PSYC 8204 Walden Social Identity Theory Stereotype African-Americans? Paper

User Generated

ivnirevgnf

Writing

Description

đź‘€ Please watch the course media, which is about the racial stereotype toward African-Americans.


After watching the media, please write an essay following the instructions as below:

đź“Ť 1. Explain how you might use social identity theory to account for the origins of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination depicted in the media example.

đź“Ť 2. Explain how you might apply social identity theory to reduce prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination in the media example.

Support your Application Assignment with specific references to all resources used in its preparation. You are to provide a reference list for all resources, including those in the Learning Resources for this course.

READINGS

  • Cameron, J. E. (2001). Social identity, modern sexism, and perceptions of personal and group discrimination by women and men. Sex Roles, 45(11/12), 743–766.
    Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
  • Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism(pp. 61–89). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
    Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism by Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. Copyright 1986 by Elsevier Science & Technology. Reprinted by permission of Elsevier Science & Technology via the Copyright Clearance Center.
  • Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 259–275.
    Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
  • Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 199–214.
    Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
  • Tarman, C., & Sears, D. O. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of symbolic racism. Journal of Politics, 67(3), 731–761.
    Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Copyright 1995 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0022-3514/95/S3.00 Journal orpersonalily and social Psychology 1995, Vol. 68, No. 2, 199-214 Sexism and Racism: Old-Fashioned and Modern Prejudices Janet K. Swim, Kathryn J. Aikin, Wayne S. Hall, and Barbara A. Hunter This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Pennsylvania State University Prejudice and discrimination against women has become increasingly subtle and covert (N. V. Benokraitis & J. R. Feagin, 1986). Unlike research on racism, little research about prejudice and discrimination against women has explicitly examined beliefs underlying this more modern form of sexism. Support was found for a distinction between old-fashioned and modern beliefs about women similar to results that have been presented for racism (J. B. McConahay, 1986; D. O. Sears, 1988). The former is characterized by endorsement of traditional gender roles, differential treatment of women and men, and stereotypes about lesser female competence. Like modern racism, modern sexism is characterized by the denial of continued discrimination, antagonism toward women's demands, and lack of support for policies designed to help women (for example, in education and work). Research that compares factor structures of old-fashioned and modern sexism and racism and that validates our modern sexism scale is presented. Racism and sexism have a long history of association. The political origins of this connection in the United States began with thefirstabolition movement in the 1830s (Doyle & Paludi, 1991; Hole & Levine, 1971). Female abolitionists, incited by their inability to work as equals with the male abolitionists, began speaking out against the subjugation of African-Americans and women. Later, Hacker (1951) delineated many parallels between the experiences of women and African-Americans, which she attributed to their minority status in the United States. Though noting differences in the statuses of women and African-Americans (see also Comas-Diaz, 1991; Reid, 1988; Smith & Stewart, 1983), she argued that sufficient parallels existed to generalizefindingsfrom one group to the other group. Parallel perceptions of women and minorities also have been described in recent research concerning the role of cognitive processes in stereotyping and prejudice. For instance, perceptual and memory processes, such as confirmation biases and selective encoding and retrieval, are used to maintain stereotypical beliefs and prejudices about both women and AfricanAmericans (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Furthermore, Black-White relations and female-male relations have been described as instances of intergroup relations (Ashmore & Delboca, 1986; for other parallels, as well as some distinctions, see Smith & Stewart, 1983). A further similarity between racism and sexism resides in the measurement of prejudicial beliefs, which has become an increasingly elusive task. One explanation for the difficulty of this task may be the presence of strong normative pressures not to endorse blatantly prejudicial remarks (McConahay, 1986). However, attitudinal research on current expressions of prejudice has dealt primarily with racism (directed at AfricanAmericans), not sexism. Researchers examining racism have generally agreed that its expression is more subtle in modern society than in the past. Individuals appearing nonracist on the surface may secretly harbor negative affect or beliefs about African-Americans. These in turn serve to support discriminatory treatment. Recent research on prejudice against AfricanAmericans has explored the content of contemporary racial stereotypes (e.g., Dovidio, Evans, & Tyler, 1986; Gaertner & McLaughlin, 1983), examined the circumstances under which discriminatory behavior occurs (McConahay, 1983), and has investigated the underlying causes of modern racist beliefs (e.g., Bobo, 1983; Katz & Hass, 1988; Sears, 1988). Researchers differ in their labels for this newer form of racism directed at African-Americans (e.g., symbolic racism [Sears, 1988], aversive racism [Dovidio, Mann, & Gaertner, 1989; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986], racial ambivalence [Katz, Wackenhut, & Hass, 1986], and modern racism [McConahay, 1986; Pettigrew, 1988]), and in the specific characteristics and causes identified for this form of racism (e.g., Bobo, 1988; Dovidio, Mann, & Gaertner, 1989; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Pettigrew, 1988; Sears, 1988). For simplicity, we use the term modern racism to refer to these newer forms of racist beliefs. Some researchers have suggested connections between modern racism and modern sexism (e.g., Benokraitis & Feagin, 1986; Butler & Geis, 1990; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1983; Frable, 1989; Rowe, 1990). For instance, in their discussion of affirmative action, Dovidio et al. (1989) stated, "While our discussion focuses on racism, our discussion also concerns sexism. We believe that many of the critical elements of modern racism relate to sexism" (p. 86). However, although there has been ample and ongoing research on modern racism, there has been no comparable systematic analysis of the underlying beliefs supporting modern sexism. National surveys and research on women's equality support the possibility of structural similarities between modern racism Janet K. Swim, Kathryn J. Aikin, Wayne S. Hall, and Barbara A. Hunter, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University. We would like to express our appreciation to Lisa Feldman, John Mathieu, Aaron Pincus, and Jules Thayer for their statistical consultations. Additionally, we would like to express thanks to Lee Carpenter, Cynthia Thomsen, Lisa Feldman, and John Mathieu for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this article. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Janet K. Swim, 515 Moore Building, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to JKS4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU. 199 200 SWIM, AIKIN, HALL, AND HUNTER 20000 Discharges Terms and Conditions Wages Sexual Harassment This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Pregnancy/Maternity 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 Fiscal Year 1985 1987 1989 Figure 1. Number of complaints reported to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from 1975 to 1989 forfivefrequently reported gender-based issues. and modern sexism. Data from national opinion polls suggest that fewer people endorse old-fashioned prejudicial beliefs such as unequal treatment of African-Americans as compared with European-Americans (McConahay, 1986) and suggest that fewer people disapprove of nontraditional roles for women (Myers, 1993). From 1937 to 1988, approval of married women's employment increased steadily, from approximately 20% to 80% (Myers, 1993). Yet the depth of the endorsement of gender equality is open to question. There is evidence of behaviors inconsistent with these more liberal attitudes toward women's roles (Benokraitis & Feagin, 1986; Rowe, 1990). For example, family roles are still inequitably divided, even for women with professional jobs (Biernat & Wortman, 1991). Inequity also can still be found in the workforce. In a 1990 Gallup poll, 43% of the male respondents and 54% of the female respondents indicated that they preferred a man as a boss, whereas only 12% of the women and 15% of the men indicated that they preferred a woman as a boss. Furthermore, as illustrated by Figure 1, the five most frequent sexbased complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC; 1977, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1990, 1993) either have changed little from 1975 to 1989 or have risen sharply.1 Although it is impossible to know how much these statistics depend on women's willingness to report discriminatory treatment, complaints to the EEOC indicate that women are still facing difficulties on the job. The impact of discriminatory treatment also can be found in differential salary levels. For instance, Stroh, Brett, and Reilly (1992) found differential increases in salary levels in their sample of recently transferred Fortune 500 male and female managers who had similar educational and work experiences and equivalent qualifications and dedication. Thus, the endorsement of gender equality does not appear to parallel changes in behaviors indicative of equality. The specific beliefs that underlie modern racism and modern sexism also may be similar. Sears (1988) described the beliefs underlying modern racism against African-Americans as being a) denial of continuing discrimination; b) antagonism toward African-Americans' demands; and c) resentment about special favors for African-Americans (see also McConahay, 1986). These same beliefs may be applied to women. There are social pressures to suppress old-fashioned prejudicial and stereotypical statements about women. Furthermore, people may resent women and African-Americans because these groups have both pushed for greater economic and political power and for the passage of anti-discrimination laws. Thus people, while rejecting old-fashioned discrimination and stereotypes, may believe that discrimination against women is a thing of the past, feel antagonistic toward women who are making political and economic demands, and feel resentment about special favors for women, such as policies designed to help women in academics or work. Thus, qualitatively, current beliefs about women can be described as modern sexist, in a manner similar to modern racist beliefs about African-Americans. The purpose of the present research is to test quantitatively the construct validity of this characterization of beliefs about women. Construct validity tests examined in thefirststudy are described below. Additional tests are presented in Study 2. Study 1 Confirmatory Factor Analyses We devised a set of statements concerning beliefs about women based on the three basic tenets described above. We de1 Initial EEOC reports indicated the number of sex-based charges made by women and men. Later reports referred to sex-based charges with no indication of the sex of the complainant. Approximately 807c of the charges for the fiscal years of 1968 to 1974 in the areas of discharges and terms and conditions of employment were made by women (EEOC; 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975). The percentages for women versus men were relatively stable across this 7-year period. The other three categories noted in Figure i were not reported by these early publications. 