COUNSELING CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND
WHITE STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD BLACKS AND HISPANICS
PROGRAMMING IMPLICATIONS
Timothy J. White and William E. Sedlacek
Research Report # 5-85
Computer time for this report was furnished by the Computer Science Center, University of Maryland, College Park.
COUNSELING CENTER
COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND
WHITE STUDENT ATTITUDES TOWARD BLACKS AND HISPANICS: PROGRAMMING IMPLICATIONS
Timothey J. White and William E. Sedlacek
Research Report # 5-85
SUMMARY
Racial attitudes of 171 white students toward Blacks and Hispanics were measured with a version of the Situational Attitude Scale (SAS), using multivariate analyses of variance and Scheffe' post hoc tests. The results indicated that whites generally had negative attitudes toward Blacks and Hispanics, but they differed by type of situation. The closer the social distance of the situation, the more negative the reaction, however. Whites tended to have mare negative attitudes toward Blacks than toward Hispanics in situations which involved the closest perceived sustained personal contact. Women responded more negatively to situations involving potential physical contact with Blacks and Hispanics than did men. The results are discussed in terms of a six-stage model for eliminating prejudice which has been developed at UMCP, and has been employed in student and staff programming at many colleges and universities.
Hispanics represent the second largest (14.6 million) and fastest growing minority group in the U.S. (Anson, 1980; Magallan, 1983; and The U.S. Department of Commerce, 1983). Hispanics also have been projected to become the largest minority group during the 1980's (Anson, 1980). Most research on student interracial and interethnic attitudes and perceptions, however, has concerned Black and white students (Brause & Abston, 1981; Gaertner & McLaughlin, 1983; Greenberg & Rosenfield, 1979; Jones, 1975; and Minatoya & Sedlacek, 1984). Sedlacek, Brooks and Mindus (1973) found that white students and parents tended to have negative and generally similar attitudes toward Blacks, particularly in situations involving close social distance. Other studies have corroborated this and found that situations which involve perceived close and sustained personal contact with Blacks elicit the more negative attitudes from whites (Minatoya & Sedlacek, 1984; Rovner & Sedlacek, 1974; Sedlacek & Brooks, 1972 and 1976; Sedlacek et al., 1973; Triandis, 1964; and Triandis & Davis, 1965). Attitudes toward Blacks also differ by sex with white females expressing more negativity than white males in situations where potential physical harm is perceived (Johnson & Sedlacek. 1979; and Sedlacek & Brooks, 1972). The literature also suggests that white student attitudes toward Blacks are less negative in situations which cast Blacks into some type of service delivery role (Rodgers & Sedlacek, 1979; Sedlacek & Brooks, 1976; and Sedlacek, Brooks, Christensen, Harway & Merritt, 1976). In comparing-racism and sexism, the studies show that men generally view women more positively than whites view Blacks (e.g., Herman & Sedlacek, 1973; and Sedlacek et al., 1976).
2 Student Attitudes
Themeasurement of student attitudes toward Hispanics has been called for, but few studies appear to have been published (Magallan, 1983; Padilla, 1980 and Padilla, Olmedo and Loya, 3982). Although some work has been done on Hispanic student needs (Perry 6 Tucker, 1981); opinions of mental illness (DeCrane & Spielberger, 1981); use of professional mental health services (Keefe, 1979); perceptions of the college environment (DeArmas & McDavis, 1981) and the university student union (Webster & Sedlacek, 1982), it has been suggested that non-Hispanic student attitudes toward Hispanics be measured for purposes of gathering base-line data to eliminate prejudice in programming (Anson, 1983; and Santiago & Feinberg, 1981). Hispanics are underrepresented in North American higher education in terms of students and faculty (Cortese b Duncan, 1982; Lucas, 1981; Magallan, 1983; and Schlef, 1983) and some research attributes this to social-institutional discriminatory practices (Cortese & Duncan 1382). Other investigators have associated the factor "quality of life" with high attrition rates of Hispanics from higher education (Higher Education Research Institute, 1982; Quezada & Jones-Loheyde, 1984; and Ramirez & Soriano, 1981), difficulties in coping with mental stress (Mendoza, 1981), and perceptions of more campus problems than non-Hispanic students (Jacobs, 1981). It appears that Hispanics are experiencing inequalities in their higher education based on their heritage. Whether white students view Hispanics similarly to the way they view Black or other racial/ethnic minority students is not clear. The purpose of the present study was to assess attitudes of white students toward Hispanics and Blacks and compare and contrast those attitudes across different personal and social situations.
