Ingroup norms and self-identity as determinants of discriminatory behavior Author Ehor Boyanowsky, Vernon Allen Publication Year 1973 Type Journal Article Abstract Selected 170 high- and low-prejudiced white male undergraduates using a modified form of the Social Distance Scale. The relative contribution of race and belief factors in social interaction involving the actual presence of majority (group consensus) and minority (a potential ally) group members was then examined. Under exposure to informational influence from their ingroup, prejudiced Ss discriminated against blacks on tasks dealing with self-identity (personal reality), an effect which was magnified under conditions of ingroup surveillance with threat of censure. As predicted, no discrimination occurred on (a) visual perception tasks (testing physical reality), (b) opinions referring to society in general (general social reality), or on (c) pencil-and-paper measures. Findings are used to account for discrepant results among previous studies and to identify the specific conditions under which racial discrimination is manifested. (25 ref.) (APA PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved) Keywords college students, race and ethnic discrimination, social interaction, whites, interpersonal influences Journal Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Volume 25 Pages 408-418 Type of Article Journal Article DOI 10.1037/h0034212 Full text The following is an excerpt of the intervention methodology. For more information, please see the full text of the article on the publisher's website or through your institution's library. EXPERIMENT I Method Prejudice Scale A modified form of the Bogardus (1933) Social Distance Scale, which assesses the degree of intimacy individuals are willing to have in social contact with blacks, was used to measure prejudice. [...] Each of the eight items was presented as a Likert-type, 9-point scale. [...] Subjects [...] The 152 subjects who were randomly selected to serve in the experiment [...]. [...] A total of 116 subjects remained for analysis. Design The design was a 2X2X2X2 analysis of variance model with three between-subjects variables (prejudice of subject—low or high; race of accomplice—white or black; condition—unanimous or social support) and one within-subjects variable (type of item—visual or opinion self-referent). In the unanimous condition, the first four (simulated) persons agreed on each item. In the social support condition the first three persons gave the same answers as in the unanimous condition. But the fourth person (identified earlier as white or black) differed from the other group members on group pressure trials by giving popular or correct answers. Apparatus A Crutchfield-type electrical signaling device was used to simulate group responses. [...] Four subjects and an accomplice, seated in the middle, were assigned to seats in five booths and instructed to respond to stimuli projected on a screen. Subjects were told that lights on their display panels indicated responses of the other subjects. [...] Accomplices During the instructions, the accomplice (who was either black or white according to condition) raised his hand and informed the experimenter that his position signal light was not operating. [...] At this point the experimenter stated that the accomplice would always answer fourth in turn. [...] In all, four accomplices (two of each race) were used in the experiment. Each served in the appropriate conditions an equal number of times. Stimulus Series There were two types of items in the series: visual perception and opinion self-referent. Visual perception items required judgments of physical relationships, such as determining which of nine quadrangles was square. Opinion-self-referent items asked for the degree of agreement or disagreement with statements [...] which [...] made direct reference to beliefs about oneself. For both types of items subjects answered by choosing one of nine switches corresponding to nine alternative answers (a 9-point agree-disagree scale was used for opinion items). [...] EXPERIMENT II Method Subjects A sample of 186 white male students in introductory business courses was pretested using the fiogardus Social Distance Scale. Persons scoring in the bottom 40% on the modified Social Distance Scale were designated as high prejudiced and formed the sample from which subjects were selected at random [...] Attrition rate was relatively equal across conditions, leaving a total of 54 subjects. Design A 2X2X3 analysis of variance design was used. The design contained two between-subjects variables: condition (unanimous or social support) and race of social supporter (black or white). The one within-subjects variable was type of item (visual, opinion self-referent, opinion general). Stimulus Series The 24 items used were of three types—visual, opinion self-referent, and opinion general. Visual and opinion-self-referent items were described in Experiment I. Opinion-general items dealt with beliefs about others or societal norms [...]. A total of 18 group pressure items was used, 6 of each of the three types. Six neutral items (3 visual and 3 opinion) completed the series of 24 items. The 18 critical items were divided into three blocks of 6, with each block containing 2 items of each type. [...] Procedure Following the general procedure described in Experiment I, the experimenter announced that the second purpose of the experiment was to study impression formation. Instructions stated that subjects in Response Positions 1, 2, and 3 would later give their impressions of Persons 4 (accomplice) and S (subject), by evaluating them on the "University of Wisconsin Standard Person Evaluation Inventory." [...] Several 9-point rating scales with end points labeled appeared on the form [...] in which persons in Positions 4 (accomplice) and 5 (subject) would be frankly discussed. [...]Upon completion of the stimulus series, a postexperimental questionnaire was administered, and subjects were debriefed. Type of Prejudice/Bias Race/Ethnicity Country Canada Method Lab Setting College/University Google ScholarDOIBibTeX