201 SEXISM AND RACISM signed an additional set of statements to measure old-fashioned prejudices. These were characterized by items endorsing traditional gender roles, differential treatment of women and men, and stereotypes about lower female competence. Like previous research that has compared modern racism and old-fashioned racism (McConahay, 1986), we predicted that responses to these sets of statements, though correlated, could be characterized by a two-factor structure with one factor representing OldFashioned Sexism and the other representing Modern Sexism. This analysis is the first test of the construct validity of our scales. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Sex Differences Most tests of the construct validity of sexism scales seek to determine whether women and men respond differently to these scales (DelBoca, Ashmore, & McManus, 1986). Therefore, examining sex differences is our second test of the construct validity of our scales. We predicted that women would give less sexist responses to both old-fashioned and modern sexist statements because of the less favorable implications of these beliefs for women. Women may not only disagree with blatant discriminatory statements but also may be less likely than men to believe that equality has been obtained. This latter belief may result from greater personal experience with sex discrimination or identification with others who have experienced the effects of prejudice. These factors should lead women to support other women's demands and to adopt favorable perceptions of programs designed to help women. In contrast to the evidence for sex differences in mean levels of sexism, research on sex differences in the structure of political beliefs is sparse (Shapiro & Mahajan, 1986), and two studies that examined these structures suggested that there are few sex differences. Goertzel (1983) reported that women's and men's attitude structures about various social and political issues were very similar. Additionally, Sears, Huddie, and Schaffer (1986) found similar factor structures for men's versus women's responses to specific gender, racial, and partisan issues. Thus, we did not predict significant sex differences in factor structure. Values Underlying Racism and Sexism Our third test of construct validity examined the relevance of individualistic and egalitarian values to modern sexism. Sears (1988) and Katz and colleagues (e.g., Katz & Hass, 1988; Katz et al., 1986) argued that the values of individualism and egalitarianism are related to racism against African-Americans. People who hold individualistic values emphasize personal freedom, self-reliance, devotion to work, and achievement (Katz & Hass, 1988). Individualistic values are related to traditional protestant values that similarly emphasize devotion to work, individual achievement, and discipline. These latter values relate to racism by supporting internal attributions (e.g., lack of drive or discipline) rather than external attributions (e.g., poor job opportunities) for social and economic problems faced by African-Americans. Egalitarian values, however, emphasize helping others so that no one has special advantages. Thus, these values yield more sympathetic responses to, and more support for, the rights of African-Americans. Sears (1988) provisionally concluded that not endorsing egal- itarian beliefs is a stronger predictor of symbolic racism than is endorsing individualism. If the same value structure underlies racism and sexism, then egalitarian values should correlate negatively with Modern Sexism, and individualist values should be uncorrelated or positively correlated with Modern Sexism. The correlation between individualism and Modern Sexism should be smaller in magnitude than that between egalitarianism and Modern Sexism. Katz and colleagues (Katz & Hass, 1988; Katz et al., 1986) have argued that current attitudes regarding African-Americans are characterized by ambivalence (i.e., simultaneously having both pro- and anti-African-American sentiments). They have shown that negative attitudes are more consistently related to individualism than to egalitarianism; conversely, positive attitudes are more strongly related to egalitarianism than to individualism. To the extent that the Modern Racism and Modern Sexism scales measure negative beliefs about African-Americans and women, respectively, these results suggest—contrary to Sears (1988)—that we should observe stronger correlations between these beliefs and individualistic values than between these beliefs and humanitarian values. Job Segregation Our fourth test of construct validity involved perceptions of sex segregation in the workforce. Despite advances in women's employment status, most women still hold lower paying, lower status jobs than men do (Unger & Crawford, 1992). It has been argued that discrimination against women is one reason that one can find fewer women than men in male-dominated jobs (England & McCreary, 1987; Nieva & Gutek, 1981; Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989). Furthermore, segregation in the workforce leads to less direct opportunity for advancement and fewer economic resources to improve job status. McCauley, Thangavelu, and Rozin (1988) found that people underestimated the extent ofjob market segregation by sex. We predicted that Modern Sexism would be related to people's perceptions of sex segregation in the workforce. Those who believe that discrimination is no longer a problem, one component of the Modern Sexism scale, should perceive fewer barriers to women in male-dominatedfields.Furthermore, misperceptions of equality should be related to less perceived need and support for assistance for women. Thus, we predicted that higher scores on the Modern Sexism scale would be related to greater overestimation of women in male-dominated jobs. Perceiving decreased job segregation in male-dominated jobs may yield overestimation of men in female-dominated jobs, and the degree of overestimation may be predicted by scores on the Modern Sexism scale. Method Sample Respondents were 418 women and 265 men from an introductory psychology course who received extra credit for their participation. Nearly all respondents were European-American. Questionnaire Respondents were given a questionnaire packet containing several surveys as part of a mass screening for introductory psychology stu- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 202 SWIM, AIKIN, HALL, AND HUNTER dents. Responses to all items relevant to the present study were on 5point Likert-type scales with 1 indicating strongly agree and 5 indicating strongly disagree. Item responses were averaged. Respondents first completed Katz and Hass's (1988) Humanitarian-Egalitarian scale and Katz and Hass's (1988) shortened version of Mirels and Garrett's (1971) Protestant Work Ethic scale. Items from the first scale were alternated with items from the second scale. Respondents then completed sexism items designed as potential measures of Old-Fashioned Sexism and Modern Sexism (see below). The Old-Fashioned Sexism items were interspersed with the Modern Sexism items. These items were followed by McConahay's (1986) racism items; items from the Modern Racism scale were interspersed with items from the Old-Fashioned Racism scale. Finally, respondents estimated the percentage of women and men in the United States who occupy 12 occupations (registered nurses, physicians, bank tellers, police officers and detectives, lawyers, legal assistants, engineers, waiters and waitresses, child care workers, architects, secretaries, and airplane pilots and navigators). They were told that the percentages of men and women in each occupation should sum to 100. Respondents took the packets home and returned their completed forms during one of their next two class periods. They were instructed tofillout the forms privately. Scale Development As described previously, Sears (1988) classified survey items used to measure symbolic racism against African-Americans into three categories. Many of these same symbolic racism items were also incorporated into McConahay's Modern Racism scale (see Appendix A). We used McConahay's (1986) items and Sears' classification system as guides in constructing potential items for our Modern Sexism scale. First, all seven items measuring modern racism from McConahay's Modern Racism scale were altered to apply to women. Second, we constructed additional items consistent with the three categories described by Sears. Only one of McConahay's Old-Fashioned Racism items (Item 1) could be meaningfully altered to measure old-fashioned sexism. Hence, in addition to altering this one item, we developed several items that were related to traditional beliefs about women. These emphasized negative stereotypes about women's competence and obvious unequal treatment of women and men. We conducted a preliminary exploratory principal component factor analysis of the sexism items. A two-factor solution resulted from these analyses. All of the old-fashioned items loaded on one factor, and most of the modern items loaded on the second factor. However, one modern item loaded on the Old-Fashioned factor, and several of the modern items loaded equally on both factors. We eliminated these items. The items kept for the present study are listed in Appendix B, and the loadings for the final exploratory factor analysis are listed in Appendix D. Of the modern items, five represent the first component of the scale (denial of continuing sexism), two represent the second component (antagonism toward women's demands), and one represents the last component (resentment of special favors for women). All eliminated items came from the second and third components of the scale. LISREL Analysis Confirmatory analyses were conducted with LISREL 7 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1989). Covariance matrices were used. The parameters estimated are the values of the factor loadings given a defined pattern of loadings, the error variances associated with the loadings, and the correlations between the factors. We conducted separate analyses on the racism and sexism scales to ascertain whether a one-factor or a twofactor modelfitbest in each case. Chi-square difference tests were used to assess whether two-factor solutions fit significantly better than one-factor solutions. However, because x2 values are influenced by sample sizes, we also usedfiveaddi- tional fit indices to assess and compare the goodness of fit of the oneand two-factor solutions. For allfivefitindices, larger numbers indicate betterfits.Thefirstfitindex, the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), measures the relative amount of variance and covariance jointly accounted for by the model; the more variance accounted for by the model, the better the fit. Thefitcan range from 0 to 1, with a value of .90 generally indicating a good fit (Bollen, 1989; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1989). The next three fit indices compare the fit of a proposed model with thefitofa null model (Bentler & Bonett, 1980;Bollen, 1989; Mulaik et al., 1989). In our analyses, the null model assumes no relationship between the measured variables. Hence, the indices indicate the extent to which the proposed model of relationships between the variables is better than proposing no relationship between the variables. We used x2 values to indicate thefitof the proposed and null models in the calculations of the threefitindices described next. We used two versions of Bentler and Bonnett's (1980) fit index (Bollen, 1989; Mulaik et al., 1989). One incremental fit index (IFI1) was calculated by taking the difference between thefitof the null model and the fit of the proposed model and dividing by the fit of the null model. The other (IFI2) lessens the degree of influence of the sample size by subtracting the expected value of the fit of the proposed model (the degrees of freedom for that model) from the fit of the null model in the denominator (Bollen, 1989; Mulaik et al., 1989). Although the latter normed fit index should be less related to sample size (Bollen, 1989) than the former, it is still influenced by sample size. Hence, a third incremental fit index (Tucker & Lewis, 1973), less influenced by sample size, was also used (Bollen, 1989). Like the GFI, fit indices around .90 indicate