionality (Combination of 3, 4, and 5) Race (A) 1 0. 02296454 2. 13738 .148 Speech (B) 1 0. 00006210 0. 00578 . 940 A X B 1 0. 00024230 0. 02255 . 881 Error (W) 72 0. 01074474 Behavior 7 Evasiveness Race (A) 1 0. 00142422 2. 52931 . 116 Speech (B) 1 0. 00055512 0. 98585 . 324 A X B 1 0. 00006897 0. 12249 . 727 Error (W) 72 0. 00056309 Behavior 8 Hostility Race (A) 1 0.30284219 3.29179 .074 Speech (B) 1 0. 00210211 0. 02285 . 880 A X B 1 0.01903906 0.20695 .651 Error (W) 72 0. 09199930 Behavior 9 Awkward pauses Race (A) 1 0. 04027303 0. 72486 . 397 Speech (B) 1 0.03931200 0.70756 .403 A X B 1 0.03321846 0.59788 .442 Error (W) 72 0. 05555997 81 Source df ms F P Behavior 10 Nervousness Race (A) 1 0. 01453422 0. 20028 . 656 Speech (B) l 0. 57159580 7. 87635 . 006 A X B 1 0. 18237801 2. 51309 . 117 Error (W) 72 0. 07257115 Behavior 11 Unclarity Race (A) 1 0.00193819 0.26268 .610 Speech (B) 1 0. 00079885 0. 10827 . 743 A X B 1 0.00529891 0.71814 .400 Error (W) 72 0. 00737862 Behavior 12 Bragging Race (A) 1 0. 00177899 2. 83322 . 097 Speech (B) 1 0. 00350744 5. 58595 . 021 A X B 1 0. 00169297 2. 69622 . 105 Error (W) 72 0. 00062791 Behavior 13 Empathy and friendliness towards actor Race (A) 1 0. 00001593 0. 56409 . 455 Speech (B) 1. 0. 00001137 0. 40261 . 528 A X B 1 0.00004426 1.56693 .215 Error (W) 72 0. 00002 825 Behavior 14 Nervous giggle and feelings of inadequacy Race (A) 1 0. 00281456 0. 13504 . 714 Speech (B) 1 0. 01087451 0. 52174 . 472 A X B 1 0.02250104 1.07956 .302 Error (W) 72 0. 02084284 82 Source df ms F P Behavior 15 Vacillating opinion and abrupt changes in context Race (A) 1 0. 08422237 0. 82564 . 367 Speech (B) 1 0. 07898026 0. 77425 . 382 A X B 1 0.00821184 0.08050 .777 Error (W) 72 0. 10200848 Behavior 16 Statements of agreement with speaker Race (A) 1 0. 06566784 1. 80686 . 183 Speech (B) 1 0. 05475789 1.50667 . 224 A X B 1 0.05891389 1.62103 .207 Error (W) 72 0. 03634354 Behavior 17 Clearing of throat Race (A) l 0. 00561236 1.94416 . 168 Speech (B) 1 0. 00015149 0.05248 . 819 A X B 1 0. 00020069 0. 06952 . 793 Error (W) 72 0. 00288678 Behavior 18 Sighing and deep breathing Race (A) 1 0. 00002223 0. 03061 . 862 Speech (B) 1 0. 00001289 0. 01775 . 894 A X B 1 0. 00003329 0. 04585 Error (W) 72 0. 00072606 Behavior 19 Stuttering and aspirated speech Race (A) 1 0. 00000876 0. 77787 . 381 Speech (B) 1 0. 00001061 0. 94255 .335 A X B l 0. 00000023 0. 02061 . 886 Error (W) 72 0. 00001126 83 Source df F P Behavior 20 Citing personal experience with racial situation Race (A) 1 0. 00806902 0. 10564 .746 Speech (B) 1 0.25022959 3.27591 .074 A X B 1 0. 06552095 0. 85778 . 357 Error (W) 72 0. 07638472 Behavior 21 Disagreement with actor' 5 position Race (A) 1 0. 01865482 0. 20645 . 651 Speech (B) 1 0. 00068941 0.00763 .931 A X B 1 0. 49129224 5. 43694 . 023 Error (W) 72 0. 09036194 Behavior 22 Statement which objectively would be open to question but is presented as an absolute Race (A) 1 0. 78927664 10. 45304 .002 Speech (B) l 0. 00059696 0. 00791 . 929 A X B 1 0.46911633 6.21289 .015 Error (W) 72 0. 07550693 Behavior 23 Citing questionable facts Race (A) 1 0. 00484961 4. 96965 .029 Speech (B) 1 0.00137020 1.40412 .240 A X B 1 0. 00016417 0. 16823 . 683 Error‘(W) 72 0. 00097585 Behavior 24 General optimism Race (A) 1 0. 00025679 0.81237 .370 Speech (B) 1 0. 00003766 0. 11914 . 731 A X B 1 0. 00000564 0. 01784 .894 Error (W) 72 0. 00031610 84 Source df ms F P Behavior 25 Immediacy Race (A) 1 b 0. 015 0. 454 nonsignificant Speech (B) 1 0. 059 1. 787 nonsignificant A X B 1 0. 013 0. 393 nonsignificant Error (W) 72 0. 033 Behavior 26 Nonimmediacy Race (A) 1 15.768 26.770 .001 Speech (B) 1 4. 614 7. 833 . 010 A X B 1 11.145 18.921 .005 Error (W) 72 0. 589 .3”"~E"i l 9 1983 ICHIGQN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES lllllt lll illl ll lllll llll l 9 312 3000835300