1. TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2007 www.PosterPresentations.com Stereotypes and Prejudice: Caucasians’ and Asians’ Attitude towards the Academic Ability of Their In-group and Out-group Members Introduction Prejudice and stereotypes are two common social phenomenon that can be found around the world, especially in a place where a number of races are present. Although prejudice is commonly known as having negative feelings against certain group of people, there can be prejudice in favor of certain groups of people. “To stereotype is to assign identical characteristics to any person in a group, regardless of the actual variation among members of the group” (Aronson, 2004). Stereotype has powerful effects on racial prejudice. Just like prejudice, stereotype can usually lead to bias and errors because of the irrational beliefs of other people. When concerning prejudice and stereotypes, people can easily relate it to the bias of different racial groups. In-group bias: Children have in-group favorism when choosing playmate (Boulton & Smith, 1992 ; Bigler, Brown & Markell, 2001). Subjects “… like those who share their label. They rate others who share their label as likely to have a more pleasant personality… than the people who are assigned a different label” (Taifej, 1981). Caucasian children evaluated other Caucasian children highest and Asian lowest, while Asians evaluated Asians highest and Blacks lowest as potential playmates (Boulton & Smith, 1992). Stereotype and Prejudice in specific aspect: American students perform poorer in mathematics in comparison with their Chinese and Japanese counterparts... American parents hold lower standards of mathematics achievement for their children than do Asian parents (Crystal & Stevenson, 1991). The current study is aimed to examine both Caucasians’ and Asians’ prejudice level toward their in-group and out-group in general aspect and specific aspect (academic ability). 1.Mathematic ability (Crystal & Stevenson, 1991) 2. English writing ability (Peterson, 1995) Hypotheses Methods Two studies were carried out in order to test the two proposed hypotheses. Study 1 was used to test hypothesis 1 while study 2 was used to test hypothesis 2. Participants: 52 students from BYUH (20 Caucasians, 32 Asians) Measures: Stereotype questionnaire (Katz and Braly, 1935) Procedure: participants will be given the personality stereotype questionnaire. Instruction: Please circle Only One group that you think is best described by the trait. ~Sample questions: Intelligent American Canadian Chinese Japanese (Positive trait) Lazy American Canadian Chinese Japanese (Negative trait) Study 2 Participants: 80 students from BYUH (40 Caucasians, 40 Asians) (3 Caucasian subjects were taken out in the mathematic test since they did not choose a specific answer for the question.) Measures: 1. A calculus problem with two slightly different solutions (both include different mistakes). 2. Two paragraphs selected from an essay 3. A 6-point-TOEFL scoring guide Procedure: Participants will be given a calculus problem with two solutions, an essay, and a evaluation form. They need to: Determine which solution is correct Rate the paragraphs by using the scoring guide Study 1: Positive traits test: Target’s race significant: F (1, 100) = 40.28, p<.001 Interaction non-significant: F (1, 100) = 1.74, p=.19 Negative traits test: Target’s race significant: F (1, 100) = 15.332, p<.001 Interaction significant: F (1, 100) = 42.199, p<.001 Tukey HSD test showed significant in among all groups expect between the Asians rating Caucasian’s and Asians rating Asian’s groups. Study 2: Mathematic test: Caucasian: X2 = 30.0, p <.001 Asian: X2 = 32.4, p <.001 English test: Interaction non-significant: F (1, 156) =.64, p=.43 Discussion Conclusion References Hypothesis 1 was proved correct only in the positive traits test among the Asian subjects. (Asian subjects rated their in-group more positive in the positive traits test, but more negative in the negative traits test while Caucasian subjects rated their in-group much negatively than their out-group in both positive and negative traits tests.) This result may cause by small samples size and the unique subject pool in the Brigham Young University Hawaii since they shared a highly multi-cultural environment and a common religious belief. These two factors can serve as an effective moderators on the issue of stereotype and prejudice (Rosenfield, Sheehan, Marcus & Stephan, 1981; Foley,1976; Batson, Flink, Schoenrade, Fultz and Pych,1986). Besides, high self-monitoring level (Terkildsen, 1993) and the ideology of individualism (Triandis, 1995) among the Caucasian subjects may also be the reason why their rating is opposite to the hypothesis and as the Asian subjects. Hypothesis 2 was proved correct in the mathematic aspect among both subjects, but non-significant in the English test. The results suggested that there is a tendency for Asian to prejudice in favor of their mathematic ability but against their English ability, or be more specific, in the English writing aspect. This points out that it is possible for a group to have prejudice for and against their own in-group at the same time when they carry both positive and negative stereotypes. However, this tendency is found in Asian subjects but not clearly shown in Caucasian subjects. The fact that the Caucasian subjects in this present study consistently show a pro-Asian tendency, which is not commonly found in other similar study, suggests further studies are needed in order to explain this unusual phenomenon. Batson, C. D., Flink, C. H., Schoemrade, P. A., Fultz, J., & Pych, V. (1986). Religious orientation and overt versus covert racial prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 175-81. Bigler, R. S., Brown, C. S., & Markell, M. (2001). When groups are not created equal: Effects of group status on the formation of intergroup atitudes in children. Child Development. 72, 1151- 1162 Boulton, M. J., & Smith, P. K. (1992). Ethnic preferences and perceptions among Asian and White British middle school children. Social Development. 1, 55-66. Crystal, D. S., Stevenson H. W. (1991). Mothers’ perceptions of children’s problems with mathematics: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology. 83, 372-376. Foley, L. A. (1976). Personality and situational influences on changes in prejudice: A replication of Cook’s railroad game in a prison setting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 846-856. Katz, D., & Braly, K.W. (1935). Racial prejudice and racial stereotypes. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology. 30, 175-193. Peterson, K. S. (1995). Discovering and valuing competency: A case study if placement essays of new freshment from Hawaii high schools. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Christian University, 1995). Rosenfield, D., Sheehan, D. S., Marcus, M. M., Stephan, W. G (1981). Classroom structure and prejudice in desegregated schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 17-26. Taifej, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Terkildsen, Nayda. (1993). When White Voters Evaluate Black Candidates: The Processing Implications of Candidnate Skin Color, Prejudice, and Self- Monitoring. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 1032-1053. Triandis, H. C (1995). Individualism & Collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press 1. In general, both Caucasians and Asians are more positive in stereotyping their in-group than out-group. 2. Both Caucasians and Asians tend to be in favor of Asian’s Math ability, and Caucasians’ English writing ability. Independent variables: Race of participant (Caucasian vs Asian) Race of target (Caucasian vs Asian) Dependent variables: Stereotype test result (Katz and Braly, 1935) Mathematic and English tests results Fold or cut poster here Present Study Study 1 Results