goodfits(Bentler & Bonnet, 1980; Bollen, 1989; Mulaik et al., 1989). The sizes of these three fit indices are influenced by the number of parameters estimated in the tested models (Mulaik et al., 1989). Artificially betterfitcan be obtained by freeing more parameters. Hence, the fourth fit index used, the parsimonious goodness-of-fit index (PGFI), adjusts for the number of parameters in the model and increases the clarity of cross-model comparisons (Mulaik et al., 1989). The .90 criterion value used to assess the otherfitindices does not apply to the PGFI. Rather, if one model has a larger PGFI than another model, one can conclude that it has a better fit. Results Confirmatory Factor A nalyses Thefirstset of analyses tested whether confirmatory analyses of the racism items would yield support for a two-factor solution similar to that found previously with exploratory factor analyses (McConahay, 1986). These results serve as a comparison for the confirmatory analyses that follow with the sexism scale. Analyses that tested the possibility that the sexism scale fits differently for women and men are included among these latter confirmatory analyses. Racism items. In the confirmatory analyses, the x2 difference tests indicated that the two-factor solution fit significantly better than the one-factor solution, x2U> N - 605) = 56 (see Table 1). Furthermore, fit indices also indicated that the twofactor solutions fit relatively well. The loadings were all significantly different from 0 (see Appendix C). Finally, the internal reliabilities were adequate for the Old-Fashioned Racism (a = .67) and Modern Racism scales (a = .85). Although these results point to the two-factor model, the difference between the fit for the one- and two-factor solutions was small, and the high correlation between the two factors ( = .83) indicates a onefactor solution. Sexism items. Like the racism items, the two-factor solu- 203 SEXISM AND RACISM Table 1 Fit Indices for Null, One-, and Two-Factor Confirmatory Factor Analyses on Racism and Sexism (Study I) Model This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Racism Null One-factor Two-factor Sexism Null One-factor Two-factor x2 df GFI IFI1 IFI2 TuckerLewis PGFI 2,459 297 241 91 77 76 .43 .92 .94 .87 .93 .91 .93 .89 .92 .67 .68 2,153 394 174 78 65 64 .48 .89 .96 .74 .88 .77 .81 .94 .64 .67 .88 Note. IFI1 and IFI2 are two versions of Bentler and Bonett's (1980) incremental fit indices. IFI2 takes into account the number of degrees of freedom in the model (Bollen, 1989). GFI = goodness-of-fit index; PGFI = parsimonious goodness-of-fit index. tionfitbetter than the one-factor solution, x2( 1, N = 615) = 220 (see Table 1). Thefitindices also indicate that the two-factor solutionfitbetter than the one-factor solution. All of the loadings differed significantly from 0 (see Appendix D). The internal reliabilities were adequate for both the Old-Fashioned Sexism (a = .66) and Modern Sexism scales (a = .84). Finally, the correlation between the factors was not nearly as high as the correlation for the racism factors ( = .54). As predicted, men's Old-Fashioned Sexism (M = 2.08) and Modern Sexism (M = 2.63) scores were higher than women's Old-Fashioned Sexism (M = 1.52) and Modern Sexism (M = 2.14) scores, r(628) = 11.80, p < .001 and r(628) = 8.55, p < .001, for Old-Fashioned Sexism and Modern Sexism, respectively. An examination of thefitindices indicates that the twofactor solution fit better than the one-factor solution for both men, x 2 (l, N = 236) =118, and women, x 2 (l, N = 377) = 37 (see Table I). However, there is a greater difference between the fit of the one- and two-factorfitindices for men than for women. Thefitindex that adjusts for the number of parameters in the model (PGFI) indicates no difference infitfor women but does indicate a difference for men. Correlation With Values We conducted correlations of scores on the sexism and racism scales with Protestant-Work-Ethic and HumanitarianEgalitarian values to test whether values that purportedly support racism also support sexism (see Table 3). Correlations were done separately within female and male respondents because of sex differences in mean endorsement. Differences between the absolute values of the correlations were tested using Z tests for a comparison of nonindependent Pearson correlation coefficients (Meng, Rosenthal, & Rubin, 1992). The data partially supported Sears' (1988) conclusion that modern prejudice is more strongly related to nonegalitarian beliefs than to highly individualistic beliefs. This was true for oldfashioned and modern prejudices for women but only for oldfashioned prejudices for men. For women, the pattern of differences was the same for Old-Fashioned Sexism, Old-Fashioned Racism, Modern Sexism, and Modern Racism. The Humanitarian-Egalitarian scale was more predictive than the Protestant Work Ethic scale of Old-Fashioned Racism, Z = 5.60, p < .001; Modern Sexism, Z = 2.86, p < .01; and Modern Racism, Z = 1.97, p < .05. Although there were no significant differences for correlations with Old-Fashioned Sexism, the correlation between Old-Fashioned Sexism and the Protestant Work Ethic scale was not significant, and the correlation between Old-Fashioned Sexism and the Humanitarian-Egalitarian scale was significant. For men, the pattern was true only for Old-Fashioned Sexism, Z = 3.36, p < .001; and Old-Fashioned Racism, Z = 3.23, p < .001; and not for Modern Sexism and Modern Racism. Modern Sexism and Modern Racism were significantly correlated with Protestant-Work-Ethic and Humanitarian-Egalitarian values, and the correlations did not differ from each other. Job Segregation We predicted that respondents who were high in Modern Sexism would be more likely than those who were low in Modern Table 3 Correlations Between Racism and Sexism Scales and Endorsement ofProtestant Work Ethic and Humanitarian Values Scale Table 2 Fit Indices for Null, One-, and Two-Factor Confirmatory Factor Old-Fashioned Sexism with: PWE Analyses on Sexism Items for Men and Women (Study 1) Model Men Null One-factor Two-factor Women Null One-factor Two-factor x2 df GFI IFI1 IFI2 858 78 .49 214 65 .86 96 64 .94 973 78 194 65 157 64 .50 .92 .94 .66 .72 .75 .76 .74 .80 .83 .84 TuckerLewis PGFI .77 .95 .62 .66 .83 .87 .66 .66 Note, i n I and IFI2 are two versions of Bentler and Bonnet's (1980) incremental fit indices. IFI2 takes into account the number of degrees of freedom in the model (Bollen, 1989). GFI = goodness-of-fit index; PGFI = parsimonious goodness-of-fit index. HE Modern Sexism with: PWE HE Old-Fashioned Racism with: PWE HE Modern Racism with: PWE HE Men Women (iV=354) (iV=232) .09a -.16,* .01. .29b* .08a -.29/ .19.* .16a* .14/ -.28/ .16.* .31/ .21.* -.35/ .29/ .26/ Note. Higher scores indicate more old-fashioned and modern racism and sexism and more endorsement of protestant work ethic (PWE) and humanitarian-egalitarian (HE) values. The absolute value of the correlations within sex and each prejudice scale with different subscripts differ at p < . 0 5 . * Correlation differs significantly from zero atp < .05. SWIM, AIKIN, HALL, AND HUNTER 204 Table 4 Means ofthe Percentage Estimates of Women in Female- and Male-Dominated Occupations by Respondents Who Scored Low and High on the Modern Sexism and Old-Fashioned Sexism Scales Old-Fashioned Sexism Modern Sexism Occupation This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Physician Police officer Lawyer Engineer Architect Airplane pilot Actual percentage" 20 11 21 8 15 2 Low (iV=290) High (JV=297) 29.80 23.08 35.80 23.10 27.43 15.65 32.54 24.83 37.76 27.03 30.62 18.70 5.26 1.67 2.89 7.97 4.08 4.35 .02 .20 .09 .001 .04 .04 High Low (AT =262) (JV=335) 31.86 24.76 38.46 26.08 30.88 18.91 30.48 23.14 35.10 24.05 27.48 15.43 1.35 1.43 8.51 2.12 5.65 5.66 .24 .23 .004 .21 .02 .02 " U.S. Bureau of the Census (1993). b df= 1,579. Sexism to overestimate the percentage of women in male-dominated occupations. We conducted a 2 (sex of respondent) X 2 (high or low on Old-Fashioned Sexism: Mdn = 1.50) X 2 (high or low on Modern Sexism: Mdn = 2.33) Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) on the percentage estimates of women in male-dominated jobs and a second identical MANOVA for the percentage estimates of women in female-dominated occupations. Like McCauley et al. (1988), our results indicated that, on average, all respondents overestimated the percentage of women in male-dominated occupations.2 As predicted, individuals with higher Modern Sexism scores tended to overestimate the percentage of women in these jobs more so than individuals with lower scores on Modern Sexism (see Table 4). The difference was significant for physicians, engineers, architects, and airplane pilots, and was marginally significant for lawyers, multivariate F(6, 574) = 2.11, p = .05. There were also unexpected main effects for the Old-Fashioned Sexism scale, multivariate F(6, 574) = 2.35, p = .03, which were the opposite of findings for Modern Sexism. Individuals low in Old-Fashioned Sexism were more likely than those high in Old-Fashioned Sexism to overestimate the percentage of women who work as lawyers, architects, and airplane pilots. Finally, there was a main effects for sex, multivariate Fifi, 574) = 1,32, p = .04. Two univariate effects were significant. Women were more likely to overestimate the percentage of women who were physicians (M = 32.45) and airplane pilots (M = 18.77) than men (Ms = 29.88 and 15.58), Fs(l, 790) = 4.64 and 4.94, ps = .03, respectively. No multivariate main effects were significant for the percentage of women in female-dominated jobs, and no multivariate interactions were significant for the percentage of women in female- and male-dominated jobs. Discussion The results from the first study support the distinction between Old-Fashioned and Modern Sexism. Confirmatory factor analyses indicate that the two-factor solution, representing oldfashioned and modern prejudices, fit significantly better than the one-factor solutions for both racism and sexism. Furthermore, all of the loadings differed significantly from 0 for both two-factor solutions. However, the present results indicate weaker support for a two-factor solution for the racism than the sexism items. The correlation between the factors was high, and the fit indices for the one- and two-factor solutions did not differ much for the racism analysis. Additionally, we found sex differences in factor structure for the sexism items. Although the x2 tests indicate that the two-factor solution fit better than the one-factor solution for both men and women, the fit indices suggest a greater advantage of the two-factor solution for men than for women. The patterns of correlations with individualistic and egalitarian values indicate a similarity between the racism and sexism scales. Endorsment of individualistic beliefs and failure to endorse egalitarian beliefs were associated with higher racism and sexism scores. The relative strength of these correlations depended on the respondents' sex and on whether the prejudice scales tapped modern or old-fashioned beliefs. For women, racism and sexism were more strongly related to egalitarianism than to individualism for both old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Perhaps the lack of different patterns of correlations for old-fashioned and modern beliefs for women is related to the factor analytic results suggesting that there is less of a distinction between old-fashioned and modern prejudices for women than for men. For men, Humanitarian-Egalitarian values were more predictive than Protestant-Work-Ethic of Old-Fashioned Racism and Old-Fashioned Sexism, but both values were equally and significantly correlated with Modern Racism and Modern Sexism. This pattern suggests greater relative importance of individualistic values for modern prejudice than for old-fashioned prejudice. 2 It is possible that students' overestimation of the percentage of women in male-dominated occupations and of men in female-dominated occupations reflects greater gender equality in related fields among the student population at their university. However, this is not supported by data from their university registrar on three majors that correspond to these occupations; the percentage of women majoring in engineering, architecture, and nursing are 15%, 16%, and 91%, respectively. The first percentage falls between the census data and the students' estimates, and the latter two percentages are nearly identical to population estimates. A percentage that is more similar to Students' estimates than to national data is that for women majoring in pre-law (52%). Many more students attend law school than major in pre-law; however, the exact percentage attending law school was not available. 