affects of race in ambiguous situations jordon epps, suhanya erne, natasha owen, gizelle torres...
TRANSCRIPT
Affects of Race in Affects of Race in Ambiguous Ambiguous SituationsSituations
Jordon Epps, Suhanya Erne, Natasha Owen, Jordon Epps, Suhanya Erne, Natasha Owen, Gizelle TorresGizelle Torres
California State University, NorthridgeCalifornia State University, Northridge
Presented: 2005 PSI CHI Research CompetitionPresented: 2005 PSI CHI Research Competition
Introduction Introduction Past ResearchPast Research
Hurricane KatrinaHurricane Katrina
Mary-Beth, Oliver, and Dana (2002)Mary-Beth, Oliver, and Dana (2002)
Hugenberg and Bodenhausen (2004) Hugenberg and Bodenhausen (2004)
Introduction Introduction Past ResearchPast Research
Hurricane Hurricane KatrinaKatrina Different Different
captions on captions on pictures with pictures with identical identical situationssituations
Introduction Introduction Past ResearchPast Research
Mary-Beth, Oliver, and Dana (2002)Mary-Beth, Oliver, and Dana (2002) Differences in White participants’ Differences in White participants’
identification and misidentification of identification and misidentification of Black and White criminals Black and White criminals
Introduction Introduction Past ResearchPast Research
Hugenberg and Bodenhausen (2004)Hugenberg and Bodenhausen (2004) Hostility towards facial expressions of Hostility towards facial expressions of
African Americans and Caucasians—African Americans and Caucasians—more hostility towards African more hostility towards African AmericansAmericans
HypothesisHypothesis
We hypothesized that ethnicity and We hypothesized that ethnicity and cultural influences affects the cultural influences affects the interpretation of a person in either a interpretation of a person in either a positive or negative way. positive or negative way.
MethodMethod
ParticipantsParticipants
CSUN Human Subject CSUN Human Subject PoolPool
101 Participants101 Participants 15 African Americans 15 African Americans
(14.9%)(14.9%)
28 Caucasians (27.7%)28 Caucasians (27.7%)
32 Hispanics (31.7%)32 Hispanics (31.7%)
26 Other Races (25.7%)26 Other Races (25.7%)
Methods Methods MaterialsMaterials
QuestionnaireQuestionnaire Set of 10 pictures/Set of 10 pictures/
3 versions3 versions Four key pictures, Four key pictures,
6 random pictures6 random pictures
Method Method MaterialsMaterials
Illegally Breaking into a Car VS Legally Breaking into Car
Method Method MaterialsMaterials
ArguingArguing VS VS Friendly Friendly Conversation with SecurityConversation with Security
Method Method MaterialsMaterials
Cheating VS Working with a Classmate
Method Method MaterialsMaterials
Gun to Gun to ProtectProtect Family VS Gun to Family VS Gun to Protect Protect OutsideOutside of Family of Family
Methods Methods ProcedureProcedure
Dividers set upDividers set up Participants viewed pictures 1-10 and Participants viewed pictures 1-10 and
answered questions accordinglyanswered questions accordingly Participants filled out demographic Participants filled out demographic
info (age, race, gender, major), then info (age, race, gender, major), then answered the question pertaining to answered the question pertaining to their view on level of equality of racial their view on level of equality of racial groupsgroups
DebriefingDebriefing
ResultsResults
Chi Square TestChi Square Test Alpha .05Alpha .05
ResultsResults
SignificantSignificant Findings Findings Car Situation “illegally breaking in vs. Car Situation “illegally breaking in vs.
legally breaking in,” legally breaking in,” Pearson Chi-Square =.002.Pearson Chi-Square =.002.
Hispanic - Car
illegal67%
legal33% illegal
legal
White - Car
illegal32%
legal68%
illegal
legal
Black - Car
illegal27%
legal73%
illegal
legal
ResultsResults
NonNon Significant Findings Significant Findings Cheating SituationCheating Situation
Pearson Chi-Square =.668Pearson Chi-Square =.668
Gun SituationGun Situation Pearson Chi-Square =.616 Pearson Chi-Square =.616
ResultsResults
SignificantSignificant Findings Findings Security Situation “arguing vs. friendly Security Situation “arguing vs. friendly
conversation”conversation” Pearson Chi-Square =.001 Pearson Chi-Square =.001
Black - Security
arguing 38%
friendly62%
arguing
friendly
Hispanic - Security
arguing76%
friendly24%
arguing
friendly
White - Security
arguing12%
friendly88%
arguing
friendly
DiscussionDiscussion
FindingsFindings Supports past researchSupports past research Although, only 2 out of the 4 main Although, only 2 out of the 4 main
pictures were significant, it still pictures were significant, it still supports our hypothesis supports our hypothesis
Hispanics viewed more negativelyHispanics viewed more negatively Los Angeles location—we are exposed to Los Angeles location—we are exposed to
more Hispanic immigrants who are viewed more Hispanic immigrants who are viewed more negativelymore negatively
DiscussionDiscussion
LimitationsLimitations Pictures were not identicalPictures were not identical
In some of the facial expressionsIn some of the facial expressions In the angles which the pictures were shotIn the angles which the pictures were shot
Participant BiasParticipant Bias Participants may have answered the Participants may have answered the
questions in a way which made them seem questions in a way which made them seem more socially desirablemore socially desirable
ConclusionConclusion
All racial groups are All racial groups are notnot perceived equally. There is a perceived equally. There is a
negative perception when certain negative perception when certain minority groups are present.minority groups are present.
Thank youThank you
THE ENDTHE END