3 Student Attitudes
One hundred end seventy one white freshmen (97 females, 74 males) completed a version of the Situational Attitude Scale (SAS) (Sedlacek Brooks, 1970, 1982 and 1976) anonymously. Originally the SAS was developed to measure whites attitudes toward Blacks in a context which Lade psychological withdrawal difficult (Sedlacek & Brooks, 1970). Given the problem of social desirability response style in racial attitude measurement (Schuman & Harding, 1964; Sedlacek & Brooks, 1971; and Sigall & Page, 1970) the SAS has helped circumvent this and decrease the probability that the respondent will withdraw psychologically and hence avoid the racial variable.
The original SAS contained social and personal situations where the presence of a Black might be a variable in reactions to the situation by whites. The SAS design makes it amenable to measuring attitudes held toward groups other than Blacks. For example, it has been shown to validly measure student attitudes toward: women (Minatoya & Sedlacek, 1983); older students (Peabody & Sedlacek, 1982); male sex-roles (Hirt, Hoffman & Sedlacek, 1983), disabled persons (Stovall 6 Sedlacek, 1983); and children (Knight, Seefeldt & Sedlacek, 1954).
For the present study five situations were designed to bring out any prejudice in white students toward Blacks of Hispanics; these situations were based on pilot studies. Three forms of the questionnaire containing exactly the same situations were constructed, except that Form A made no mention of race, Form B contained the word "Black" and Form. C the word "Hispanic" (see Exhibit L). If students are randomly assigned to each form any mean differences obtained would "have to be attributed to the absence or presence of the racial. referent.
4 Student Attitude
Procedure.
Students were randomly assigned one of the three forms during the summer orientation program. The final page of the questionnaire contained several demographic items including race/ethnic group. Responses of nonwhite students are not reported in this study. Results were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance and Scheffe post hoc tests at the .05 level with Form said Sex as main effects.
Form.
Twenty one of the 50items showed significant differences between the three forms, suggesting students were responding differently depending upon whether they were completing the neutral, Black or Hispanic form (see Table 1). At least four items each reached significance for situations I (new roommate), TV (walking down street alone) and V (best friend becomes engaged). In situation I (new roommate) , students with either the Black or Hispanic form indicated feeling significantly more sad, bad and angry, and significantly less friendly and sympathetic than did those students with the neutral form. In situation IV (walking down street alone) white students with either the Black or Hispanic form were more likely to choose tense, unfriendly, unsafe and aggressive to describe their feelings than did those students completing the neutral form. In situation V (best friend becomes engaged) students with either the Black or Hispanic form responded feeling significantly more disgusted, sad, intolerant, passive and unexcited than did students with the neutral form. Students with
(Insert Table 1 about here)
the Black form found this situation more sad and disgusting than did those students with the Hispanic form. However, in situations I and IV there were no significant differences on any items between the Black and Hispanic forms.
Student Attitudes
Sex.
Seventeen items (see Table 1) showed significant differences between white males and females. Situations III (woman in hometown) and IV (walking down street alone) contained the majority of the significant items. In situation III females expressed feeling significantly more disgusted, sad, hostile and uninvolved than did males, and in situation IV females expressed feeling significantly more tense, angry, inferior, afraid, unfriendly and unexcited than did males.
On three items men and women responded differently depending on which form they completed. In situation I (new roommate) white females expressed anger toward having a Black or Hispanic roommate while white males were most angry with an Hispanic roommate and least angry with a Black roommate compared to the neutral form. In situation II (man on a date) women were most understanding on the race neutral form and less understanding toward an Hispanic man than a Black man. White men on the other hand were most understanding of an Hispanic man and less understanding of a Black man compared to the race neutral form. In situation III (woman in home town) item 25 indicates that white women were more uninvolved with an Hispanic woman in the situation but less so with a Black woman or the race neutral form. White men, however, felt the most uninvolvement with a Black woman followed by an Hispanic woman and then the race neutral form..
The findings of this study indicate that white students had negative feelings toward Blacks and Hispanics, particularly in those situations involving close personal contact . These findings support the previous SAS studies. In the situation involving perhaps the closest contact (engagement) whites were more negative toward Blacks. This is new in information
6 Student Attitudes
and leads to the conclusion that. Hispanics are thought of negatively but probably less negatively than Blacks on campus. There is also evidence that Hispanics and Blacks are differentially reacted to by White males and females depending on the situation. Also, in situations involving potential physical or sexual contact, women tended to be about equally more negative toward hacks and Hispanics, compared to the race neutral situation.
There appear to be two primary types of programming suggested by these results. First it has been shown that how a minority student understands and deals with racism in a critical variable in their retention in school (Tracey & Sedlacek, 1984; and in press). Orientation programs, courses counseling and advising for minority students could use the results of this study to help those students negotiate the system. Knowing in which situations they are most likely to have to deal with negative attitudes could be invaluable to minority students.
Secondly, the writers feel that successful campus programming to achieve a positive multicultural environment requires work with white students, faculty and staff, and not just more programming involving minority persons. A six stage model for eliminating individual and institutional racism, developed by Sedlacek arid Brooks (1976) has been employed on many campuses. The model's stages are: (1) cultural and racial differences; (2) understanding how racism operates; (3) measuring racial attitudes; (4) sources of racial attitudes; (5) setting clear goals for change; and (6) strategies for bringing about change. Data from this study could be employed in stages two, three and four of the model to make the points necessary.
It is proposed that the data from this study, if properly addressed by minority and white students and faculty, could provide the basis for change at many colleges and universities.
Anson, R. (1980) . Hispanics in the United States: yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Futurist, 14, 25-31.
Brause, W. & Abston, N. Jr. (1981). Interracial percepts in the deep south. Perceptualand Motor Shills, 52,
878.
Cortese, A.J. & Duncan, M.I. (1382). The denial of access; Chicanos in higher education. Paper read at Society
for the Study of Social Problems. San Francisco, CA.
college environment. Journal of College Student Personnel, 22, 337-341.
DeCrane, R.S. & Spielberger, C.D. (1981). Attitudes of Hispanic, black and Caucasian university students
toward mental illness. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 3, 241-255.
negative characteristics. Social Psychological Quarterly; 46, 23-30.
Greenberg, J. & Rosenfield, D. (1979). Whites' ethnocentrism and their attributions for the behavior of blacks:
A motivational bias. Journal of Personality, 67, 643-657.
Herman, M.H. & Sedlacek, W.E. (1973). Sexist attitudes among male university students. Journal of College
Student Personnel. 14, 544-548.
Hirt, J., Hoffman, M.A. & Sedlacek, W.E. (1983). Attitudes toward changing sex-roles of male varsity athletes
versus non-athletes: Developmental perspectives. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 33-38.
8 Student Attitudes
Higher Education Research Institute (1982 ). Final report of the commission on the higher education of
minorities. Washington, D.C..
Jones, L.G. (1975). Black students enrolled in white colleges and universities. Their attitudes and percepts.
Research report, Southern Regional Educational Board.
Jacobs, L.C. (1981). Problems encountered by women and minority students at Indiana University. Indiana
Studies in Higher Education, 46, Bureau of Evaluative Studies and Testing, Indiana University at
Bloomington.
Knight, G.D., Seefeldt, C. & Sedlacek, W.E. (1984). Measuring the attitudes of adults toward children. Counseling Center Research Report #4-84, University of Maryland, College Park.
Lucas, I. (1981) . Bilingualism and higher education: An overview. Ethnicity, 8, 305-319.
Magallan, R.J. (1983). Insights into the needs of a new source of students. CASE Currents, 9, 8-10.
Mendoza P. (1981). Stress and coping behavior of Anglo and Mexican –American university students.
Monograph # 8, Spanish Speaking Mental Health Research Center, University of California, Los
Angeles, CA.
Minatoya, L .Y. & Sedlacek W.E. (1983) The SASW: A means to measure environmental sexism. Journal of
the National Association for Women Dean,s Administrators and, Counselors, 47. 26-30.
9 Student Attitudes
changing context. Journal of Non-White Concerns in Personnel and Guidance. 12, 69-79.
Padilla, A.M. (Ed.) (1980) . Acculturation; Theory, models and some new findings. Boulder, Co: Westview.
Padilla, E.R. Olmedo, E.L. , & Loya, F. (1982). Acculturation and the MMPI performance of Chicano and
Anglo college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 4, 451-466.
Peabody, S.A. & Sedlacek, W.E. (1982). Attitudes of younger university students toward older students. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 23, 140-143 .
Perry, F., Jr., & Tucker A.B. (1981). Organizing the institution to meet the needs of minority and disadvantaged
students. College StudentJournal, 15, 185-190.
Quezada, R. & Jones-Loheyde, S. (1984) . Hispanic women: Academic advisees of high potential. Improving
College anal University Teaching, 32, 95-98.
Rodgers, R.S. & Sedlacek, W.E. (1979). Racial attitudes of white university freshmen by sex. Counseling
Center Research Report # 9-79, University of Maryland, College Park.
Rovner, R. & Sedlacek, W.E. (1974). A study of a simplified version of the Situational Attitude Scale (SAS).
Cultural Study Center Research Report # 7-74, University of Maryland, College Park.
Santiago, R.L. & Feinberg, R.C. (1981). The status of education for Hispanics. Educational Leadership, 38,
292-298.
10 Student Attitudes
Schlef, A. (1983). What higher education does (and doesn't do) for Hispanics. CASE Currents, 9, 14-17.
Schuman, H. Harding, J. (1964). Prejudice and the norm of rationality. Sociometry, 27, 353-371.
Sedlacek, W.E. & Brooks, G.C., Jr. (1970). Measuring racial attitudes in a situational context. Psychological
Reports, 27, 971-980.
Sedlacek, W.E. & Brooks, G.C., Jr. (1972). Differences in racial attitudes of white males and females. Cultural
Study Center Research Report # 2-72, University of Maryland, College Park.
Sedlacek, W.E. & Brooks, G.C., Jr. (1971). Social acceptability in the measurement of racial attitudes.
Psychological Reports, 29, 17-18.
Sedlacek, W.E. & Brooks, G.C., Jr. (1976). Racism in American education: A model for change. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Sedlacek, W.E., Brooks, G.C., Jr. & Mindus, L.A. (1973). Racial attitudes of white university students and their
parents. Journal of College Student Personnel, 14, 517-520.
Sedlacek, W.E., Brooks, G.C., Jr., Christensen, K.C., Harway M.H. 6 Merritt, M.S. (1976). Racism and sexism:
A comparison and contrast, Journal of the National Association for Women Deans, Administrators and
Counselors, 39, 120-127.
Sigall, A. & Page, R. (1970). Two looks at stereotypes. American Psychological Association Proceedings, 5,
355-356.
Stovall, C. 6 Sedlacek, W.E. (1983). Attitudes of male and female university students with different physical
disabilities. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 325-330.
Tracey, T.J. b Sedlacek, W.E. (1984). Noncognitive variables in predicting academic success by race.
Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance,
11 Student Attitudes
Tracey, T.J. & Sedlacek, W.E. (in press). The relationship of noncognitive variables to academic success by
race over four years. Journal of College Student Personnel.
Triandis, H.C. (1964). Exploratory factor analysis of the behavioral components of social attitudes. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology,65, 42(?-436.
Triandis, H.C. & Davis, E. (1965). Race and belief as determinants of behavioral intentions. Journal of
Personality and Social- Psychology, 2, 715-725.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1983). Conditions of Hispanics in America today.
Webster, D.W. & Sedlacek, W.E. (1982). The differential impact of a university student union on campus
subgroups. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal., 19, 48-52.
Instructionsand Situations from the Situational Attitude Scale.
Instructions.
Tris questionnaire measures how people think and feel about a number of social and personal incidents and situations. It is not a test so there are no right or wrong answers.
The questionnaire is anonymous so please DO NOT SIGN YOUR NAME.
Each item or situation is followed by 10 descriptive word scales. Your task is to select for each descriptive scale the rating which best describes YOUR, feelings toward, the item.
Sample item: Going out on a date.
happy A B C D E sad
You would indicate the direction and extent of your feelings (e.g., you. might select) by indicating your choice (b) on your response sheet by blackening in the appropriate
space for that word scale. DO NOT MARK ON THE BOOKLET. PLEASE RESPOND TO ALL WORD SCALES.
Sometimes you may feel as though you had the same item before on the questionnaire.
This will not be the case, so GO NOT LOOK BACK AND FORTH through the items. Do not try to remember how you checked similar items earlier in the questionnaire. MAKE EACH ITEM A SEPERATE AND INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT. Respond as honestly as possible Without puzzling over individual items. Respond With your first impressions whenever possible.
Situations.
Form A Form b Form C
I.You meet your new roommate. I. You nest your new room- I. You meet your sew roommate who
mate who is black is Hispanic.
II.You see a Man make al1 the
decisions on a date in- II. You see a black man make II. You see a Hispanic man make all
cluding there to go and all the decisions on a date the decisions on a date including
what to order in a restaurant including where to go and where to go and what to order
what to order in a restaurant. in restaurant.
III. A woman in your hometown III. A black woman in your hometown III. An Hispanic woman in your hometown
has a ‘loose’ reputation. has a ‘loose’ reputation. has a ‘loose’ reputation.
IV. You are walking down the IV. You are walking down the IV. You are walking down the street
street alone and must pass street alone and must pass a alone and must pass a corner where
a corner where a group group of black men are loitering. A group of Hispanic men are loitering
of men are loitering.
V. Your best friend has just become V. Your best friend as just become V. Your best friend has just become engaged
engaged. engaged to a black person. to an Hispanic person.
|
Females |
Males |
MANOVA Differences Significant at .05*** |
||||||||||||||
|
Form A |
Form B |
Form C |
Form A |
Form B |
Form C |
|||||||||||
|
Item Number |
Situations, ** Adjective Dimensions |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
Mean |
SD |
|||
|
Meet new roommate |
||||||||||||||||
|
1 |
good-bad |
0.88 |
0.72 |
1.61 |
0.81 |
1.72 |
0.88 |
0.82 |
0.73 |
1.54 |
0.81 |
1.53 |
0.77 |
F |
||
|
2 |
safe-unsafe |
1.12 |
0.83 |
1.14 |
0.83 |
1.37 |
0.93 |
1.35 |
0.91 |
1.16 |
0.97 |
1.54 |
1.11 |
|||
|
3 |
angry-not angry |
3.67 |
0.81 |
2.85 |
0.98 |
2.84 |
0.95 |
3.11 |
1.43 |
3.26 |
0.92 |
2.78 |
1.22 |
F FxS |
||
|
4 |
friendly-unfriendly |
0.46 |
0.82 |
0.5 |
0.67 |
0.71 |
0.84 |
0.36 |
0.58 |
0.59 |
0.73 |
0.97 |
0.76 |
F |
||
|
5 |
sympathetic-not sympathetic |
1.26 |
0.72 |
2.18 |
0.98 |
2.25 |
0.85 |
1.65 |
1.13 |
2.48 |
0.89 |
2.14 |
0.99 |
F S |
||
|
6 |
nervous-calm |
1.45 |
1.11 |
2.13 |
0.85 |
2.37 |
0.91 |
1.85 |
1.42 |
2.65 |
0.96 |
2.35 |
0.95 |
|||
|
7 |
happy-sad |
0.88 |
0.72 |
1.81 |
0.77 |
2.07 |
0.81 |
1.08 |
0.75 |
1.53 |
0.86 |
1.85 |
0.99 |
S |
||
|
8 |
objectionable-acceptable |
2.85 |
0.88 |
2.82 |
0.93 |
2.66 |
0.83 |
3.07 |
0.92 |
3.18 |
0.55 |
2.54 |
0.97 |
F S |
||
|
9 |
desirable-undesirable |
1.34 |
0.88 |
2.87 |
0.91 |
2.61 |
0.66 |
1.49 |
0.73 |
1.72 |
0.91 |
1.95 |
0.8 |
|||
|
10 |
suspicious-trusting |
2.71 |
0.84 |
2.81 |
0.94 |
2.59 |
0.82 |
2.38 |
0.85 |
2.57 |
0.99 |
2.34 |
1.05 |
|||
|
Man make all decisions on a date |
||||||||||||||||
|
11 |
warm-cold |
2.14 |
1.24 |
2.17 |
0.88 |
2.23 |
0.97 |
2.14 |
1.22 |
1.95 |
0.78 |
1.91 |
0.94 |
|||
|
12 |
sad-happy |
2.15 |
1.03 |
1.83 |
0.99 |
1.74 |
0.77 |
2.05 |
1.01 |
2.02 |
0.75 |
2.06 |
0.8 |
|||
|
13 |
superior-inferior |
2.81 |
0.86 |
2.23 |
0.72 |
2.38 |
0.98 |
1.74 |
1.03 |
2.16 |
0.69 |
1.78 |
0.77 |
S |
||
|
14 |
threatened-neutral |
2.31 |
0.95 |
2.64 |
0.89 |
2.69 |
0.89 |
2.55 |
1.18 |
3.18 |
0.9 |
2.57 |
1.13 |
F |
||
|
15 |
pleased-displeased |
2.48 |
1.25 |
2.11 |
0.79 |
2.45 |
0.99 |
2.04 |
0.97 |
2.06 |
0.88 |
1.88 |
1.01 |
S |
||
|
16 |
understanding-indifferent |
2.24 |
1.28 |
2.47 |
0.91 |
2.76 |
0.98 |
2.38 |
0.95 |
2.62 |
0.99 |
2.04 |
1.08 |
F x S |
||
|
17 |
suspicious-trusting |
2.09 |
1.24 |
2.28 |
0.91 |
1.94 |
0.78 |
1.94 |
0.97 |
2.47 |
0.98 |
2.15 |
0.83 |
F |
||
|
18 |
disappointed-elated |
1.73 |
1.12 |
1.61 |
0.75 |
1.76 |
0.79 |
1.61 |
0.96 |
1.73 |
0.63 |
2.01 |
0.99 |
|||
|
19 |
favorable-unfavorable |
2.45 |
1.17 |
2.28 |
0.99 |
2.38 |
0.91 |
2.15 |
0.93 |
1.96 |
0.95 |
2.02 |
0.98 |
|||
|
20 |
uncomfortable-comfortable |
1.84 |
1.31 |
2.15 |
0.95 |
1.72 |
0.93 |
1.51 |
0.85 |
2.66 |
0.94 |
2.01 |
1.05 |
F |
||
|
Women in hometown |
||||||||||||||||
|
21 |
affection-disgust |
2.51 |
0.78 |
2.59 |
0.67 |
2.97 |
0.78 |
2.43 |
0.79 |
2.23 |
1.01 |
2.54 |
0.88 |
S |
||
|
22 |
relish-repulsion |
2.43 |
0.68 |
2.38 |
0.74 |
2.57 |
0.73 |
2.01 |
1.01 |
2.48 |
0.85 |
2.28 |
1.08 |
|||
|
23 |
happy-sad |
2.21 |
0.58 |
2.87 |
0.84 |
2.84 |
0.69 |
1.81 |
0.9 |
2.31 |
0.71 |
2.08 |
0.96 |
F S |
||
|
24 |
friendly-hostile |
1.95 |
0.75 |
2.08 |
0.88 |
2.16 |
0.79 |
1.13 |
0.91 |
1.64 |
0.94 |
1.65 |
1.11 |
F S |
||
|
25 |
uninvolved-involved |
1.05 |
0.92 |
1.07 |
0.98 |
0.56 |
0.81 |
2.18 |
1.08 |
1.03 |
1.13 |
1.28 |
1.15 |
F S FxS |
||
|
26 |
hope-hopelessness |
1.85 |
1.03 |
1.78 |
0.97 |
1.77 |
0.93 |
1.62 |
0.89 |
1.81 |
0.95 |
1.82 |
0.99 |
|||
|
27 |
aloof-outraged |
1.25 |
0.91 |
1.13 |
0.88 |
1.09 |
0.96 |
1.25 |
0.87 |
1.25 |
0.98 |
1.61 |
0.97 |
|||
|
28 |
injure-kill |
1.43 |
0.82 |
1.54 |
0.88 |
1.81 |
1.03 |
1.61 |
0.85 |
1.72 |
1.03 |
1.77 |
0.97 |
|||
|
29 |
safe-fearful |
1.53 |
0.95 |
1.46 |
0.95 |
1.51 |
0.94 |
1.11 |
0.91 |
1.14 |
1 |
1.43 |
1.08 |
|||
|
30 |
empathetic-can't understand |
1.75 |
0.98 |
2.25 |
1.39 |
2.38 |
1.1 |
1.56 |
1.14 |
1.93 |
1.2 |
1.98 |
0.93 |
F |
||
|
Walking down the street alone |
||||||||||||||||
|
31 |
relaxed-tensed |
2.78 |
0.89 |
3.15 |
1 |
3.62 |
0.62 |
2.53 |
1.01 |
2.51 |
1.18 |
2.54 |
1.38 |
F S |
||
|
32 |
pleased-angry |
2.43 |
0.73 |
2.48 |
0.67 |
2.79 |
0.83 |
2.28 |
0.98 |
2.13 |
0.64 |
2.15 |
0.73 |
S |
||
|
33 |
superior-inferior |
2.48 |
1.22 |
2.59 |
1.19 |
2.47 |
1.14 |
1.74 |
0.92 |
1.75 |
1.01 |
2.05 |
1.14 |
S |
||
|
34 |
smarter-dumber |
1.49 |
0.88 |
1.56 |
0.88 |
1.32 |
0.88 |
0.72 |
0.93 |
1.25 |
1.01 |
1.24 |
1.11 |
|||
|
35 |
whiter-blacker |
1.56 |
0.95 |
0.96 |
0.93 |
1.13 |
1.09 |
1.36 |
0.9 |
1.05 |
1.14 |
1.33 |
1.06 |
|||
|
36 |
aggressive-passive |
2.56 |
1.08 |
2.46 |
1.03 |
2.33 |
1.14 |
2.48 |
1.08 |
2.17 |
1.18 |
2.24 |
1.26 |
F |
||
|
37 |
safe-unsafe |
2.73 |
1.14 |
3.09 |
1.08 |
3.18 |
0.92 |
2.64 |
0.83 |
2.22 |
1.18 |
2.36 |
1.34 |
F S |
||
|
38 |
friendly-unfriendly |
2.28 |
0.95 |
2.27 |
1.17 |
2.77 |
0.83 |
2.09 |
0.93 |
1.55 |
1.26 |
1.91 |
1.01 |
F S |
||
|
39 |
excited-unexcited |
2.55 |
0.95 |
2.51 |
1 |
2.98 |
1.05 |
2.11 |
0.79 |
1.88 |
0.64 |
2.13 |
1.2 |
S |
||
|
40 |
trivial-important |
2.09 |
0.91 |
1.75 |
1.11 |
1.54 |
1.05 |
1.99 |
0.9 |
1.14 |
0.9 |
1.66 |
1.14 |
|||
|
Best friend becomes engaged |
||||||||||||||||
|
41 |
aggressive-passive |
1.55 |
1.14 |
2.13 |
1.32 |
2.35 |
1.34 |
1.61 |
1.29 |
2.24 |
1.1 |
2.35 |
1.11 |
F |
||
|
42 |
happy-sad |
0.71 |
1.18 |
1.56 |
1.43 |
1.41 |
1.38 |
1.14 |
1.11 |
1.38 |
1.13 |
1.12 |
1.28 |
F |
||
|
43 |
tolerable-intolerable |
0.8 |
1 |
1.06 |
1.35 |
0.93 |
1.11 |
1.08 |
1.15 |
1.06 |
1.22 |
0.83 |
1 |
F |
||
|
44 |
complimented-insulted |
1.14 |
1.09 |
1.54 |
1.07 |
1.55 |
1.1 |
1.18 |
0.89 |
1.76 |
0.97 |
1.31 |
0.98 |
|||
|
45 |
angered-overjoyed |
3.08 |
0.98 |
2.37 |
1.22 |
2.45 |
1.16 |
2.77 |
0.93 |
2.45 |
1.25 |
2.67 |
1 |
|||
|
46 |
secure-fearful |
1.32 |
1.02 |
1.54 |
1.28 |
1.67 |
1.13 |
1.49 |
1 |
1.14 |
1.18 |
1.25 |
1.02 |
|||
|
47 |
hopeful-hopeless |
0.77 |
1.18 |
1.13 |
1.14 |
1.25 |
1.18 |
0.95 |
0.9 |
1.32 |
1.28 |
0.96 |
0.99 |
|||
|
48 |
excited-unexcited |
0.51 |
0.71 |
1.65 |
1.38 |
1.69 |
1.21 |
1.09 |
0.92 |
1.52 |
1.49 |
1.22 |
1 |
F S |
||
|
49 |
right-wrong |
1.29 |
1.22 |
1.59 |
1.2 |
1.35 |
1.08 |
1.32 |
1.16 |
1.11 |
1.54 |
1.25 |
1.49 |
|||
|
50 |
disgusting-pleasant |
3.14 |
1.09 |
2.27 |
1.43 |
2.45 |
1 |
2.97 |
0.88 |
2.53 |
1.27 |
2.72 |
1.15 |
F S |
||
|
* Scale A to E (numerical equivalent 0 to ). |
||||||||||||||||
|
** See Exhibit I for full situations. |
||||||||||||||||
|
*** Results of two-way MANOVA with F=significant effect for Form; S = significant effect for Sex; and FxS = significant Form by Sex Interaction |
||||||||||||||||