205 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. SEXISM AND RACISM It should be noted that there is some degree of similarity between the correlations with Modern Racism for women and men. Even though the correlations with Protestant Work Ethic and Humanitarian-Egalitarian differed for women but not for men, they were both significantly different from 0 for both groups. Hence, the primary difference between women's and men's responses can be found in the correlations with the Modern Sexism scale. It is possible that the women did not show the same focus on individualistic beliefs because they were expressing beliefs about their own sex. Women might not be expected to project individualistic-based prejudices, such as laziness, onto their own gender group. A stronger indication of the validity of distinguishing OldFashioned Sexism and Modern Sexism comes from estimates of the percentage of women in three male-dominated jobs. As predicted, respondents who were high in Modern Sexism were more likely to overestimate the percentage of women in maledominated jobs than were those who were low in Modern Sexism. This is consistent with the concept that Modern Sexism measures the belief that women are not currently victims of discrimination. However, although the results for the Modern Sexism scale are consistent with predictions, and the effects of this scale are distinct from the results for Old-Fashioned Sexism, the opposite pattern of effects for Old-Fashioned Sexism versus Modern Sexism and the fact that women overestimated more than men on two occupations suggests that the perceived percentage of women in various occupations is not a direct or unambiguous measure of sexism. A more direct measure related to these estimates may be revealed by the reasons for differences in employment patterns and the consequences of the different estimates. We addressed different reasons for sex segregation in jobs in Study 2. In general, although larger estimates from respondents scoring high in Modern Sexism may reflect a denial of discrimination, lower estimates from those scoring high in Old-Fashioned Sexism may be consistent with a belief in inherent sex differences and preferences for traditional roles. The sex differences may reflect women's motivation to perceive themselves as having opportunities unrestricted by sex. Study 2 One purpose of Study 2 was to replicate the confirmatory factor analyses conducted in Study 1. This was necessary because the previous confirmatory analyses were based on scale changes derived initially from exploratory analyses. We also wished to examine whether the greater differentiation between Old-Fashioned Sexism and Modern Sexism for men than for women observed in Study 1 could be replicated in a separate sample. We further wished to replicate ourfindingsfor the racism scales, because the minimal difference between the fit indices for the one- and two-factor solutions suggests less of a differentiation between the Old-Fashioned Racism and Modern Racism scales than has been described previously (McConahay, 1986). The second purpose of Study 2 was to conduct further construct validity tests. The opposite effects of Old-Fashioned Sexism and Modern Sexism on estimates of the percentages of women and men in different occupations highlight the several explanations for job segregation. These reasons include attributions to individual causes, such as innate, biological differences, or to external causes, such as pro-male biases in the workforce (England & McCreary, 1987; Nieva & Gutek, 1981; Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989). Preferences for different explanations may underlie differences in estimates. Specifically, we predicted that compared with respondents who were low in Modern Sexism, those high in Modern Sexism would be less likely to attribute the low numbers of women in male-dominated occupations to job discrimination and would be more likely to attribute them to biological differences. This is consistent with our previous prediction regarding beliefs about the extent of sex segregation in the workforce. We also examined attributions to differences in socialization. Socialization suggests that sex differences may be due to external causes but also implies that these forces begin early in life and therefore may not be changed easily. Socialization therefore could be considered an external- or an individuallevel explanation. Hence, we did not make specific predictions for this explanation. As a further test of construct validity we studied Modern Sexism as a predictor of voting preferences. Previous research has demonstrated that Modern Racism is a better predictor of choosing an African-American mayoral candidate over a European-American mayoral candidate than is Old-Fashioned Racism (Sears, 1988). Hence, we predicted that Modern Sexism would be a better predictor than Old-Fashioned Sexism of voting preference for a male or a female candidate. However, a difficulty with previous voting studies has been the confounding of candidates' race with party affiliation (Roth, 1990). The Modern Racism scale may be differentiating liberal and conservative respondents rather than those who are low and high in prejudice. The present study shares the same difficulty in that the female candidate was a Democrat and the male candidate was a Republican. However, we also asked respondents to identify whether they considered themselves liberal or conservative and whether they considered themselves Democrats, Republicans, or Independents. These variables were then used as covariates in our analyses. Method Respondents Four hundred seventy-seven women and 311 men completed the racism and sexism questionnaires for extra credit in their introductory psychology course. Nearly all respondents were European-American. We made an attempt to recontact 280 of the original respondents within 2 weeks of the U.S. Senate race. Ninety-seven women and 72 men were contacted by phone and asked if they would be willing to participate in a 5-min survey about the upcoming election. Respondents were unaware of the relationship between the initial questionnaires and the phone survey. Two women and 1 man refused to answer the survey with the female interviewer, and 1 woman refused to answer with the male interviewer. Interviewer sex did not have any significant effects on the results presented below. Questionnaire Respondents were given a packet that contained several questionnaires used as a mass screening of the introductory psychology class. In addition to questionnaires for other studies, respondents received a packet that contained one of the following: a) the racism items only; b) the sexism items only; c) the racism items followed by the sexism items; 206 SWIM, AIKIN, HALL, AND HUNTER or d) the sexism items followed by the racism items. 3 All items generated for the first study were included in the questionnaire. The Old-Fashioned Racism and Modern Racism scale items were alternated, and the Old-Fashioned Sexism items were interspersed among the Modern Sexism items. The scale responses ranged from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). Item responses were averaged. Principal-components exploratory factor analyses were again conducted. Results were similar to those found in Study 1. The loadings for the factor analyses, eliminating the same items as in Study 1, are listed in Appendix F. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Phone Survey After agreeing to participate in the phone survey, respondents were first asked about their preference for the presidential election and whether they were Pennsylvania residents. They then were asked to think about the Pennsylvania senate election (Aden Spector vs. Lynn Yeakel) and asked "If the election were tomorrow, would you vote for Arlen Spector or Lynn Yeakel?" (For half of the respondents, Lynn Yeake! was mentioned before Arlen Spector.) Nonresidents were asked the same question prefaced by the qualification, "If you were a resident . . ." Then all respondents were asked whether they planned to vote in the upcoming election. Thirty-three respondents indicated that they did not know for whom they would vote. These respondents were excluded from the analyses of voting preferences. A series of questions about sex segregation in the workforce followed. Respondents were asked to consider the fact that more men than women occupied positions as physicians, police officers, lawyers, engineers, architects, and airplane pilots. They were then asked to explain, in their own words, the reasons for sex segregation in the workforce. After the open-ended responses, respondents were told that they were going to be asked to decide the extent to which biological differences, differences in socialization, and discrimination explained job segregation by sex. They were told that biological causes included genetic or hormonal differences that could lead to differences in abilities and interests. Socialization included different treatment by peers, families, schools, and the media, leading to differences in abilities and interests. Discrimination included blocking women from employment and promotions, being given fewer opportunities to demonstrate skills, or being harassed sexually. They were then asked to rate each potential cause on a scale that ranged from 1 (not very much a cause) to 7 (very much a cause). Respondents were asked to rate themselves politically by degree of liberalism or conservativism. In this scale, 1 = very liberal, and 7 = very conservative, with 4 indicating neither. They were also asked whether they considered themselves Democrats, Republicans, independents, or something else. After all surveys were completed, these open-ended responses were coded independently by phone interviewers who were unaware of the respondents' pretest responses to the sexism questions and their responses to the phone survey. The responses were coded into five categories. Coders agreed on 81% of the responses with a kappa of .76. The coders discussed responses until agreement was reached. The first category was labeled tradition and contained responses such as "This is as it has developed historically. It is changing. It reflects past history." The second category was labeled socialization and contained responses such as "Women are brought up to be housewives." The third category was labeled prejudice against women and contained responses such as "Women aren't given a fair chance. This reflects policies by white males and other factors." The fourth category was women's lack of interest or ability and contained responses such as "Fewer women want (maledominated jobs) and are willing to work that hard to achieve them." The fifth category was don't know. Results Confirmatory Factor Analyses Racism items. The x2 difference test indicated that the twofactor solution, x2( 1, N = 459) = 35,fitsignificantly better than Table 5 Fit Indices for Null, One-, and Two-Factor Confirmatory Factor Analyses on Racism and Sexism Items (Study 2) Model Racism Null One-factor Two-factor Sexism Null One-factor Two-factor x2 df GFI IFI1 IFI2 TuckerLewis PGFI 2,252 276 241 91 77 76 .47 .92 .93 .88 .89 .91 .92 .89 .91 .67 .67 1,790 456 209 78 65 64 .55 .87 .95 .76 .81 .80 .86 .73 .90 .62 .66 Note. IFI1 and IFI2 are two versions of Bentler and Bonett's (1980) incremental fit indices. IFI2 takes into account the number of degrees of freedom in the model (Bollen, 1989). GFI = goodness-of-fit index; PGFI = parsimonious goodness-of-fit index. the one-factor solution (see Table 5). Furthermore, the GFI and the normed fit indices also indicated that the two-factor solutions fit relatively well. The loadings were all significantly different from 0 (see Appendix E). Finally, the internal reliabilities were adequate for the Old-Fashioned Racism (a = .64) and Modern Racism scales (a = .83). As in Study 1, these results support the two-factor solution. However, again, the difference between the fit indices, particularly the PGFI, and the high correlation between the factors ( = .86) indicate little differentiation between the two