Relationship Between Racist Symbols and Prejudice

Relationship Between Racist Symbols and Prejudice Pre-test measures Image and question selection was twofold, primarily, the author identified possible images against three criteria political, general and racial, selected from a general cross-section of images located on internet sites identified by the search race hate groups white supremacy and political symbols. Various Discussion groups were then facilitated, one prisoners and one civilian group[1]. The dual grouping was to negate any prisoner only bias. Twenty selected images were displayed in each of the three categories to each group separately. The means of display was in a room which had reduced lighting and the individual images being projected onto screen. A semi-structured discussion then followed with the facilitator noting each image, which appeared to raise awareness or interest within the group. The images selected for treatment use were seven racial, five political (with a balance between parties) and two general (see appendix A). Further discussion groups with different prisoners a nd civilians; incorporating a variety of closed and open-ended questions being tabled around a different selection of images, which were similar in design to those already selected for use in the experiment. The responses from within these groups were noted as to which questions appeared to raise awareness or interest from each pilot group. Thus the questions selected were: Three scales were used as outcome measures in this experiment: British Prejudice Scale: The British Prejudice Scale (BPS) (Lepore Brown, 1997) is the amalgamation of several existing instruments: the Modern Racism Scale, the New Racism Scale and the Subtle and Blatant Prejudice Scale. The authors subtly altered these scales post-amalgamation to make them appropriate for white British respondents. The scale is designed as a general measure of anti-black prejudice. This scale was chosen because it contains a substantial component of anti-immigration, anti-foreigner sentiment. This sentiment closely approximates out-group hostility, distance and perceived worldview threats that are central to the theoretical argument being developed in this thesis. The internal consistency for this scale is high, Cronbach a=.92 (Lepore Brown, 1997).The scale consists of 15 questions answered on a scale from 1 7 (strongly agree to strongly disagree) and are summed indicating a range from 15 (high prejudice) to 105 (low prejudice). Thus a respondent scoring lower on this scale will be deemed more racist than a person with a high score. Social Dominance Orientation Scale: The Social Dominance Orientation Scale (SDO) (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth Malle, 1994), measures individual differences in the extent to which respondents prefer inequality among social groups. There are four separate versions of this scale; the 16-item scale has been selected for use in these experiments to allow other measures to be included. According to the scales authors, SDO is not a direct measure of racial attitudes, but, like authoritarianism, is a focal part of social ideology that predicts a wide range of political and racial attitudes. The measure has strong internal consistency, Cronbach a= .84 (Pratto et al., 1994). SDO conceptualises the importance of racial and political attitudes and therefore will be a direct measure of racial attitudes. It is purported that a person high in SDO will quite probably develop a negative attitude towards some group that is low in status or prestige. Further indications are that for those respondents high in SDO display a tendency to favour hierarchical relationships within groups and suggest an alignment of superior-inferior dimensions. According to the authors, individuals high in SDO accept legitimising myths that include racial and ethnic prejudice, nationalism, patriotism, separation between high and low culture, sexism, meritocracy and political conservatism (Pratto et all., 1994). Scale items are scored on a 1-7 (very positive to very negative) scale and scores are averaged across items. Thus a respondent scoring higher on this scale would indicate a stronger social dominance orientation or more prone to racist thinking than a person with lower scores. Selection of this scale was important to the study because those high in SDO display out-group hostility or denigration and would therefore likely seek to ensure a greater social distance from members of those out-groups. In addition the scale has been designed to independently indicate racism as apart from traditional pol itical ideology. Social Distance Scale: The Social Distance Scale (SDS) (Bogardus, 1933) was designed to measure the extent to which people want to keep a distance and avoid intimate contact between themselves and people from different racial, ethnic, national or social groups. The scale has a high internal consistency, with Cronbach a greater than .90 (Kleg Yamamoto, 1995, Mielenz, 1997, Osei-Kwame Achola, 1981). The scale consists of measuring first feeling reactions to a list of social, racial, ethnic and national groups ranging from regarding distant social contact (e.g., as visitors to ones country) to the most intimate (e.g., as a family member by marriage). In Bogarduss original scoring method (1933) a low score on this scale indicates the person is less inclusive or welcoming of out-group members than those respondents with a high score. Unlike the British Prejudice Scale and the Social Dominance Orientation Scales, which utilise closed-ended questions and Likert scales, the Social Distance Scale design is based on the uni dimensional Guttman-type scale. Clear written instructions on how to respond to the questionnaire and each scale were provided to all respondent prior to each scale. The British Prejudice Scale and the Social Dominance Orientation Scales being of the closed question style were pre-coded and the response sets were in a Likert scale, this allowing for ease of analysis. The Social Distance Scale design is based on the uni-dimensional Guttman-type scale, with increasing levels of intimacy. Clear written instructions on how to respond to the questionnaire and each scale were provided to all respondent prior to each scale. The main body of the questionnaire, as previously noted, was pre-determined by the use of existing scales. Consideration at this stage was given to a methodology of image presentation, due to the social undesirability of racial comments, and it was further considered unlikely that respondents would answers openly and honestly if they were fully aware that they were being questioned about racist attitudes. Furthermore, fully informed consent was not realistic prior to the experiment. The selected scales were already of a political nature by being measurements of political attitudes. The scales used dictated the information required, therefore consideration only had to be given to the construction, format ordering and filler questions required to ensure the deception was successful. The filler questions were selected by using a pre-general election governmental questionnaire[2] . It has been acknowledged that the style of question can influence the reported response, thus this method, by which elimination of any bias from the researcher is effected was deemed the most appropriate methodology. The questions were subsequently piloted,[3] with random introduction, the facilitator noting the level to which questions appeared to lead or invoke discussion or a better response from the group members. These questions were then used to fill the questionnaire and disguise the real intention of the measure. The design of the questionnaire was against two specific criteria, simplicity of administration and level of cognition of intended recipients prisoners. Instructions and layout were deliberately simple with additional concentration on ensuring the design was short, thus ensuring a minimisation of respondent fatigue and high response rate. The demographics were selected to identify length in prison, first or further prison sentence, number of previous prison sentences, age and level of education, thus allowing for statistical tests for possible influence or bias. Post-test measures The study investigated whether exposure to racist signs and symbols impacted participants scores on measures associated with hate and prejudice. The hypothesis was tested in seven different ways, firstly against the British Prejudice Scale, which was designed as a measure of anti-black prejudice; Secondly, against the Social Dominance Orientation Scale, the Social Dominance Orientation Scale conceptualising the importance of racial and political attitudes, therefore being a direct measure of racial attitudes. The next five tests of the hypothesis were sub-components of the Social Distance Scale which measures the extent by which people want to keep a distance and avoid increasing amounts of intimate contact between themselves and people from different racial, ethnic, national or social groups. A Man-Whitney U[4] test was conducted to determine whether the experimental and the control groups were comparable, on the demographic information from the sample. The demographic variables used in this experiment were length in prison (time spent in present establishment), first time in prison (whether or not this was a first custodial sentence), previous times in prison (number of previous custodial sentences), length of sentence (length of present custodial sentence), age and education. Independent t-tests were also conducted using the British Prejudice Scale, and the various elements of the Social Distance Scale scores. In order to take into account multiple testing, a Bonferroni adjustment[5] was also calculated. Analyses of covariance[6] were considered but no variances in dependant variables were apparent. Hypothesis The primary hypothesis of this research is that viewing racist signs and symbols increases prejudice against out-groups and factors associated with racism and hate. FINDINGS British Prejudice Scale On average, the control group scored significantly higher on the British Prejudice Scale (M= 64.67, SD= 16.41) than the experiment group (M= 36.68, SD= 18.46). The results of the test were significant (t(126) = 9.08, p=