factors. Sexism items. Like the analyses for racism, the x2 difference test for the sexism items indicated that the two-factor solution fit significantly better than the one-factor solution, x2(l> N = 461) = 247 (see Table 5). Thefitindices support this difference, and all the loadings for both factors are significantly different from 0 (see Appendix E). The correlation between the factors is much smaller than that found for the racism scale (4> = .47). The fit indices, though not as high as those found in Study 1, are respectable. Finally, the internal reliabilities of the scales were adequate for the Old-Fashioned Sexism (a = .65) and Modern Sexism scales (a = .75). Men's Old-Fashioned Sexism (M = 2.57) and Modern Sexism (M = 3.36) scores were again significantly higher than women's Old-Fashioned Sexism (M = 1.94) and Modern Sexism (M = 2.82) scores, r(531) = 6.84,p < .001 andf(531) = 6.42, p < .001, for Old-Fashioned Sexism and Modern Sexism, respectively. Although analyses indicate that the two-factor solution fit significantly better than the one-factor solution for men, y^(\, N = 186) = 125, and women, x2( 1, N = 275) = 31, the small differ3 We conducted separate confirmatory analyses on the racism and sexism items for the alternative orders. The results indicated little difference in fit. The correlation between the two factors for the racism analyses was .80 if only the racism scales were completed, .92 if the racism scales were completed before the sexism scales, and .94 if the racism scales were completed after the sexism scales. Although there was a slightly lower correlation in the first case, the correlations were high in all three instances. The correlation betwen the two factors for the sexism analyses was .51 if only the sexism scales were completed, .43 if the sexism scales were completed before the racism scales, and .50 if the sexism scales were completed after the racism scale. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. SEXISM AND RACISM 207 to indicate that segregation was a result of prejudice against Table 6 Fit Indices for Null, One-, and Two-Factor Confirmatory Factor women (40% and 20%, respectively), f(163) = 2.80,/? < .01, and less likely than high scorers to indicate that the segregation was Analyses on Sexism Itemsfor Men and Women (Study 2) a result of tradition (26% and 40%, respectively), r(163) = 1.96, Tuckerp< .05. Low scorers also were marginally less likely to indicate Model x2 df GFI IFI1 IFI2 Lewis PGFI a lack of knowledge with regard to the reasons for differences (6% and 15%, respectively), /(163) = 1.93, p < .10. The reasons Men given did not differ for low versus high scorers on the Old-Fash.54 643 78 Null ioned Sexism scale. .52 .69 .59 .59 .80 258 65 One-factor .63 .79 .85 .67 .90 133 64 Two-factor A priori categories for job segregation. We used regressions Women to examine the impact of Old-Fashioned Sexism and Modern 78 .61 671 Null Sexism on the a priori categories of reasons for a sex-segregated .66 .82 .83 .73 .92 One-factor 153 65 .66 .84 .88 .74 .94 workforce. First the main effects of Old-Fashioned Sexism, 122 64 Two-factor Modern Sexism, and respondent's sex were entered into the Note. IFI1 and IFI2 are two versions of Bentler and Bonett's (1980) equations.4 Higher scores on Modern Sexism predicted higher incremental fit indices. IFI2 takes into account the number of degrees ratings of biological differences as a likely reason for job segreof freedom in the model (Bollen, 1989). GFI = goodness-of-fit index; gation (standardized fi = .20, p = .02) and lower ratings of soPGFI = parsimonious goodness-of-fit index. cialization (standardized 0 = - . 16, p = .04) and discrimination (standardized £ = -.34, p < .001) as likely reasons. Old-Fashioned Sexism did not predict the ratings. There was only one ences between thefitindices for women relative to men indicate effect for sex. Women were more likely than men to indicate that the differentiation between the two factors is stronger for that socialization was a likely reason (standardized fi = - . 17, p men than for women (see Table 6). = .04). Interactions of the scales with respondents' sex were then entered in the regressions. Neither interaction was significant. However, when self-identification as a liberal was included as a Voting Preferences covariate (standardized ,8 = -.07, p = .38), ratings of socializaWe conducted logistic regressions to test the extent to which tion became nonsignificant (standardized P = -.14, p = .10). the Old-Fashioned and Modern Sexism scales predicted preferThe results for the importance of biological causes and discrimence for a female or a male candidate in the Senate race in Pennination remained significant when liberalism was included as a sylvania. Thefirststep in this analysis was to enter respondents' covariate. Old-Fashioned Sexism and Modern Sexism scores and their sex into the regressions predicting the dichotomous voting preference variable. Respondents with lower Modern Sexism scores Discussion were more likely to prefer to vote for the female candidate (B = The factor analytic results from Study 2 replicated those from .45, partial r = . 14, p = .02). Neither their Old-Fashioned SexStudy 1. The analyses revealed that the two-factor solutions fit ism scores (B = -.01, partial r = Q,p= .99) nor their sex (B = better than the one-factor solution for both the Racism and Sex-.32, partial r = -.06, p = .10) predicted their voting preferism scales, and all the items on the two-factor solutions were ence. Next, the interactions among respondents' sex and Modsignificantly different from 0. Furthermore, the difference in fit ern Sexism and Old-Fashioned Sexism scores were entered into between the one- and two-factor solutions for the sexism items the equation. These interactions were not significant. Thus, was stronger for the male respondents than for the female reModern Sexism appeared to be a better predictor than Oldspondents. However, the same lack of difference between OldFashioned Sexism. However, if liberalism was entered as a coFashioned Racism and Modern Racism found in Study 1 ocvariate in the equation (B = .46, partial r = .21, p = .002), the curred in Study 2. The correlation between the two factors was effect of Modern Sexism was only marginally significant (B = high ( = .86), and the fit indices for the one- and two-factor .36, partial r = .08, p = .08). Furthermore, if both liberalism solutions did not differ much. These findings suggest that the and party affiliation were entered as covariates in the equation, significant difference between the one- and two-factor solutions neither Modern Sexism nor liberalism predicted voting may not translate into practical differences (see also Weigel & preference. Howes, 1985). The tests predicting voting preferences and explanations for Job Segregation Open-ended responses. We used two-tailed / tests for independent proportions to test whether respondents who were high or low on the Old-Fashioned Sexism and Modern Sexism scales (based on median splits = 1.60 and 3.00, respectively) differed in the types of reasons they gave to explain sex segregation in the workforce. Low and high scorers on the Modern Sexism scale were equally likely to indicate that job segregation resulted from women's lack of interest (12% and 16%, respectively), f( 163) = .85, or socialization (15% and 8%, respectively), /(163) = 1.57. However, low scorers were more likely than high scorers 4 Several sets of hierarchical regressions were also conducted. In the first set, respondents' sex was enteredfirst,Modern Sexism was entered second, and Old-Fashioned Sexism was entered third. In the second set, respondents' sex was entered first, Old-Fashioned Sexism was entered second, and Modern Sexism was entered third. The change in R2 in all of these regressions indicated that Modern Sexism, but not Old-Fashioned Sexism, was significant. The only change from the above results was that respondents' sex significantly predicted higher ratings of discrimination as a reason for job segregation when it was the only independent variable in the equation. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 208 SWIM, AIKIN, HALL, AND HUNTER job segregation confirmed the construct validity of the Modern Sexism scale and its greater predictive power than the Old-Fashioned Sexism scale.5 The Modern Sexism scale was a better predictor of preference for a male senatorial candidate over a female senatorial candidate than was the Old-Fashioned Sexism scale. The ability to predict voting preferences is likely to be a function of the issues raised during the campaign. In this particular campaign, the female candidate explicitly argued that the male candidate was not sensitive to women's issues. Speaking practically, separating a candidate's sex from sympathy toward women's issues may be difficult, because female candidates' may be more likely than male candidates to be sympathetic to women's issues or to be perceived this way. The confound between sex and sympathy in this study suggests that the scale cannot distinguish between favoring a male over a female candidate and responding less favorably to candidates who express support for women's issues. Furthermore, the ability of the Modern Sexism scale to predict voting preferences is also likely to be a function of its association with self-identification as a liberal or a conservative (r = .26, p < .01) and party identification (r = .27, p < .01; see also Roth, 1990). The predictability of the Modern Sexism scale decreased after these variables were entered as covariates. The content of the Modern Sexism scale as well as its relationship with the Old-Fashioned Sexism scale (rs = .42 and .30 for Studies 1 and 2, respectively), however, indicate that the Modern Sexism scale is not simply a measure of liberalism. Results concerning perceptions of reasons for the lack of women in certain jobs yielded more evidence of the construct validity and implications of the Modern Sexism scale. Respondents who scored high on Modern Sexism were less likely to indicate that discrimination, socialization, and prejudice against women were causes for sex segregation and were more likely to indicate that biological differences were causes. These explanations may translate into different assumptions about the likelihood of attaining equality and the extent to which organizations should address gender-related issues. The regressions predicting socialization as a reason for sex segregation indicate overlap between modern sexism and self-identification as a liberal. However, results relating Modern Sexism to beliefs about biological differences and discrimination were not affected by this self-identification. General Discussion The results from the two studies confirm that Modern Sexism is distinguishable from Old-Fashioned Sexism. The factor analytic results from Studies 1 and 2 suggest that the distinction may be stronger for men than for women. However, similar effects of Modern Sexism were found on percentage estimates, explanations for job segregation, and voting preferences, indicating that the Modern Sexism scale predicts important outcomes similarly for both women and men. The present results are limited to assessment of college-age students' responses. College-age women may be more sensitive than non-college-age women to gender issues and may not differentiate between old-fashioned and modern beliefs. Consistent with this idea, Gurin (1985) found that younger and more educated women were more likely to identify themselves in the social category of "women," to be discontented with the extent of women's power, and to perceive the sex disparities in wages and other market disparities as illegitimate. Other differences between college- and non-college-age respondents, such as possible greater sensitivity to the social desirability or political correctness of particular ideas, suggest that although the scale is a valid measure of Modern Sexism, subsequent testing with nonstudent samples is warranted. Greater differences in fit indices and lower correlations between factors for the racism scales may have been found if we had used noncollege adult samples. However, comparison with McConahay's (1986) findings suggests that this would not be the case. The correlation between our factors using exploratory factor analyses is lower than those previously reported for adults (McConahay, 1986). Although the relative lack of difference could indicate a lack of a practical distinction between OldFashioned Racism and Modern Racism, Sears (1988) argued that high correlations between factors do not diminish the validity of the distinction. Furthermore, Mulaik et al. (1989) noted that "If two models applied to the same data both obtain normed-fit indices in the .90s, the differences in fit between them may indeed be small, involving only differences in a few parameters, and yet the differences may have considerable theoretical importance at a given historical moment" (p. 434). Hence, the small difference in fit for the one- and two-factor solutions for racism does not demonstrate that the distinction between Old-Fashioned Racism and Modern Racism is not theoretically meaningful. Supporting this, McConahay, Hardee, and Batts (1981) found discriminant validity between the two scales such that the Old-Fashioned Racism responses were more influenced by experimenter race than were Modern Racism scores, suggesting that the latter is less subject to social desirability concerns. It is compelling to speculate about the reasons for a greater difference in fit between the one- and two-factor solutions for sexism than for racism, especially given that one purpose of the present study was to test whether beliefs said to underlie racism also underlie sexism. One possible reason may be methodological. The larger distinction between old-fashioned and modern prejudices for sexism than for racism could be a result of the content of the scale items. Most items on the Modern Sexism scale dealt with perceptions of continued discrimination and equality, whereas only one item on the Modern Racism scale dealt with this issue. Many items that had been written to address the other two components of modern sexism (antagonism 5 Although it is possible that greater predictive ability of the Modern Sexism scale than the Old-Fashioned Sexism scale is a result of the higher reliability of the Modern Sexism scale, additional analyses suggest that this is not the case. Specifically, LISREL analyses correcting for measurement error in regressions were conducted for the voting preferences and the explanations for gender segregation (Joreskog & Sbrbom, 1989). (The analyses included the use of biserial correlations for the dichotomous data.) These results indicated that, after covarying out respondents' gender, Modem Sexism, but not Old-Fashioned Sexism, significantly predicted voting preferences (B = .34, standardized B = .30), f(133) = 2.26, biological explanations (B = -.43, standardized B = .30), r(163) = 3.42, and discrimination-based (B = .24, standardized B = .22), /(166) = 2.08, explanations for job segregation. After OldFashioned Sexism and respondents' sex were covaried out, the relationship between Modern Sexism and socialization explanations was marginally significant (B = -.21, standardized B = -.19), r(133) = 1.68. 209 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. SEXISM AND RACISM toward women's demands and special favors directed at women) loaded equally on the Old-Fashioned and Modern factors in the exploratory factor analyses and were eliminated from the analyses for the present study. Hence, the differentiation between modern and old-fashioned prejudices may be more strongly a function of perceptions about the current status of racial and gender equality than of antagonistic or unsupportive thoughts.6 Perhaps revisions to the Modern Racism scale are in order. However, conceptual reasons are also possible. Perhaps the public has paid greater attention to racial issues than to gender issues, which may have caused the Modern Racism scale to become a less subtle measure of prejudice. Consistent with this, McConahay (1986) noted that the correlation between the two factors appears to have been steadily increasing over time. Given the present results and the continued increase in the magnitude of the correlation, it would seem prudent to retest the conclusion that the Modern Racism scale is a less reactive measure of racism than the Old-Fashioned Racism scale. It also would be important to test the reactivity of the Modern Sexism scale. Another important distinction between racism and sexism is in the amount of contact between racial groups and between sexes. Widespread contact between women and men could increase men's awareness of women's issues or, alternatively, could lead to skepticism regarding the presence of discrimination and to less sympathy for women's issues. Although most people living below the poverty line are women, and although many women face discrimination (Unger & Crawford, 1992; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1993), respondents probably were aware of many successful and content women. This awareness may lead people to conclude that complaints of discriminatory treatment are not valid. Furthermore, because many women do not perceive personal effects of discrimination (Crosby, 1984), greater contact would not necessarily lead to more sympathy for complaints about equality. Thus, contact with women may increase men's sensitivity to traditional beliefs about women but not to men's modern beliefs, causing a distinction between old-fashioned and modern beliefs. Less contact with members of ethnic minority groups may result in less of a differentiation between the two types of beliefs. One last distinction between sexism and racism is likely in the affective content of the two prejudices. Perhaps prejudice against women is more affectively ambivalent (Glick & Fiske, 1994) than prejudice against ethnic minority group members. For instance, although previous research has demonstrated that people have generally more positive affective responses to women than to men (Eagly & Mladinic, 1989; Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1991), it seems likely that European-Americans would have less affective positive responses toward, for example, African-Americans than toward members of their own group (cf. Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). It is possible that Modern Sexism would be related to only negative affect, whereas Old-Fashioned Sexism would be related to both positive and negative affect, because Old-Fashioned Sexism measures both endorsement of traditional roles (such as motherhood, which is likely viewed positively) and negative stereotypes about women. In sum, the presentfindingssuggest that beliefs about women can be separated into two meaningful and distinct components: obviously unequal treatment of women and the questioning of women's intelligence (Old-Fashioned Sexism), and less sympathetic responses toward women's issues (Modern Sexism). Al- though distinct, the two types of beliefs are correlated, indicating that people who endorse more modern sexist beliefs also are more likely to hold traditional beliefs about women. Furthermore, those high in Modern Sexism are likely to have different perceptions of women's experiences in the workforce and are more likely to perceive greater equality in the workforce than actually exists. People high in Modern Sexism also are more likely to attribute sex segregation to individualistic causes rather than to discrimination or prejudice against women. The relatively greater correlation of Protestant Work Ethic values and Modern Sexism than that between Protestant Work Ethic values and Old-Fashioned Sexism for men supports this finding. These perceptions are likely to lead to less support for social and political changes designed to increase women's opportunities. For instance, respondents who were high in Modern Sexism were more likely to prefer a male political candidate portrayed by his opponent as insensitive to women's issues. The Modern Sexism scale may prove to be a better predictor of sexist behavior than older scales designed to measure attitudes about women. Alternatively, old-fashioned and modern beliefs may predict different types of behaviors in different situations. Modern sexism could predict subtle or covert sexism, whereas old-fashioned sexism could predict overt sexism (Benokraitis & Feagin, 1986). Finally, the results from the present study show that insights about both sexism and racism can be gained by making explicit comparisons designed to highlight similarities and differences in the two types of prejudice. 6 We tested a three-factor solution by dividing the Modern Sexism factor into two components; one component addressed denial of continuing discrimination, and the second combined antagonism toward women's demands with resentment about special favors for women. Old-Fashioned Sexism represented the third factor. Although the x2 difference tests indicated that the three-factor solutions differed from the two-factor solutions, thefitindices were nearly identical. The correlation between the two modern factors (.88 for Sample 1 and .82 for Sample 2) was higher than the correlation between either modern factor and the old-fashioned factor (.49 and .55 for Sample 1 and .39 and .41 for Sample 2). These findings were true for both male and female respondents. One might also wonder whether our Old-Fashioned Sexism scale represents old-fashioned beliefs. An examination of the content of older scales (e.g., Kirkpatrick, 1936; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1973) and our Old-Fashioned Sexism scale suggest greater similarity between these older scales and Old-Fashioned Sexism than these older scales and our Modern Sexism scale. Additional factor analyses, including the Attitudes Toward Women scale, suggest that the Attitudes Toward Women scale and the Old-Fashioned Sexism scale load on one factor and that the Modern Sexism is a second factor (Swim, 1994). References Ashmore, R. D., & DelBoca, F. K. (1986) Toward a social psychology of female-male relations. In R. D. Ashmore & F. K. DelBoca (Eds.), The social psychology of female-male relations (pp. 1-17). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Benokraitis, N. V., & Feagin, J. R. (1986). Modern sexism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bentler, P., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. Biernat, M., & Wortman, C. B. (1991). Sharing of home responsibilities This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 210 SWIM, AIKIN, HALL, AND HUNTER between professionally employed women and their husbands. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 60, 844-860. Bobo, L. (1983). Whites' opposition to busing: Symbolic racism or realistic group conflict? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1196-1210. Bobo, L. (1988). Group conflict, prejudice, and the paradox of contemporary racial attitudes. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 85-114). New York: Plenum Press. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Butler, D., & Geis, F. L. (1990). Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders: Implications for leadership evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 48-59. Comas-Diaz, L. (1991). Feminism and diversity in psychology: The case of women of color. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 597-609. Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 371-386. DelBoca, F. K., Ashmore, R. D., & McManus, M. A. (1986). Genderrelated attitudes. In R. D. Ashmore & F. K. DelBoca (Eds.), The social psychology of female-male relations (pp. 121-163). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Dovidio, J. F., Evans, N., & Tyler, R. (1986). Racial stereotypes: The contents of their cognitive representations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 22-37. Dovidio, J. F, & Gaertner, S. L. (1983). The effects of sex, status, and ability on helping behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 191-205. Dovidio, J. F, Mann, J., & Gaertner, S. L. (1989). Resistance to affirmative action: The implications of aversive racism. In F. A. Blanchard & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), Affirmative action in perspective {pp. 83-103). New York: Springer-Verlag. Doyle, J. A., & Paludi, M. A. (1991). Sex and gender: The human experience. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 543-558. Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Otto, S. (1991). Are women evaluated more favorably than men? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 203216. England, P., & McCreary, L. (1987). Gender inequality in paid employment. In B. B. Hess & M. M. Ferree (Eds.), Analyzing gender: A handbook ofsocial science research (pp. 286-320). New York: Sage. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1969). Third annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1970). Fourth annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1971). Fifth annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1972). Sixth annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1973). Seventh annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1974). Eighth annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1975). Ninth annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1977). A decade of equal employment opportunity: 1965-1975. (10th annual report). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (\98l). 14th annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1983). 17th annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1984). 18th annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1990). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission combined annual report Fiscal Years 1986,1987,1988. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1993). Fiscal year 1989 annual report: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Fiske, S. X, & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.j. New York: McGraw-Hill. Frable, D. E. S. (1989). Sex typing and gender ideology: Two facets of the individual's gender psychology that go together. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 56, 95-108. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-89). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Gaertner, S. L., & McLaughlin, J. P. (1983). Racial stereotypes: Associations and ascriptions of positive and negative characteristics. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 23-30. Gallup, G. (1990). The Gallup poll: Public opinion 1990. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1994). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Manuscript submitted for publication. Goertzel, T. G. (1983). The gender gap: Sex, family income and political opinions in the early 1980's. Journal ofPolitical and Military Sociology, 11, 209-222. Gurin, P. (1985). Women's gender consciousness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 143-163. Hacker, H. M. (1951). Woman as a minority group. Social Forces, 30, 60-69. Hole, J., & Levine, E. (1971). Rebirth of feminism. New York: Quadrangle Books. Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software. Katz, I., & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 55, 893-905. Katz, I., Wackenhut, J., & Hass, R. G. (1986). Racial ambivalence, value duality, and behavior. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 35-59). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Kirkpatrick, C. (1936). The construction of a belief-pattern scale for measuring attitudes toward feminism. Journal of Social Psychology, 7,421-437. McCauley, C, Thangavelu, K., & Rozin, K. (1988). Sex stereotyping of occupations in relation to television representations and census facts. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 197-212. McConahay, J. B. (1983). Modern racism and modern discrimination: The effects of race, racial attitudes, and context on simulated hiring decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 551-558. McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91-125). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. McConahay, J. B., Hardee, B. B., & Batts, V. (1981). Has racism declined in America? It depends on who is asking and what is asked. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25, 563-579. Meng, X. L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172-175. Mirels, H., & Garrett, J. (1971). The protestant ethic as a personality variable. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 40-44. Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., VanAlstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-445. Myers, D. G. (1993). Social psychology (4th ed.). New York: McGrawHill. 211 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. SEXISM AND RACISM Nieva, V. F, &Gutek, B. A. (1981). Women and work: A psychological Shapiro, R. Y., & Mahajan, H. (1986). Gender differences in policy preferences: A summary of trends from the 1960s to the 1980s. Public perspective. New York: Praeger. Opinion Quarterly, 50, 42-61. Pettigrew, T. F. (1988, October). The nature of modern racism. Paper Smith, A., & Stewart, A. (1983). Approaches to studying racism and presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Experimental Social sexism in black women's lives. Journal ofSocial Issues, 39(3), 1-15. Psychology, Madison, WI. Spence, J. T, Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. (1973). A short version of the Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organizaAttitudes Toward Women Scale (AWS). Bulletin of the Psychonomic tions: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 51-88. Society, 2, 219-220. Reid, P. T. (1988). Racism and sexism: Comparisons and conflicts. In Stroh, L. K., Brett, J. M., & Reilly, A. H. (1992). All the right stuff: A P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism (pp. 203-221). comparison of female and male managers' career progression. JourNew York: Plenum Press. nal ofApplied Psychology, 77, 251-260. Roth, B. M. (1990). Social psychology's "racism." In The Public InterSwim, J. K. (1994). [Confirmatory factor analyses of items from the est, 98, 26-36. Attitude Toward Women, Old-Fashioned Sexism, and Modern SexRowe, M. P. (1990, August). Barriers to equality: The power of subtle ism scales]. Unpublished raw data. discrimination to maintain unequal opportunity. Paper presented at Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. A. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maxithe 98th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Associamum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10. tion, Boston, MA. Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor Unger, R., & Crawford, M. (1992). Women and gender: A feminist psy(Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 53-84). New chology. New York: McGraw-Hill. York: Plenum Press. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1993). Statistical abstracts of the United Sears, D. Q, Huddie, L., & Schaffer, L. G. (1986). A schematic variant States (113th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing of symbolic politics theory, as applied to racial and gender equality. Office. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition: The 19th annual Weigel, R. H., & Howes, P. W. (1985). Conceptions of racial prejudice: Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 159-202). Hillsdale, NJ: Symbolic racism reconsidered. Journal of Social Issues, 41,117-138. Erlbaum. Appendix A Items From McConahay's (1986) Old-Fashioned and Modern Racism Scale and the Classification of the Modern Racism Items as Described by Sears (1989) Item Scale Old-Fashioned Racism Modern Racism Denial of continuing discrimination Antagonism toward AfricanAmericans' demands Resentment about special favors for African-Americans 1. Black people are generally not as smart as whites.* 2. I favor laws that permit black persons to rent or purchase housing even when the person offering the property for sale or rent does not wish to rent or sell it to blacks. 3. Generally speaking, I favor full racial integration. 4. I am opposed to open or fair housing laws.* 5. It is a bad idea for blacks and whites to marry one another.* 6. If a black family with about the same income and education as I have moved next door, I would mind it a great deal.* 7. It was wrong for the United States Supreme Court to outlaw segregation in its 1954 decision.* 1. Discrimination against blacks is no longer a problem in the United States.* 2. It is easy to understand the anger of black people in America. 3. Blacks have more influence upon school desegregation plans than they ought to have.* 4. Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights.* 5. Blacks should not push themselves where they are not wanted.* 6. Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve.* 7. Over the past few years, the government and news media have shown more respect to blacks then they deserve.* Note. Items with an asterisk required reverse scoring. (Appendixes continue on next page) 212 SWIM, AIKIN, HALL, AND HUNTER Appendix B Items Developed to Measure Modern and Old-Fashioned Sexism Scale Item This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Old-Fashioned Sexism 1. Women are generally not as smart as men.*1' 2. I would be equally comfortable having a woman as a boss as a man. 3. It is more important to encourage boys than to encourage girls to participate in athletics.* 4. Women are just as capable of thinking logically as men. 5. When both parents are employed and their child gets sick at school, the school should call the mother rather than the father.* Modern Sexism Denial of continuing discrimination 1. Discrimination against women is no longer a problem in the United States. *•* 2. Women often miss out on good jobs due to sexual discrimination. 3. It is rare to see women treated in a sexist manner on television.* 4. On average, people in our society treat husbands and wives equally.* 5. Society has reached the point where women and men have equal opportunities for achievement.* 6. It is easy to understand the anger of women's groups in America." 7. It is easy to understand why women's groups are still concerned about societal limitations of women's opportunities. 8. Over the past few years, the government and news media have been showing more concern about the treatment of women than is warranted by women's actual experiences.*'" Antagonism toward women's demands Resentment about special favors for women Note. Items with an asterisk required reverse scoring. " Item was adapted from McConahay's (1986) Modern Racism Scale. Appendix C Means, Standard Deviations, and Standardized Loadings for Two-Factor Exploratory and Confirmatory Analysis on the Racism Scales, Sample 1 Exploratory analysis Item Old-Fashioned Racism Intelligence Renting or purchasing housing Racial integration Open housing laws Interracial niarriage Dislike housing desegregation Supreme Court and desegregation Modern Racism Discrimination not a problem" Understand anger* Too much influence1" Too demanding6 Should not pushb Gotten more economically0 Government and media0 Correlation between factors Confirmatory analysis M SD OldFashioned Modern OldFashioned 1.76 1.83 1.82 1.93 2.25 1.37 1.08 .14 t.ll .21 .25 ().85 .60 .62 .62 .52 .51 .62 48 30 41 19 49 19 .67 .51 .61 .40 .72 .32 0 0 0 0 0 1.49 ().97 .51 23 .35 0 1.83 3.74 2.12 2.35 2.08 2.13 3.97 ().93 1.14 .01 1.25 .11 .12 .14 .14 .23 .44 .37 .58 .35 .40 .43 68 68 75 82 57 78 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Modern 0 .52 .66 .74 .97 .65 .84 .78 .84 Note. Scales range from 1 to 5, with lower scores recoded to indicate less racist responses. * Items measuring denial of continuing racism. b Items measuring antagonism toward African-Americans' demands. c Items measuring resentment about special favors for African-Americans. 213 SEXISM AND RACISM Appendix D Means, Standard Deviations, and Loadings for Two-Factor Exploratory and Confirmatory Analysis on the Sexism Scales, Sample 1 Exploratory analysis This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Item Old-Fashioned Sexism Intelligence Comfort with boss Sports Logical thinking Call mom Modern Sexism Discrimination not a problem* Often miss out on jobs" Rare to see sexism on T V Spouses treated equally* Equal opportunities available* Understand anger11 Understand women's groups'1 Government and mediac Correlation between factors M SD OldFashioned Modern 1.50 1.56 1.70 1.43 2.50 0.96 0.94 1.01 0.89 1.10 .75 .65 .66 .72 .45 .22 .24 .37 .21 .24 1.95 2.34 1.93 2.35 2.52 2.52 2.31 2.68 1.01 1.03 0.97 1.08 1.19 1.11 1.04 1.04 .39 .30 .20 .14 .15 .35 .37 .30 .38 .77 .72 .54 .68 .75 .71 .74 .56 Confirmatory analysis OldFashioned .64 .52 .60 .58 .36 Modern 0 0 0 0 0 .74 .68 .46 .58 .67 .68 .72 .51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .54 Note. Scales range from 1 to 5, with lower scores recoded to indicate less sexist responses. 1 Items measuring denial of continuing sexism. b Items measuring antagonism toward women's demands. c Items measuring resentment about special favors for women. Appendix E Means, Standard Deviations, and Loadings for Two-Factor Exploratory and Confirmatory Analysis on the Racism Scales, Sample 2 Exploratory analysis Item Old-Fashioned Racism Intelligence Renting or purchasing housing Racial integration Open housing laws Interracial marriage Dislike housing desegregation Supreme Court and desegregation Modern Racism Discrimination not a problem* Understand anger11 Too much influence11 Too demanding*1 Should not pushb Gotten more economically0 Government and media" Correlation between factors Confirmatory analysis OldFashioned M SD OldFashioned Modern 2.05 2.26 2.16 2.37 2.71 1.53 1.53 1.73 1.68 1.84 1.88 1.24 .63 .54 .57 .44 .60 .60 .46 .32 .13 .14 .30 .20 .65 .48 .65 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.54 1.32 .42 .17 .31 0 2.13 3.11 2.58 3.03 2.51 2.62 2.53 1.41 1.74 1.48 1.88 1.66 1.63 1.64 .17 .72 .58 .50 .45 .52 .53 .41 .68 .18 .68 .74 .68 .68 .68 .41 .31 .53 Modern .44 .49 .75 .73 .61 .72 .70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .86 Note. Scales range from 1 to 7, with lower scores recoded to indicate less racist responses. * Items measuring denial of continuing racism. b Items measuring antagonism toward African-Americans' demands. c Items measuring resentment about special favors for African-Americans. (Appendixes continue on next page) 214 SWIM, AIKIN, HALL, AND HUNTER Appendix F Means, Standard Deviations, and Loadings for Two-Factor Exploratory and Confirmatory Analysis on the Sexism Scales, Sample 2 Exploratory analysis This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Item Old-Fashioned Sexism Intelligence Comfort with boss Sports Logical thinking Call mom Modern Sexism Discrimination not a problem Often miss out on jobs8 Rare to see sexism on TV" Spouses treated equally" Equal opportunities available' Understand anger5 Understand women's groups5 Government and media0 Correlation between factors Confirmatory analysis M SD OldFashioned Modern OldFashioned 1.63 1.89 1.78 1.62 3.05 1.25 .52 .37 .37 .63 .72 .68 .71 .66 .44 .18 .10 .33 .19 .20 .60 .52 .68 .52 .35 2.43 3.16 2.36 3.03 3.47 3.40 3.02 3.36 .43 .54 .45 .61 .71 .71 .54 .62 .27 .26 .13 .19 -.04 .21 .34 .31 .29 .77 .70 .53 .70 .63 .64 .70 .52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Modern 0 0 0 0 0 .74 .64 .44 .64 .50 .59 .67 .45 .47 Note. Scales range from 1 to 7, with lower scores recoded to indicate less sexist responses. * Items measuring denial of continuing sexism. b Items measuring antagonism toward women's demands. c Items measuring resentment about special favors for women. Received July 2, 1991 Revision received May 2, 1994 Accepted May 2, 1994 The Conceptualization and Measurement of Symbolic Racism Christopher Tarman University of California, Los Angeles David O. Sears University of California, Los Angeles The conceptualization and measurement of symbolic racism have been the subjects of a number of critiques, of which we address four: (1) we briefly review the history of its past conceptualization, which has been somewhat loose, and of its past measurement, which has been more consistent than often suggested. We then address three other critiques empirically. In each case the results support the original theory: (2) symbolic racism is an internally consistent belief system; it does have individual and structural variants, but they are highly correlated and have virtually identical effects on whites’ racial policy preferences; (3) the effects of symbolic racism on whites’ racial policy preferences are not artifacts of shared-item content with policy-attitude items (both conclusions are replicated in quite similar form in two surveys); and (4) symbolic racism is a distinctive belief system in its own right, encompassing a set of attitudes different from those in ideological conservatism, antiegalitarianism, individualism, and old-fashioned racism (a conclusion replicated in similar form in six surveys). Perhaps most importantly, the effects of symbolic racism on racial policy preferences are the same regardless of which conventional measure of symbolic racism is used. The dismantling of the Southern Jim Crow system in the 1960s cemented basic civil and political rights for African Americans. It also catalyzed a gradual shift in the racial attitudes of the white public to the current near-unanimous support for general principles of equal treatment and nondiscrimination (Schuman et al., 1997). Nevertheless, African Americans continue to experience substantial disadvantages in most domains of life. Remedial government policies remain on the political agenda, but they have often met substantial white opposition. Several explanations for that opposition have emerged. One is that the “oldfashioned racism” of pre-civil-rights days has been replaced by some new form of racism, such as “symbolic racism” (Kinder and Sears 1981; Sears 1988; Sears and Kinder 1971), “modern racism” (McConahay 1986), or “racial resentment” (Kinder and Sanders 1996).1 A second emphasizes group conflicts stemming from structural inequalities, such as realistic group conflict theory (Bobo 1988), 1 Although these have some slight conceptual differences, they have been operationalized with similar survey items and we will not distinguish among them here. THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, Vol. 67, No. 3, August 2005, Pp. 731–761 © 2005 Southern Political Science Association 732 Christopher Tarman and David O. Sears threatened “sense of group position” (Bobo 1999), or social dominance theory (Sidanius et al. 1999). A third invokes non-racial political processes, such as elites’ agenda control and the white public’s political ideologies and values, rather than whites’ racial prejudice (e.g., Sniderman and Carmines 1997; Sniderman and Piazza 1993). Of the “new racisms,” symbolic racism and its brethren have perhaps stimulated the most attention in social psychology (Biernat and Crandall 1999), sociology (Hughes 1997; Krysan 2000; Schuman et al. 1997) and political science (Hurwitz and Peffley 1998; Sniderman, Crosby, and Howell 2000).2 Numerous studies have shown that symbolic racism is strongly associated with whites’ opposition to racially targeted policies, typically outweighing the roles of other important political attitudes, such as ideology, party identification, and attitudes toward the size of government, as well as of more traditional racial attitudes (e.g., Alvarez and Brehm 1997; Bobo 2000; Henry and Sears 2002; Hughes 1997; Kinder and Sanders 1996; Sears et al. 1997; Sidanius et al. 1999).3 Critiques of the Theory of Symbolic Racism Nevertheless, the symbolic racism approach has also stimulated controversy (e.g., Hurwitz and Peffley 1998; Sniderman, Crosby, and Howell 2000; Sniderman and Piazza 1993; Sniderman and Tetlock 1986a, 1986b). The strong associations of symbolic racism with various political preferences are rarely disputed. Rather, most critiques have focused on the interpretation of such associations, particularly on the conceptualization and measurement of symbolic racism itself. We focus on four here, that symbolic racism (1) has been conceptualized and measured inconsistently over time, (2) may not be a single, internally consistent, and coherent belief system, (3) may generate artifactually strong associations with racial policy preferences because of content overlap between measures of the independent and dependent variables, and (4) is not a distinctive belief system in its own right, but simply reflects various other familiar constructs. We briefly discuss the first of these critiques, then subject the other three to empirical test. In so doing, we hope to answer the call for symbolic racism researchers to “unpack their central construct . . .” (Wood 1994, 682), to indicate what “. . . the most diagnostic indicators of symbolic racism [are],” and to find “. . . what types of plausible counterinterpretations need to be tested and controlled for in designing research on the topic” (Sniderman and Tetlock 1986a, 131).4 2 Among the various other “new racisms” are “subtle prejudice” (Pettigrew and Meertens 1995), “aversive racism” (Gaertner and Dovidio 1986), and “laissez-faire racism” (Bobo 1999). 3 The use of 11 different general population surveys by these studies indicates the generality of these effects. 4 For reasons of space and focus we do not review conflicts with social-structural approaches to racial politics (see Sidanius et al. 1999; Bobo 2000). The Conceptualization and Measurement of Symbolic Racism 733 Inconsistent Conceptualization and Measurement? First of all, some have suggested that symbolic racism has been conceptualized and measured inconsistently over time (e.g., Bobo 1988; Schuman et al. 1997; Sniderman and Tetlock 1986a; Stoker 1998). Indeed, research on symbolic racism began quite inductively, as an effort to describe an emerging set of beliefs about race and politics in the post-Jim Crow era. Looking back, we share some of the concern about inconsistent conceptualization. Sometimes it has been treated as a single construct (e.g., Kinder and Sanders 1996; McConahay 1986; Sears and Kinder 1971) and at other times as composed of anywhere from two to five subdimensions (e.g., Kinder and Sears 1981; Sears et al. 1997). Most current writings consistently define symbolic racism as a belief system whose manifest content embodies four specific themes: that (1) racial discrimination is no longer a serious obstacle to blacks’ prospects for a good life, so that (2) blacks’ continuing disadvantages are largely due to their unwillingness to work hard enough. As a result, both their (3) continuing demands and (4) increased advantages are unwarranted (see Henry and Sears 2002; Sears and Henry 2003; Sears, Henry, and Kosterman 2000). Consistently defining it as a belief system with these four themes should address the conceptual inconsistency issue.5 The concern that symbolic racism has been measured inconsistently across studies, in contrast, seems somewhat overstated. Both the earliest studies of symbolic racism (Kinder and Sears 1981; Sears and Kinder 1971) and the most recent (Henry and Sears 2002; Sears and Henry 2003; Sears, Henry, and Kosterman 2000) have measured all four themes.6 To be sure, the exact items used to measure them have varied across studies. A recently updated scale of symbolic racism should promote greater measurement consistency (Henry and Sears 2002). An Internally Coherent Belief System? Second, is symbolic racism a single, internally consistent and coherent belief system? The theory represents these four themes as a logically consistent view of blacks’ place in society and the polity: blacks are no longer much discriminated against, so remaining disadvantages...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY

Social Identity Theory
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Date

1

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY

2

Social Identity Theory
Social identity is highly recognized as the ways that individuals’ self-concepts are based
on what is known as their membership in social groups. This theory was proposed in social
psychology by a person identified as Tajfel together with his colleagues. It is worth realizing that
social identity theory plays a tremendous role when it comes to accounting for the origins of
prejudice, stereotyping, as well as discrimination. According to Tajfel, we may at times develop
a cognitive component in our perceptions of group members, recognized as stereotype (Leaper,
2011). In this regard, a stereotype is the negative or even positive beliefs that we tend to hold
about the characteristics of a social group. For instance, when we decide that all individuals from
France are Romantic or that old individuals are incompetent, this result in stereotype. Such
beliefs to a great extent guide our actions towards individuals from those groups hence
generating the stereotype. Based on social identity theory, it is argued that certain groups of
people, for example, employees in an organization are treated by the authorities based identityrelevant information. African Americans are viewed as troublemakers in society based on the
idea that most of the criminal records are linked to black citizens when compared to white
citizens. There is what is recognized as subtle stereot...


Anonymous
Really great stuff, couldn't ask for more.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags