UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Some referential and causal attributions underlying stereotype content McTiernan, Timothy John 1982

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A1 M28.pdf [ 13.04MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095606.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095606-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095606-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095606-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095606-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095606-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095606-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095606-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095606.ris

Full Text

SOME REFERENTIAL ANlf CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS UNDERLYING STEREOTYPE CONTENT by TIMOTHY JOHN MCTIERNAN .A. (Mod.), T r i n i t y College, University of Dublin, 1973 M.A., University of Br i t i s h Columbia, 1977 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Psychology) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March 1982 © Timothy John McTiernan, 1982 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I agr e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e head o f my department o r by h i s o r h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f PSYCHOLOGY The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 DE-6 (2/79) i i ABSTRACT This study i s based on the t h e o r e t i c a l assumption that a detailed understanding of the nature of stereotypes e n t a i l s more than an analysis of the content of stereotype descriptions. I t must also include a study of the range of target group members, situations, and behaviours to which people generalize t h e i r stereotypes ( r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s ) , and an examination of judgements regarding the causes of stereotype t r a i t s (causal a t t r i b u t i o n s ) . A check l i s t stereotyping task was combined with a multivariate judgement task i n order t o examine the causal and r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s underlying i n d i v i d u a l s ' stereotype descriptions. Two hundred and f o r t y respondents, forming four d i s t i n c t subgroups, described e i t h e r an outgroup or a target group to which they belonged. They then made a number of a t t r i b u t i o n s about t h e i r descriptions. The target groups, defined broadly i n environmental terms, were: Big C i t y People, Small Town People, Conser^ation-rninded People, and Developnent-minded People. The r e s u l t s indicated that the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s i i i p r o v i d e d by the respondents d i d not vary w i t h the changes i n content between the d i f f e r e n t s t e r e o t y p e s . They were u n r e l a t e d t o the ca u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , and they were u n a f f e c t e d by the respondents' membership s t a t u s v i s - a - v i s the t a r g e t groups. Rather, the r e f e r e n -t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s r e f l e c t e d the use o f a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s r u l e and a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n i n the s e l e c t i o n o f t r a i t d e s c r i p t o r s . The respondents a t t r i b u t e d t h e i r stereotype t r a i t s t o a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f t a r g e t members, t o many o f t h e i r behaviours, and t o many s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g t a r g e t members. The i n d i v i d u a l s judged these s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t s t o be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e d the t a r g e t s from people i n ge n e r a l . L e a r n i n g was r a t e d as having a g r e a t e r e f f e c t than i n h e r i t a n c e as a c a u s a l agent i n t r a i t development. There were r e l i a b l e sub-sample d i f f e r e n c e s i n the magnitude o f t h i s outcome. The study con t a i n e d a r e p l i c a t i o n c o n d i t i o n . Two d i f f e r e n t types o f t a r g e t groups were employed and the data r e l a t e d t o each type were analyzed independently. While the f i n d i n g s regarding the r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s g e n e r a l i z e d across these two s e t s o f analyses f o r the most p a r t , the t r a d i t i o n a l l y measured c o n t e n t - r e l a t e d r e s u l t s d i d not r e p l i c a t e . A review o f t h i s d i s p a r -i t y i n d i c a t e d t h a t c a u t i o n should be e x e r c i s e d i n the s e l e c t i o n o f t a r g e t s f o r ste r e o t y p e r e s e a r c h and a p p r o p r i a t e e f f o r t s should be i v made to ensure t h a t the measuring instruments employed best s u i t the t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e being addressed. V ' TABLE' OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i i T i t l e ' 1 Outline of chapters 2 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 4 St r u c t u r a l Analyses of Stereotypes 6 T r a d i t i o n a l research on stereotype structure . . 11 Contemporary analyses of stereotype structure . . 16 Stereotype measurement instruments and r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s 17 "Cognitive functionalism" and causal and r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s regarding stereotype content 19 General a t t r i b u t i o n theory issues i n r e l a t i o n to stereotype research 22 Rationale f o r the present study 26 Research perspectives relevant to a content-a t t r i b u t i o n analysis of stereotypes 2 8 Stereotyping and the impact of context 3 3 Research questions and target s e l e c t i o n 37 The research content area 38 CHAPTER TWO: METHOD 41 Overview 41 Questionnaire materials . . . 46 Stereotype targets 46 v i Page S t e r e o t y p e check l i s t 49 Q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g s t e r e o t y p e content . . 50 T a r g e t - d i r e c t e d q u e s t i o n s 50 D i m e n s i o n - r e l a t e d items 50 R e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . . 52 C a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s 52 Base r a t e q u e s t i o n s 53 P e r s o n a l I n f o r m a t i o n 54 S e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e data 54 E n v i r o n m e n t a l Response Inventory data . . . 55 G e n e r a l t a r g e t e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s 57 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n s 58 S t e r e o t y p e and t a r g e t e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s . 58 Supplementary t a r g e t r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n s . . 59 L i f e s t y l e a t t i t u d e q u e s t i o n s 60 S t r u c t u r e o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e 62 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n procedure 62 Data e v a l u a t i o n c r i t e r i a 64 S c o r i n g procedure and e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n . . . 66 S t e r e o t y p e content 66 S t e r e o t y p e dimension measures 66 R e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n measures 67 A d d i t i o n a l composite v a r i a b l e s 68 T a r g e t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 68 E x p e r i m e n t a l design and a n a l y s i s 6 8 Respondents 70 V I 1 Page CHAPTER THREE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 74 PROCEDURAL CHECKS AND THE TREATMENT OF METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES 74 On the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of respondents 74 S e l f - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and the target groups . . . . 81 On the r e l i a b i l i t y of the data sets 83 Section Summary 85 THE CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF THE RESPONDENTS' STEREOTYPES 86 The content and dimensional features of the respondents 1 stereotypes: Demographic Target Groups 86 Dimensional features of the demographic stereotypes 89 Re f e r e n t i a l A t t r i b u t i o n s 96 Causal A t t r i b u t i o n s 97 Summary of re s u l t s f o r the demographic target groups 100 Replicated analyses: A t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d Target Groups 102 Dimensional features of the value group stereotypes 105 Re f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s about the content of the conservation-minded and development-minded stereotypes 116 Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s about the content of the conservation-minded and development-v i i i Page minded s t e r e o t y p e s 119 Review o f t h e f i n d i n g s c o n c e r n i n g t h e s t e r e o t y p e s o f t h e f o u r t a r g e t groups 12 3 S t r u c t u r a l a n a l y s e s o f t h e r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s 125 2 T a n a l y s e s 133 C o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s e s . . 135 THE USE OF A DISTINCTIVENESS CRITERION IN STEREOTYPING 139 Chapter O v e r v iew 15 3 CHAPTER FOUR: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 159 FOOTNOTES 184 BIBLIOGRAPHY 200 APPENDICES 210 Appendix A: C o n t e n t and S t r u c t u r e o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 211 Appendix B: Some Age and S e x - R e l a t e d F i n d i n g s . . . 239 Appendix C: Subsample I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s , Means ,and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e ERI S c a l e s 243 A ppendix D: M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s e s o f t h e R e f e r e n t i a l A t t r i b u t i o n and S t e r e o t y p e Dimension V a r i a b l e s : Demographic T a r g e t Groups and A t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d T a r g e t Groups . . 248 Appendix E: M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s e s o f t h e C a u s a l A t t r i b u t i o n V a r i a b l e s : Demographic i x Page T a r g e t Groups and A t t i t u d i n a l l y -d e f i n e d T a r g e t Groups 255 2 Appendxx F: Summary o f H o t e l l i n g ' s T A n a l y s e s f o r t h e S t e r e o t y p e Measures and S i g n i f i c a n t C o e f f i c i e n t s o f C o r r e l a t i o n among t h e V a r i a b l e s : . . Demographic T a r g e t Groups and A t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d T a r g e t Groups . . 258 Appendix G: Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s and M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s e s o f t h e D i a g n o s t i c R a t i o V a r i a b l e s : Demographic T a r g e t Groups and A t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d T a r g e t Groups . . 271 2 Appendix H: Summary o f H o t e l l i n g ' s T A n a l y s e s f o r t h e D i a g n o s t i c R a t i o Measures and S i g n i f i c a n t C o e f f i c i e n t s o f C o r r e l a t i o n among t h e V a r i a b l e s . . . . 285 Appendix I : P r e l i m i n a r y Model o f t h e S t e r e o t y p i n g P r o c e s s 297 X LIST OF TABLES Page 1. T r a i t terms i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t e r e o t y p e check l i s t . . 51 2. Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r the subsample members' r a t i n g s o f t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y t o each o f the f o u r t a r g e t g r o u p s , and f o r t h e i r agreement w i t h t h e aims o f c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d and development-minded p e o p l e 75 3. U n i v a r i a t e F - v a l u e s and e r r o r terms f o r t h e a n a l y s e s o f t h e s i m i l a r i t y and agreement r a t i n g s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e t a r g e t groups 77 4. Means and S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s on each o f t h e ERT s u b s c a l e s f o r each o f t h e subgroups o f r e s p o n d e n t s 79 5. U n i v a r i a t e F - v a l u e s and e r r o r terms f o r t h e a n a l y s e s o f t h e ERI s c a l e s c o r e s 80 6. T r a i t terms u s e d most f r e q u e n t l y by the members of t h e r e s p o n d e n t groups t o d e s c r i b e "People who have grown up i n s m a l l towns" and "People who have grown up i n b i g c i t i e s " 87 7. Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e s m a l l town and b i g c i t y r e s p o n d e n t s ' f a v o u r a b l e n e s s and c o n f i d e n c e r a t i n g s f o r t h e i r i n g r o u p and o u t g r o u p s t e r e o t y p e s o f t h e demographic t a r g e t s 91 8. A n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e o f t h e f a v o u r a b l e n e s s and c o n f i d e n c e r a t i n g s f o r t h e s t e r e o t y p e s o f t h e demographic t a r g e t s . . 92 9. Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' r a t i n g s o f t h e s t a t u s and c l a r i t y o f t h e i r c o n c e p t s of s m a l l town and b i g c i t y p e o p l e 9 3 10. A n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' r a t i n g s o f the s t a t u s and t h e c l a r i t y o f t h e i r c o n c e p t s o f s m a l l town and b i g c i t y p e o p l e 95 11. Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s made by t h e members o f t h e f o u r r e s p o n d e n t groups when c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e i r own and t h e . o u t g r o u p demographic t a r g e t s 98 12. Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s made by t h e members o f the f o u r r e s p o n d e n t groups when c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e i r own x i Page and the outgroup demographic t a r g e t s 101 13. T r a i t terms used most f r e q u e n t l y by the members of the respondent groups t o d e s c r i b e C o n s e r v a t i o n -minded People and Development-minded People 10 3 14. Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r the respondents' r a t i n g s o f the s t a t u s , the c l a r i t y o f t h e i r c o n c e p t s , and t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the aims and o p i n i o n s o f conservation-minded and development-minded people . . 10 6 15. A n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e o f the respondents' r a t i n g s of the s t a t u s , the c l a r i t y o f t h e i r c o n c e p t s , and t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the aims and o p i n i o n s o f cons e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d and development-minded people . . 107 16. ' Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r the c o n s e r v a t i o n -minded and development-minded respondents' f a v o u r a b l e n e s s and c o n f i d e n c e r a t i n g s f o r t h e i r i n group and outgroup s t e r e o t y p e s o f the a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d t a r g e t s 108 17. A n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e o f the f a v o u r a b l e n e s s and c o n f i d e n c e r a t i n g s f o r the s t e r e o t y p e s o f the a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d t a r g e t s - 109 18. Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s made by the members o f the f o u r respondent groups when c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e i r own and the outgroup a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d t a r g e t s . . . 117 19. Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s made by the members o f the f o u r respondent groups when c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e i r own and the outgroup a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d t a r g e t s . . . 121 20. The numbers of s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between the s t e r e o t y p e - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s summed a c r o s s e i g h t e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s 131 21. Mean d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s c o r e s f o r the p r o p o r t i o n e s t i m a t e s f o r the b i g c i t y and s m a l l town respondents' s t e r e o t y p e s o f t h e i r own and each o t h e r s ' groups 144 22. Mean d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s c o r e s on each s t e r e o t y p e v a r i a b l e when the respondents from each o f the f o u r t a r g e t groups d e s c r i b e d t h e i r own or the c o n t r a s t i n g outgroup 147 23. The numbers of s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o v a r i a b l e s summed a c r o s s e i g h t e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s 152 L I S T OF F I G U R E S Mean r a t i n g s o f t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f i n h e r i t a n c e and l e a r n i n g t o t h e development o f t h e t r a i t s i n t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d and development-minded r e s p o n d e n t s 1 s t e r e o t y p e s o f t h e i r own and t h e o t h e r a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d groups . . . . . . . C o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l s f o r t h e r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s and t h e s t e r e o t y p e d i m e n s i o n v a r i a b l e s f o r t h e s m a l l town and b i g c i t y r e s p o n d e n t s 1 s t e r e o t y p e s o f s m a l l town and b i g c i t y p e o p l e , and t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d and development-minded r e s p o n d e n t s 1 s t e r e o t y p e s o f c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d and development-minded p e o p l e x i i i ACKNO^IJ£DGEMENTS I t would be d i f f i c u l t and i n many ways a r b i t r a r y t o attempt to l i s t the host of f r i e n d s , acquaintances and strangers who helped me i n a v a r i e t y of ways w h i l e I worked on t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . The p r o j e c t took almost four years and many m i l e s of t r a v e l i n Yukon and B.C. t o complete. From Dawson C i t y t o D e l t a , B.C. and from V i c t o r i a t o Kelowna and Faro, I found people who were w i l l i n g t o g i v e of t h e i r time t o complete q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and t o r e c r u i t v o l u n t e e r s . I am extremely g r a t e f u l t o them a l l . I am t h a n k f u l , too, t o the f r i e n d s c l o s e t o me who put up w i t h my f o i b l e s , moods, and never ending tendency t o g a l l o p o f f - c o u r s e davm some w e l l measured ( u s u a l l y 10K) s i d e road, paying more a t t e n -t i o n t o pavement c o n d i t i o n s than t o the top of my desk. My committee has been ever p a t i e n t and very h e l p f u l . Susan B u t t , Ralph H a k s t i a n , J e r r y Wiggins, and Dale M i l l e r have c o n t r i -buted s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the ideas expressed i n t h i s work. Most of the spadework was made p o s s i b l e by three Humanities and S o c i a l Sciences Research C o u n c i l p r e d o c t o r a l f e l l o w s h i p s . John Ferbey, Deputy M i n i s t e r of Intergovernmental R e l a t i o n s i n the Government of Yukon, has provided the necessary q u i p s , support x i v and encouragement t o h e l p me over the f i n a l hump. Myrna C l i f t and Irma S t r e t c h c h e e r f u l l y i n t e r p r e t e d my s c r i b b l i n g s and t r a n s l a t e d them i n t o a l e g i b l e manuscript. Sophie P a r t r i d g e and J a c k i e Parsons (of the B i o n i c S e c r e t a r y ) completed the f i n a l d r a f t admirably. When a l l i s s a i d , however, t h i s p i e c e of research i s dedicated w i t h much l o v e t o Miriam, Leah, Bob, and Pat. Each i n t h e i r own way has waited, w o r r i e d , encouraged me, pushed me a l i t t l e , and g i v e n me the u n q u a l i f i e d support I needed t o f i n i s h the work. T r u t h f u l l y , I can say t h a t I c o u l d not have done t h i s w i thout them. - 1 -SOME REFERFJNTIAL AND CAUSAL ATTRIBUTIONS UNDE1RLYING STEREOTYPE CONTENT - 2 -The p r e s e n t study i s an attempt t o bri d g e some of the gaps between two separate approaches t o the study of s t e r e o t y p e s . In the f i r s t chapter, a s t r u c t u r a l approach i s taken as a framework w i t h i n which t o review some of the t r a d i t i o n a l and contem-porary r e s e a r c h on s t e r e o t y p i n g processes. A r a t i o n a l e i s developed f o r examining the e x t e n t t o which stereotype t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s are g e n e r a l i z e d a c r o s s t a r g e t group members, behaviours, and s i t u a t i o n s . The r a t i o n a l e i s f u r t h e r extended to c o n s i d e r the e x p l a n a t i o n s about the causes o f t r a i t s a s c r i b e d to stereotyped t a r g e t s . V a r i a b l e s t h a t may i n f l u e n c e the nature of these c a u s a l and r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i -b u t i o n s are considered i n the context of the gene r a l d i s c u s s i o n . The second chapter o u t l i n e s the method and procedures adopted i n the study. I t a l s o i n c l u d e s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the f o u r groups of i n d i v i d u a l s who served as vo l u n t e e r respondents. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e used i n the r e s e a r c h was b u i l t around the standard, Katz and B r a l y check l i s t format. I t involved a two-step s t e r e o t y p i n g task i n which a d e s c r i p t i v e stereotype was generated and a t t r i b u t i o n s r e g arding the s t e r e o t y p i c a l content were e l i c i t e d . The t a r g e t s used i n the study were chosen to i n c l u d e both demographically d e f i n e d groups such as " b i g c i t y people", and a t t i t u d i n a l l y d e f i n e d groups such as "conservation-minded people". The r e s u l t s of the study are presented i n the t h i r d chapter. - 3 -The analyses of the data r e l a t e d t o the d i f e r e n t r e s e a r c h questions are summarized and d i s c u s s e d i n separate subsections. Methodolog-i c a l and r e s p o n d e n t - r e l a t e d i s s u e s are considered f i r s t , f o l l o w i n g which the content of the v a r i o u s s t e r e o t y p e s i s d e s c r i b e d . The a t t r i b u t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the d i f f e r e n t s t e r e o t y p e s are examined, and the respondents' use of a " r e l a t i v i t y " c r i t e r i o n i n s e l e c t i n g the content of t h e i r t a r g e t group d e s c r i p t i o n s i s d i s c u s s e d . The f o u r t h , and f i n a l , chapter of the d i s s e r t a t i o n c o n s i d e r s sane of the major f i n d i n g s of the present study i n the context of a g e n e r a l e v a l u a t i o n of c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h trends i n the stereotype f i e l d . - 4 -CHAPTER ONE: INTROLXJCTION S t e r e o t y p e s have been a focus of t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s f o r almost 60 y e a r s . E m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h addressing v a r i o u s f a c e t s of the s t e r e o t y p i n g process has been conducted f o r over 50 of those 60 y e a r s . Curing t h a t time workers i n the f i e l d have f a l l e n roughly i n t o two d i s t i n c t groups, those who can be described as having taken a broad and e c l e c t i c o r i e n t a t i o n i n t h e i r c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s of s t e r e o t y p e s and those who can be de s c r i b e d as having been narrow and c i r c u m s c r i p t i v e i n t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n s . Regardless of the g e n e r a l i t y o r s p e c i f i c i t y w i t h which s t e r e o -t y p i n g has been construed, r e s e a r c h e r s w i t h i n each of these t h e o r e t -i c a l t r a d i t i o n s have attended t o a common s e t of i s s u e s . They have examined the p e r s o n a l i t y and m o t i v a t i o n a l dynamics a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s t e r e o t y p i n g . They have s t u d i e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s t e r e o -types and the s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s under which such s t e r e o t y p e s were observed. More r e c e n t l y , they have been i n t e r e s t e d i n the c o g n i t i v e processes i n v o l v e d i n st e r e o t y p e formation and the maintenance of stereotypes. D i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , many of these research themes can be re-examined w i t h r e s p e c t t o the i s s u e of stereotype s t r u c t u r e ; t o the concern w i t h the manner i n which s t e r e o t y p e s , as s o c i a l concepts, are a r t i c u l a t e d and organized w i t h i n people's c o g n i t i v e - 5 -systems. Indeed, the focus on s t r u c t u r e , however s h a r p l y o r i l l -d e f i n e d , r e f l e c t s an attempt t o d e f i n e the meaning embodied i n i n d i v i d u a l ' s s t e r e o t y p e s . The p r e s e n t study i s ' based on the assumption t h a t the meaning o f s t e r e o t y p e s , and our understanding of people's views about s o c i a l groups, can be d e l i n e a t e d by examining a number of d i f f e r e n t s t r u c -t u r a l f a c e t s o f st e r e o t y p e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s . These s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s i n c l u d e : (a) the content of s t e r e o t y p e s , the t r a i t s used t o d e s c r i b e v a r i o u s s o c i a l t a r g e t s ; (b) the t e x t u r e o r dimensional q u a l i t i e s of such concepts, f o r example, the degree of d i f f e r e n t i a -t i o n and c o m p l e x i t y of the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n ; and (c) the p e r c e i v e d domain of r e f e r e n c e o f the s t e r e o t y p e s , t h a t i s , the range of people, behaviours, and s e t t i n g s to which respondents are w i l l i n g to g e n e r a l i z e t h e i r s t e r e o t y p e s . In o t h e r words, i t i s assumed t h a t when we know t h a t a person: (1) d e s c r i b e s Americans w i t h terms such as hardworking, m a t e r i a l -i s t i c , and a m b i t i o u s ; (2) t h a t h i s 1 o v e r a l l concept o f Americans i s f a v o u r a b l e , complex, and c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o media r e p r e s e n t a -t i o n s ; and (3) t h a t h i s use of the above-mentioned d e s c r i p t i o n s i s l i n k e d to the b e l i e f s t h a t roughly 80% of Americans are hardworking, t h a t t h e i r m a t e r i a l i s m i s ev i d e n t i n a wide v a r i e t y of behaviours, and t h a t t h e i r a m b i t i o n emerges i n a gr e a t many d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l s e t t i n g s ; we have gone a long way toward drawing out the f u l l - 6 -meaning of the person's stereotype of Americans. The r e s e a r c h reported here speaks to the l a t t e r of the above three s t r u c t u r a l t o p i c s . A systematic attempt was made t o explore the a t t r i b u t i o n s people make about the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h e i r s tereotype t r a i t s a cross t a r g e t group members and a c r o s s a spectrum o f t r a i t - r e l a t e d behaviours and s o c i a l s e t t i n g s . A t the same time, t o probe t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n framework f u r t h e r , i n f o r m a t i o n was obtained about the respondents' c a u s a l judgements concerning the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n of l e a r n i n g and i n h e r i t a n c e t o the development of the t r a i t s a s c r i b e d t o the stereotyped t a r g e t s . S t r u c t u r a l Analyses of Stereotypes The c e n t r a l q u e s t i o n s regarding the r o l e of st e r e o t y p e s i n s o c i a l c o g n i t i o n and i n t e r p e r s o n a l behaviour have remained unchanged s i n c e the concept of stereotypes was f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d t o the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s . The major t h e o r e t i c a l i s s u e s were d e f i n e d and many re s e a r c h a b l e ideas were presented by Walter Lippmann (1922) i n a long essay on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between people's s t e r e o t y p e s and t h e i r conduct i n p u b l i c a f f a i r s . I t i s i n s t r u c t i v e t o r e c o n s i d e r some of Lippmann 1s o r i g i n a l ideas i n order to p r o v i d e a context f o r the d i s c u s s i o n of the ca u s a l and r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s t e r e o t y p e content. - 7 -Lippmann developed his thesis on stereotypes within the frame-work of a broader discourse on p u b l i c opinion and the function of the media i n twentieth century p o l i t i c a l l i f e . The term i t s e l f was borrowed from Berenson, the a r t c r i t i c , who employed the construct of "stereotyped shapes" (1897, p. 60) to explain why objects continue to appear immutable regardless of the vast range of d i f f e r e n t perspectives from which we view them. A central theme i n Lippmann1s analysis of information flow and the dissemination of knowledge i n post-World War I western society was that because technological development and urban growth were adding enormously to the complexity of the s o c i a l structure i t was becoming increasingly d i f f i c u l t f o r individuals to maintain a general, i n c l u s i v e focus on current events. Speculating on the way i n which people process the information they receive from the world at large, Lippmann suggested that each i n d i v i d u a l possesses a pseudo-environment which acts as a buffer between the core-self2 and the external milieu. He envisaged t h i s cognitive pseudo-environment as having the i n t e r p r e t i v e function of unscrambling and f i l t e r i n g the unstable overload of information that comes from the world at large. The structure of the pseudc^-environment was represented as a series of set, standard picture images, or stereotypes. These stereotypes supposedly act as f a m i l i a r forms through which new occurrences and novel s t i m u l i are assimilated, accommodated, and given meaning. - 8 -E p i s t e m o l o g i c a l l y , Lippmann 1s c o n s t r u c t of a pseudo-environment r e p l e t e w i t h s t e r e o t y p e templates owes much to P l a t o ' s theory of forms i n t h a t i t embodies a f i x e d and i d e a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the p h y s i c a l w o rld of ever-changing mundane appearances. More o b l i q u e -l y , i t a l s o has r o o t s i n some of the a s s o c i a t i o n i s t i c f o r m u l a t i o n s o f e m p i r i c i s t s such as John Locke, a t l e a s t w i t h r e s p e c t t o the manner i n which s t e r e o t y p e s were considered t o be acquired. As Lippmann advanced the v a r i o u s arguments i n h i s s o c i o p o l i t i -c a l t r e a t i s e , he p r o f f e r e d what were e s s e n t i a l l y two q u i t e d i f f e r e n t v e r s i o n s of h i s s t e r e o t y p e theory. On the one hand, he developed a gen e r a l model of s t e r e o t y p e s as f u n c t i o n a l concepts which f a c i l i -t a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e i r attempts to understand t h e i r s o c i a l environment and to i n t e r a c t a p p r o p r i a t e l y w i t h o t h e r s i n t h e i r day-to-day encounters. M o d i f i e d forms of t h i s model serve as the foun-d a t i o n f o r contemporary " i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g " work on stereotype formation (e.g., Cantor and M i s c h e l , 1979; Hamilton, 1979). On the oth e r hand, Lippmann a r t i c u l a t e d and embellished a r a t h e r narrow and r e s t r i c t i v e v e r s i o n of h i s g e n e r a l model of stereotypes which empha-s i z e d the d y s f u n c t i o n a l aspects of s t e r e o t y p i n g . I t h i g h l i g h t e d the un d e s i r a b l e consequences of adhering t o badly conceived s t e r e o t y p e s , and of a c t i n g on the b a s i s of m i s i n f o r m a t i o n embodied i n s t e r e o -types. T h i s l a t t e r c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n (or p e r s p e c t i v e ) i s adhered to s t i l l by those workers who study s t e r e o t y p i n g s o l e l y w i t h i n the framework of resea r c h on p r e j u d i c e s and i n t e r g r o u p c o n f l i c t . - 9 -In terms of the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l aspects of h i s w r i t i n g s , Lippmann 1s g e n e r a l c o n s t r u a l o f s t e r e o t y p e s i s the more c e n t r a l and w e l l - t a k e n one. Lippmann considered s t e r e o t y p e s bo be concepts which p r o v i d e us w i t h meaningful and r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e c o g n i t i v e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of e x t e r n a l s o c i a l o b j e c t s , such as o c c u p a t i o n a l groups, many of which are too complex t o be d e a l t w i t h e a s i l y i n everyday s i t u a t i o n s . As concept s t r u c t u r e s w i t h i n our c o g n i t i v e systems, s t e r e o t y p e s have tremendous f u n c t i o n a l v a l u e i n t h a t they provide s e t s of d e s c r i p t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n about the many s o c i a l t a r g e t s t h a t are s a l i e n t i n our i n t e r p e r s o n a l environment. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n can serve t o guide us i n our attempts t o o r i e n t a p p r o p r i a t e l y toward the stereotyped t a r g e t s . Lippman's d i s c u s s i o n suggests two ways i n which t h i s can be done. When making s o c i a l judgements we monitor our s t e r e o t y p e s t o the ext e n t t h a t we are aware of f e a t u r e s such as t h e i r f a v o u r a b l e n e s s , t h e i r c o m plexity, the f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e t h e i r development, and the degree of confidence w i t h which we hold them. T h i s type of monitoring i n d i c a t e s t o us, a l b e i t i n s u b j e c t i v e terms, how much in f o r m a t i o n we have about the t a r g e t s , how c l o s e our p e r c e p t i o n s are t o recognized group norms, and to what extent we can r e l y on such - 10 -p e r c e p t i o n s . U l t i m a t e l y , i t suggests an o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i v e response toward the t a r g e t s i n q u e s t i o n . The r e s u l t i n g o r i e n t a t i o n toward groups becomes more exact through our use of a number of a t t r i b u t i o n s about the t r a i t s i n c l uded i n our s t e r e o t y p e s . We can adopt s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o u r a l s t r a t e g i e s by d e f i n i n g the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t most t a r g e t members w i l l d i s p l a y c e r t a i n t r a i t s , i n v a r i o u s s o c i a l s e t t i n g s , through a p a r t i c u l a r range of behaviours. A t t r i b u t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h stereotype content may be p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l - d e f i n e d i n i n s t a n c e s i n which we f e e l o b l i g e d to o f f e r e i t h e r an i n d u c t i v e o r a deductive r a t i o n a l e f o r our t a r g e t d e s c r i p t i o n s . For i n s t a n c e , i n i n t e r -a c t i o n s where we f i n d o u r s e l v e s saying - "Most Americans I've met have tended t o focus on t h e i r possessions and on what these are worth. I t seems to happen a l l the time, whether i t ' s about camping equipment, t h e i r new s t e r e o s , or t h e i r c a r s . When you t h i n k about i t . Americans i n g e n e r a l are very m a t e r i a l i s t i c , " o r "Sure, I know what I'm t a l k i n g about when I say t h a t Americans are f r i e n d l y ! I ' l l bet t h a t i f you go i n t o any s m a l l s t o r e i n the Midwest, ask f o r d i r e c t i o n s a t a gas s t a t i o n , or l i v e f o r any l e n g t h of time i n a c i t y neighbourhood, y o u ' l l be t r e a t e d very c o r d i a l l y and openly." Lippmann employed an anecdotal and l i t e r a r y s t y l e i n h i s a n a l y s i s o f s t e r e o t y p e s t r u c t u r e s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to behaviour. I t remained f o r researchers more r e c e n t l y i n t e r e s t e d i n - 11 -such q u e s t i o n s as the e f f e c t s o f category i n f o r m a t i o n on memory f o r b i o g r a p h i c a l d a t a , and the r o l e o f s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g prophesy i n st e r e o t y p e maintenance, t o present more formal accounts o f the meaning s t r u c t u r e s embodied i n ster e o t y p e s . T r a d i t i o n a l research on stereotype structure Although Lippmann's general t h e s i s on stere o t y p e s was the most d e f e n s i b l e o f the two he o f f e r e d , i t was gi v e n l i t t l e emphasis i n r e l a t i o n t o h i s more narrowly d e f i n e d d i s c u s s i o n o f p r e j u d i c i a l s t e r e o t y p e s and t h e i r r o l e i n i n t e r p e r s o n a l and i n t e r n a t i o n a l con-f l i c t . Lippmann was concerned w i t h the damaging consequences t h a t i l l - c o n c e i v e d and misinformed s t e r e o t y p e s c o u l d have when people became i n v o l v e d i n h i g h l y charged s o c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n s . A co n s i d e r -a b l e p o r t i o n o f h i s commentary emphasized the negative p o t e n t i a l i n h e r e n t i n such c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s . He sketched example a f t e r example o f unfavourable s t e r e o t y p e s , on each o c c a s i o n s t r e s s i n g the u n d e s i r a b l e content r e f l e c t e d i n such concepts. A r i s t o t l e ' s argu-ment i n support o f s l a v e r y , b u i l t around a c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f s l a v e s as b e i n g n a t u r a l l y i n f e r i o r , the World War I German image of B e l g i a n t e r r o r i s t s n i p e r s , and fundamental C h r i s t i a n s ' antagonism toward the supporters of e v o l u t i o n a r y t h e o r y c o n s t i t u t e d some of the more g r a p h i c i l l u s t r a t i o n s . The emotion-laden tone o f these negative s t e r e o t y p e s was e f f e c t i v e l y - 12 -and c o m p e l l i n g l y captured i n a r e s e a r c h procedure introduced t o the l i t e r a t u r e i n 1933, by Katz and B r a l y , and adopted, e s s e n t i a l l y unchanged, by subsequent g e n e r a t i o n s of workers i n v e s t i g a t i n g the s t e r e o t y p i n g process ( c f . Brigham (197 1 ) and O'Donnell (1977) f o r r e v i e w s ) . W i t h the development of t h i s a d j e c t i v a l check l i s t procedure the t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l focus on the content of stereotypes became f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d as the c e n t r a l t o p i c of concern i n the a n a l y s i s of s t e r e o t y p e s t r u c t u r e . The "Katz and B r a l y " procedure e n t a i l s the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of check l i s t s of t r a i t words t o respondents who can then generate c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of a wide v a r i e t y of designated s o c i a l groups. A r e p e a t e d l y used method, i t i s an e f f i c i e n t means of c a p t u r i n g a t l e a s t some of the content of i n d i v i d u a l s ' p e r s o n a l s t e r e o t y p e s . The d a t a thus obtained have allowed r e s e a r c h e r s to focus on p a r t i c u l a r , c u l t u r a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t t r a i t s t h a t occur i n people's s t e r e o t y p e s of s o c i a l l y s a l i e n t groups such as b l a c k s , policemen, white Americans, and b u s i n e s s women ( c f . , f o r example, K a r l i n s e t a l . , 1 9 6 9 ) . These d a t a have a l s o allowed i n v e s t i g a t o r s t o compare and c o n t r a s t d i f f e r e n t c l u s t e r s of t r a i t s which seem t o form separate components w i t h i n s p e c i f i c s t e r e o t y p e s . For example, O'Donnell (1977) d i s c u s s e d a number of d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r images represented - 13 -i n I r i s h people's s t e r e o t y p e s about Northern I r i s h t a r g e t groups. F i n a l l y , check l i s t generated data have pe r m i t t e d workers t o study p a r t i c u l a r s t e r e o t y p e s as elements of more gene r a l stereotype systems (e.g., Diab, 1963). When taken t o g e t h e r , these approaches to the examination of content have c o n t r i b u t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y t o an understanding of stereotype s t r u c t u r e . P r i n c i p a l l y , the r e s e a r c h has helped t o d e t a i l the domain of p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t language through which people a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r s o c i a l concepts. Moreover, i t has demonstrated e f f e c t i v e l y the e x t e n t t o which i n d i v i d u a l s ' c o n s t r u a l s of t h e i r s o c i a l environment are governed by strong normative s o c i a l i z a t i o n processes. For i n s t a n c e , as c h i l d r e n get "older t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i z a -t i o n s of s o c i a l groups approximate a d u l t norms to an i n c r e a s i n g e x t e n t (e.g., K i r b y and Gardner, 1973). The added use of data r e d u c t i o n t echniques, such as m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g and c l u s t e r -i n g a n alyses, have helped to d e f i n e some of the broader semantic p r o p e r t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the t r a i t c l u s t e r s a s c r i b e d to groups. Using a d j e c t i v e s drawn from standard check l i s t s as t h e i r s t i m u l i , Jones and Ashmore (1973) found t h a t s c a l i n g t r a i t - s o r t d a t a on the b a s i s of the frequency of co-occurrence of t r a i t p a i r s produced a two-dimensional s o l u t i o n r e p r e s e n t i n g a modern-backward and a c o o p e r a t i v e - c o m p e t i t i v e a x i s . - 14 -Increased a t t e n t i o n t o the dimensional f e a t u r e s of stereotypes has complemented and expanded the body of f i n d i n g s r e l a t e d t o stereotype content. A v a r i e t y , of favourableness measures have been employed to r e f l e c t the e v a l u a t i v e nature of t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s ( c f . Brigham, 1971). D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n indexes have been developed t o represent the co m p l e x i t y of people's c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s (e.g., Deaux, 1968; Stephan, 1977). Observers have v a r i o u s l y attended t o the p r o p o r t i o n of commonly used, as opposed to i d i o s y n c r a t i c a l l y used, t r a i t terms i n i n d i v i d u a l s ' s t e r e o t y p e s , the content o v e r l a p between stereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s , and the degree of confidence w i t h which the stereotyped t a r g e t s were c h a r a c t e r i z e d (e.g., McTiernan and Knox, 1979; M c M i l l a n , 1974; Tsujimoto, 1978). One of the more important outcomes of t h i s type of approach t o the study of s t e r e o t y p e s i s t h a t researchers have d i s c o v e r e d a means o f d e s c r i b i n g and examining f a c e t s of stereotype s t r u c t u r e i n a co n t e n t - f r e e manner. G r a d u a l l y , a more e c l e c t i c o r i e n t a t i o n has become e s t a b l i s h e d i n the f i e l d and g e n e r a l , n o n - p r e j u d i c e - r e l a t e d i s s u e s r e g a r d i n g s t e r e o t y p e f o r m a t i o n , stereotype f u n c t i o n , and i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s t e r e o t y p i n g s t y l e are being addressed w i t h i n c r e a s i n g v i g o u r (e.g., L o c k s l e y , Borgida, Brekke, & Hepburn, 1980). In summary, check l i s t r e s e a r c h and the a n a l y s i s of stereotype dimensions have pr o v i d e d a s u b s t a n t i a l body of i n f o r m a t i o n regarding - 15 -the t r a i t s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s people are w i l l i n g t o a s c r i b e t o p a r t i c u l a r groups, and r e g a r d i n g the manner i n which these t r a i t s a r e c o g n i t i v e l y o r g a n i z e d . Yet t h i s work g i v e s l i t t l e sense of the number of t a r g e t i n d i v i d u a l s or the range o f s i t u a t i o n s t o which respondents a r e w i l l i n g t o g e n e r a l i z e t h e i r d e s c r i p t i v e a t t r i b u -t i o n s . Nor does i t p r o v i d e s p e c i f i c data r e g a r d i n g respondents' own e x p l a n a t i o n s about t h e o r i g i n s o f the t r a i t behaviours i n c l u d e d i n t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s . By not s p e c i f y i n g these r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g s t e r e o t y p e content, t r a d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h based on the Katz and B r a l y procedure f a i l s t o d e f i n e completely the meanings embodied i n i n d i v i d u a l s ' c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of s o c i a l groups. T h i s becomes c l e a r when one c o n s i d e r s a number o f examples i n the l i t e r a t u r e . F o r i n s t a n c e , Bayton (1941) and Bayton and Byoune (1947) determined t h a t m i n o r i t y group members, i n t h i s case U.S. b l a c k s , were as l i k e l y t o d e s c r i b e t h e i r own group as p e j o r a t i v e l y as d i d w h i t e m a j o r i t y respondents of the time. Although a d d i t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e on these data i s o f f e r e d by l a t e r r e s e a r c h which made a f i n e r d i s t i n c t i o n between stereotypes o f lower- and upper- or m i d d l e - c l a s s b l a c k s (Bayton, 'McAlister, and Hamer, 1956; Smedley and Bayton, 1978), t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether o r not the unfavourable c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s meant the same t h i n g t o the b l a c k respondents as - 16 -they d i d t o the white sample members remained unresolved. In a s i m i l a r v e i n , O'Donnell (1977) found t h a t Roman C a t h o l i c s and P r o t e s t a n t s i n Northern I r e l a n d agreed i n d e s c r i b i n g Northern I r i s h P r o t e s t a n t s as being determined, l o y a l i s t power-holders. However, w h i l e the C a t h o l i c s used the terms i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h d e s c r i p t i v e l a b e l s l i k e b i g o t e d , brainwashed, b i t t e r , and murderers, the P r o t e s t a n t s i n c l u d e d them i n t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s along w i t h t r a i t s such as decent, i n d u s t r i o u s , c o n s e r v a t i v e , and " o r d i n a r y people". These very d i f f e r e n t d e s c i p t i v e c o n t e x t s suggest s t r o n g l y t h a t the nuances a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the commonly used terms ( i . e . , determined, l o y a l i s t power-holders) v a r i e d from group t o group.3 Nonetheless, the e x t e n t t o which, and the v a r i a b l e s along which, these i m p l i c i t meanings may have d i f f e r e d are undefined and u n s p e c i f i e d and can o n l y be speculated upon. An examination of the r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g such s t e r e o t y p e content could h e l p c l a r i f y i s s u e s of t h i s s o r t . Contemporary an a l y s e s o f s t e r e o t y p e s t r u c t u r e While the h i s t o r i c a l emphasis i n the f i e l d has been on the study of the content and the dimensional f e a t u r e s of s t e r e o t y p e s , a number of r e c e n t r e s e a r c h trends have emerged i n the l i t e r a t u r e - 17 -which emphasize the p o t e n t i a l value of s t u d y i n g the r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g stereotype content. These approaches have t h e i r r o o t s i n a d i v e r s e s e t o f s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l concerns i n c l u d i n g s t e r e o t y p e measurement, i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g models of s t e r e o t y p e formation, and general i s s u e s i n a t t r i b u t i o n theory. Stereotype measurement instruments and r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s D e s p i t e the i n t r o d u c t i o n t o the l i t e r a t u r e o f a ' v a r i e t y o f s t r u c t u r e d , s e m i - s t r u c t u r e d , and open-ended instruments, the a d j e c t i v a l check l i s t continues to be the most popular measuring technique i n the f i e l d o f stereotype r e s e a r c h . During the p e r i o d s i n c e i t was i n i t i a l l y adopted by Katz and B r a l y , the check l i s t procedure has a c q u i r e d a s u b s t a n t i a l consignment o f t h e o r e t i c a l baggage. More o f t e n than not i m p l i c i t l y r a t h e r than e x p l i c i t l y , but n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n s i s t e n t l y , i t has been l i n k e d w i t h the narrowly d e f i n e d and p r e j u d i c e - o r i e n t e d v e r s i o n o f Lippmann's d u a l stereotype t h e o r i e s . I n t u r n , check l i s t f i n d i n g s have been c i t e d as strong evidence i n support o f the p o s i t i o n t h a t s t e r e o t y p e s are almost i n v a r i a b l y f a l l a c i o u s and i n a c c u r a t e o v e r - g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s . T h i s r a t h e r p e r v a s i v e t h e o r e t i c a l v i e w p o i n t has r e s u l t e d i n an u n c r i t i c a l l y - h e l d assumption t h a t when t r a i t s are a s c r i b e d t o a s t e r e o t y p e d t a r g e t they are done so i n a l l or none f a s h i o n ; t h a t t o c a l l I t a l i a n s e x c i t a b l e , f o r i n s t a n c e , i s t o c a l l a l l I t a l i a n s e x c i t a b l e . F r e q u e n t l y , respondents themselves have p r o t e s t e d - 18 -a g a i n s t t h i s i m p l i c a t i o n of the s t e r e o t y p i n g t a s k , and many have argued t h a t they had generated c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s even though they had no p a r t i c u l a r impression of the t a r g e t s under study. Others have refused to complete the procedure on the grounds t h a t i t was meaningless t o them and f a i l e d t o r e f l e c t the manner i n which they thought about s o c i a l groups. With few e x c e p t i o n s , however, such methodological q u e s t i o n i n g on the p a r t of the respondents has been r e l e g a t e d t o the s t a t u s o f data c o l l e c t i o n f o o tnotes. Thus, accumulating evidence from a v a r i e t y of r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s i n d i c a t e s t h a t some respondents, a t l e a s t , f e e l t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l methods of measuring s t e r e o t y p e s do not adequately represent, or assume too much about the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g stereotype content. Y e t , l i t t l e d i r e c t a t t e n t i o n has been granted to the t h e o r e t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s surrounding these p r o t e s t s . A ddressing a somewhat d i f f e r e n t s e t of concerns, however, Brigham (1973) has proposed a mode of a n a l y z i n g stereotype responses t h a t d i r e c t l y r e f l e c t s the e x t e n t t o which people are w i l l i n g to g e n e r a l i z e s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s across the members of the stereotyped t a r g e t . In an attempt t o c a t e g o r i z e respondents' t r a i t c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s on the b a s i s of an e m p i r i c a l l y d e r i v e d standard of j u s t i f i a b i l i t y , Brigham asked groups of b l a c k and white c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s , as w e l l as noncollege white r e s i d e n t s of two s m a l l towns i n southwestern G e o r g i a , to c o n s i d e r Germans, white Americans, and b l a c k s , i n t u r n , and t o i n d i c a t e the percentage of members of each - 19 -o f those t h r e e t a r g e t groups who possess each of t h i r t y l i s t e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s do not make a b s o l u t i s t g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about the p e r s o n a l i t y a t t r i b u t e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h v a r i o u s s o c i a l groups. A reading of Brigham's paper suggests t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l l y fewer than 100% of t a r g e t group members were considered t o have t r a d i t i o n a l l y s t e r e o t y p i c t r a i t s . Moreover, there were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t intersample d i f f e r e n c e s (on a t a r g e t by t a r g e t b a s i s ) i n the mean percentage r a t i n g s f o r many of the t h i r t y p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . F i n a l l y , there was strong evidence from the response p r o f i l e s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s d i f f e r e d markedly from each other i n the degree t o which they g e n e r a l i z e d across t a r g e t group members w i t h r e s p e c t to the ste r e o t y p e t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s . Brigham's r e s u l t s are a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y r i g o r o u s i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the p o i n t being made by respondents i n stereotype s t u d i e s : namely, t h a t i n order t o f u l l y understand the nature of stereotype t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s i t i s d e s i r a b l e t o o b t a i n some measure of the extent to which i n d i v i d u a l s are w i l l i n g to a t t r i b u t e these t r a i t s t o the v a r i o u s members of the t a r g e t groups under study. H i s work i s a f i r s t attempt t o examine the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g stereotype content from a t r a d i t i o n a l t h e o r e t i c a l framework. " C o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n a l i s m " and c a u s a l and r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u - t i o n s regarding s t e r e o t y p e content Recent t h e o r i z i n g on human in f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g , r e l y i n g h e a v i l y on computer s i m u l a t i o n - 20 -models, has generated s u b s t a n t i a l r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t i n c a t e g o r i z i n g processes as they a f f e c t the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and encoding of d e t a i l s about our s o c i a l and n o n - s o c i a l environment. T h i s concern w i t h the c o g n i t i v e a spects of c a t e g o r i z a t i o n has c a r r i e d over t o st e r e o t y p e research such t h a t a new s e t of t h e o r e t i c a l q u e stions and methodo-l o g i c a l procedures has emerged to mend the r i f t between c o g n i t i v e psychology and the s t e r e o t y p e f i e l d . A fundamental assumption g u i d i n g t h i s r e c e n t work, i s t h a t t h e r e i s no t h e o r e t i c a l o r e m p i r i c a l reason t o assume t h a t forming g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about s o c i a l t a r g e t s i s r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from forming g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about other c a t e g o r i e s of o b j e c t s ( T a y l o r e t a l . , 1978, p. 778) . The acceptance of t h i s premise has enabled a s h i f t from the study of the needs and motives served by p a r t i c u l a r p r e j u d i c i a l and i n -formed s t e r e o t y p e s , t o the a n a l y s i s of the c o g n i t i v e o p e r a t i o n s i n v o l v e d i n s t e r e o t y p e f o r m a t i o n , and the examination o f the i n f l u e n c e of s t e r e o t y p e s on s o c i a l judgement processes. R e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the g e n e r a l approach are s t u d i e s by T a y l o r and J a g g i (1974) , Eeaux and E m s w i l l e r (1974) , Duncan (1976) , and Hamilton and Rose (1980) . T a y l o r and J a g g i (1974) , f o r i n s t a n c e , explored a t t r i b u t i o n s regarding the causes of d e s i r a b l e and u n d e s i r a b l e behaviours - 21 -performed by ingroup and outgroup a c t o r s . Employing Hindu respon-dents from southern I n d i a , t h e i r study i n d i c a t e d t h a t the d e s i r a b l e behaviours o f ingroup, Hindu a c t o r s and the u n d e s i r a b l e behaviours o f outgroup, Muslim a c t o r s were a t t r i b u t e d t o i n t e r n a l causes. I n c o n t r a s t , s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s were h e l d t o account f o r the u n d e s i r -a b l e behaviours o f ingroup and the d e s i r a b l e behaviours of outgroup t a r g e t persons. S i m i l a r l y , Deaux and E m s w i l l e r (1974), f o c u s s i n g on sex-typed b e h a v i o u r s , found t h a t s t e r e o t y p e - r e l a t e d a c t i o n s were a t t r i b u t e d t o s t a b l e causes and c o u n t e r - s t e r e o t y p i c performances t o temporary causes. From a somewhat d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e , Duncan (1976) examined the manner i n which w h i t e c o l l e g e students i n t e r p r e t e d an "ambiguous shove" when i t was g i v e n by e i t h e r a white or a b l a c k p r o t a g o n i s t i n v o l v e d i n a (videotaped) d i s c u s s i o n . Q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t l y , the shove was judged t o be p l a y f u l and non-threatening when g i v e n by the w h i t e p r o t a g o n i s t , but was considered t o be a g g r e s s i v e when enacted by the b l a c k d i s c u s s a n t . These r e s u l t s p r o v i d e an i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the e f f e c t s t h a t stereotype—based e x p e c t a t i o n s might have on the manner i n which i n f o r m a t i o n about i n d i v i d u a l s ' behaviours i s processed. S t e r e o t y p e t r a i t s may be seen t o apply t o a wide enough range of behaviours and may be judged t o be manifested i n a wide enough range o f s i t u a t i o n s t h a t the ambiguous responses of t a r g e t members can be i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms o f s a l i e n t s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t c a t e g o r i e s . The work o f Hamilton and Rose (1980) bears on t h i s - 22 -p o i n t . In a s e r i e s of experiments they documented the i n f l u e n c e of s t e r e o t y p i c e x p e c t a t i o n s on estim a t e s of the frequency of occurrence o f stereotype-congruent and stereotype-incongruent behaviours among t a r g e t group members. The frequency of occurrence of stereotype r e l a t e d behaviours i n a sti m u l u s s e t was c o n s i s t e n t l y overestimated, w h i l e the frequency of incongruent behaviours i n the stimulus s e t was underestimated i n many in s t a n c e s . Taken t o g e t h e r , these s t u d i e s a g a i n underscore the importance o f examining the r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g s t e r e o t y p e content i n order t o d e f i n e f u l l y the meanings e n t a i l e d i n people's c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of s o c i a l groups. Indeed, the argument i s even f u r t h e r r e i n f o r c e d by a scan of the r e c e n t l y reported f i n d -i ngs concerning the manner i n which i n d i v i d u a l s form impressions of groups when g i v e n i n f o r m a t i o n about sample s e t s of group members (e.g., H a m i l l , W i l s o n , & N i s b e t t , 1980; Rothbart, F u l e r o , Jensen, Howard, & B i r r e l l , 1978), regarding the e f f e c t of p o p u l a t i o n base-r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n on p r e d i c t i o n s about t a r g e t persons' behaviours (e.g., Manis, D o v a l i n a , A v i s , & Cardoze, 1980), and p e r t a i n i n g t o the b i a s i n g e f f e c t s o f ste r e o t y p e s on memory f o r d e s i r a b l e and un d e s i r a b l e b e h a v i o u r a l i n f o r m a t i o n (e.g., Howard and Rothbart, 1980). [Hamilton (1979) p r o v i d e s a comprehensive review of much of t h i s m a t e r i a l . ] General a t t r i b u t i o n theory i s s u e s i n r e l a t i o n ' t o stereotype - 23 -re s e a r c h The measurement suggestions of Brigham, and the c o g n i t i v e based approach t o the study of s t e r e o t y p e processes, each provide g e n e r a l reassurance t h a t the e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s of r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s t e r e o t y p e content i s p o t e n t i a l l y f r u i t f u l . They a l s o i n d i c a t e p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a b l e s needing f u r t h e r study. One of these measures i s an e s t i m a t i o n of the extent t o which respondents are w i l l i n g to g e n e r a l i z e t h e i r stereotype t r a i t a s c r i p -t i o n s across t a r g e t group members. These esti m a t e s can be obtained, i n Brigham's (1973) f a s h i o n , by as k i n g people t o make judgements r e g a r d i n g the percentage of t a r g e t members "possessing" the s t e r e o -type t r a i t ( s ) i n q u e s t i o n . They can be generated, as w e l l , by a s k i n g respondents t o i n d i c a t e the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t any p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t member they might encounter "has" the t r a i t ( s ) . Another r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n v a r i a b l e , suggested by the " c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n a l i s m " r e s e a r c h on s t e r e o t y p e s , i s an index of i n d i v i d u a l s ' assumptions about the degree t o which stereotype t r a i t s a r e r e f l e c t e d i n a v a r i e t y of d i f f e r e n t behaviours. In a case where a person t h i n k s t h a t u n i v e r s i t y s tudents are i r r e s p o n s i b l e , h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of an ambiguous behaviour as being a" c l e a r s i g n of i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y w i l l be mediated, a t l e a s t i n p a r t , by h i s b e l i e f t h a t the i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of u n i v e r s i t y students i s expressed i n a wide range, or very few d i f f e r e n t b e h a v i o r s . - 24 -Two additional measures relevant to an examination of referen-t i a l attributions become salient when one looks to the broad body of literature dealing with attribution-related questions. The intense debate on the relative merits of t r a i t , situa-tional, and interactionist explanations of social behaviour has raised the issue of the cross-setting consistency of personality-type actions. This issue is hotly contested in theoretical c i r c l e s (cf. Argyle and L i t t l e , 1972; Bern and Allen, 1974; Bowers, 1973; Mischel, 1968; and Wiggins, 1974). There are fundamental disagree-ments among workers concerning the (potential) situational v a r i a b i l -i t y of t r a i t - l i k e behaviours. The notion that the expression of t r a i t s , and trait-type actions, may or may not "depend on the situation" is mirrored more generally in lay respondents' explana-tions for the causes of various behaviours, including s k i l l e d performances (Deaux and Emswiller, 1974), intra-marital s t r i f e (Passer, Kelley, and Michela, 1978), and experiencing a mishap (Chaikin and Darley, 1973). Whether they work from varying theoretical perspectives in psychology or are subject to different experimental conditions as research respondents, people vaci l l a t e in their willingness to consider trait-type behaviours to be stable or unstable, and to be cross-situationally consistent or situationally bound. Consequently, i t would appear useful and appropriate to document the manner in which respondents, once they have made t r a i t ascriptions to a stereotyped target, tend to view the ascribed - 25 -t r a i t s as being relatively stable or unstable, and situationally independent or setting constrained. The general attribution literature has devoted considerable space to the variety of causal distinctions that appear relevant to people explaining the origins of social behaviour (e.g., Jones and Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1967; Kruglanski, 1975; and Weiner et a l . , 1972). For the most part the distinctions contrast causal forces internal to the actor, such as motives and predispositions, with those that are external, such as the role/rule constraints of the situation. A strong form of an internal causal attribution, for example, would be "I did i t because i t was in my nature." A strong external attribution would be "I was forced to do i t because I would have been punished otherwise." Where a t r a i t attribution has been made to an individual (or a group of individuals) the development of the t r a i t can be explained in terms of the psychobiological factors and the social conditions that have contributed to the individual's (or group's) growth. The psychobiological aspects of development include any genetic contri-bution to behaviour, and they are reflected in psychologically couched explanations of the form: "She was always good with children. She was born a natural mother." The social factors that can contribute to the emergence of specific personality styles encompass such processes as modeling, acculturation, and the - 26 -l e a r n i n g of r o l e performance s t y l e s . I t i s f r e q u e n t l y the case i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s t u d i e s t h a t the i n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l d i s t i n c t i o n i s represented u n i d i m e n s i o n a l l y , i n b i p o l a r form. Respondent r a t i n g s on the " i n t e r n a l " end of the s c a l e emphasize the importance of i n t r a p e r s o n a l v a r i a b l e s i n causing the behaviour under s c r u t i n y . Ratings toward the " e x t e r n a l " pole s t r e s s the s i t u a t i o n a l i n f l u e n c e s on such behaviours. Methodolog-i c a l l y , t h i s procedure has worked w e l l and the format appears to generate s t r o n g and e a s i l y i n t e r p r e t e d data. A unidimensional r a t i n g s c a l e f a i l s t o r e f l e c t i n unambiguous terms the type of i n s t a n c e i n which both i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l causes are judged to be h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Thus, i n examining a t t r i b u t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the o r i g i n s of t r a i t s i t could be considered u s e f u l t o measure the perc e i v e d impact of p s y c h o b i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s s e p a r a t e l y from the perc e i v e d importance of s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s . (For i n s t a n c e , the magnitude of the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t between the two v a r i a b l e s should i n d i c a t e the e x t e n t t o which respondents adopt a l o c u s -s p e c i f i c o r an i n t e r a c t i o n i s t p e r s p e c t i v e on t r a i t development.) R a t i o n a l e f o r the p r e s e n t study Reviewing the t h e o r e t i c a l a n alyses of Lippmann and o t h e r workers who have s p e c u l a t e d on the nature of s t e r e o t y p e s , one can suggest t h a t a d e t a i l e d understanding of the meanings a s s o c i a t e d - 27 -w i t h s t e r e o t y p e s i n v o l v e s not o n l y the study of the content of s t e r e o t y p e s , but a l s o an examination of the c a u s a l and r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g stereotype content. A thorough examination o f t h i s form would i n c l u d e an account of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the content, the r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , and the dimensional f e a t u r e s of the v a r i o u s s t e r e o t y p e s under s c r u t i n y . T r a d i t i o n a l l y , r e s e a r c h on s t e r e o t y p e s has r e v o l v e d around the use of the con t e n t - r e l a t e d , Katz and B r a l y type, a d j e c t i v a l check l i s t . W i t h i n t h i s framework much has been learned about the person-a l i t y terms used t o d e s c r i b e v a r i o u s s o c i a l t a r g e t s . Yet l i t t l e has been d i s c o v e r e d about the r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these t r a i t terms. A number o f i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o s t e r e o t y p e measurement, t o c o g n i t i v e approaches t o the study of s t e r e o t y p e s , and t o g e n e r a l aspects of a t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r i e s have underscored the value of e x p l o r i n g the a t t r i b u t i o n s t r u c t u r e u n d e r l y i n g stereotype content. A wide-ranging body of t h i s work has served t o d e f i n e some of the a t t r i b u t i o n v a r i a b l e s t h a t might prove u s e f u l i n a more developed and i n t e g r a t i v e programme of research. Most s t u d i e s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h i s work have l e f t the content of respondents' ste r e o t y p e s u n s p e c i f i e d and unmeasured. . Target i n f o r m a t i o n i s manipulated e x p e r i m e n t a l l y and the r e s u l t a n t a t t r i b u t i o n s are measured as a f u n c t i o n of t h i s independently p r e s c r i b e d i n f o r m a t i o n . - 28 -The nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the t r a i t terms included by i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e i r own stereotypes and the r e f e r e n t i a l and causal a t t r i b u t i o n s associated with these t r a i t terms has not, as yet, been examined.4 The purpose of the present study was to conduct an exploratory a n a l y s i s of some r e f e r e n t i a l and causal a t t r i b u t i o n s underlying stereotype content. Research perspectives r e l e v a n t t o a c o n t e n t - a t t r i b u t i o n a n a l y s i s o f  stereotypes The most straightforward approach to studying the r e l a t i o n s h i p between stereotype content and the underlying r e f e r e n t i a l and causal-a t t r i b u t i o n s i s to e l i c i t respondents' d e s c r i p t i o n s of one or more target groups, and to have these i n d i v i d u a l s subsequently rate each of the t r a i t terms i n t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n s on the selected a t t r i b u t i o n s c a l e s . The stereotype c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s can then be coded on any o f a number of t a r g e t - r e l a t e d , c o n t e n t - s p e c i f i c , or " t e x t u r a l " dimensions, permitting between-stereotype and i n t e r - s u b j e c t compari-sons of the r e l a t e d a t t r i b u t i o n s . To i l l u s t r a t e , by averaging across content to o b t a i n per  stereotype scores, the a t t r i b u t i o n r a t i n g s associated with occupa-t i o n a l stereotypes could be compared with those r e l a t e d to n a t i o n a l - 29 -stereotypes. S i m i l a r l y , e i t h e r n o m o t h e t i c a l l y o r i d i o g r a p h i c a l l y , the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g i n d i v i d u a l s ' stereotypes t h a t i n c l u d e s e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e t r a i t s (e.g., f r i e n d l y , h e l p f u l ) c o u l d be c o n t r a s t e d w i t h those p r o v i d e d f o r stereotypes t h a t do not i n c l u d e s e l f - d e s c r i p t o r s . On a somewhat more a b s t r a c t and general l e v e l , comparisons c o u l d be made between the c a u s a l and r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g the fa v o u r a b l e and unfavourable content components o f p a r t i c u l a r s t e r e o t y p e s , o r between those a t t r i b u t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l a r g e l y f avourable and l a r g e l y unfavourable s t e r e o t y p e s . Given a p o t e n t i a l l y l a r g e and d i v e r s e range o f rese a r c h paths, and given the f a c t t h a t no formal model o f the c o n t e n t - a t t r i b u t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s i n the stereotype f i e l d , the pre s e n t study was designed t o f i l l a h y p o t h e s i s generating, r a t h e r than a hypothesis t e s t i n g r o l e . A number o f longstanding e m p i r i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l concerns guided the development and c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f the work and these w i l l be o u t l i n e d b r i e f l y i n the f o l l o w i n g paragraphs. One of the more important d i s t i n c t i o n s between t a r g e t groups i n stereotype r e s e a r c h i s t h a t between ingroups and outgroups ( c f . , f o r example, Campbell, 1967; Diab, 1962). E x p l o r i n g the e f f e c t s o f group membership on respondents' e v a l u a t i o n s o f s o c i a l t a r g e t s , workers have found d i f f e r e n c e s i n the types o f t r a i t s a s c r i b e d t o p a r t i c u l a r groups by ingroup and outgroup members (e.g., Campbell - 30 -and LeVine, 1968; Grant, 1980; O'Donnell, 1977). Researchers have also detected more general dimensional differences between stereo-types as a function of individuals' membership in the target groups (e.g., Stephan, 1977; Wilder and Thompson, 1980). For instance, L i n v i l l e and Jones (1980) determined that respondents had more complex schema regarding ingroups than they did regarding outgroups. In addition, membership status vis-a-vis stereotyped targets has influenced individuals' attributions regarding the proportion of group members possessing particular characteristics (e.g., Brigham, 1973; Quattrone and Jones, 1980), and regarding the causes of desir-able and undesirable behaviours enacted by ingroup and outgroup target persons (e.g., Taylor and Jaggi, 1974). Overall, a substan-t i a l body of research related to stereotype content, to the dimen-sional features of stereotypes, and to various attributions assoc-iated with stereotypes, suggests that target group membership is an important variable to consider i n any comprehensive examination of stereotype-related referential and causal attributions. Theoretically, there are two basic ways in which membership status could affect the attribution structure underlying stereotype characterizations. On the one hand, attribution ratings associated with ingroups could y i e l d mean scores significantly different from those obtained for outgroups. On the other hand, the correlational structure between the various attribution variables could alter as a function of the targets' status as ingroups or outgroups. There are - 31 -indications in the literature that both of these phenomena may occur (e.g., McArthur and Friedman, 1980; Taylor et al . , 1978), but the relevant findings are neither strong enough nor pointed enough to warrant specific predictions. The argument that the causal and referential attributions associated with stereotype content may vary with the respondents' target membership status is quite different from the arguments that can be drawn from other research perspectives in the field. The traditionally popular view that stereotypes are built on misinformation and are substitutes for thought (cf. Hayakawa, 1950) suggests that stereotyping is an all-or-none process, involving an extreme response style. This is seen to be the case regardless of the particular target stereotyped and regardless of the respondents' relationship to the target group. This theoretical position, in that i t emphasizes the extreme nature of individuals' attribution ratings, gives l i t t l e attention to the possibility of individual •differences in response patterns. The implications of the approach are that group membership per se does not affect the nature of the attributions underlying stereotype content. Rather, attribution scores would be predicted as being skewed toward the end points of the respective rating scales. Alternatively, the cognitive information processing approach - 32 -t o the study of s t e r e o t y p i n g s t r e s s e s the inh e r e n t c o n s i s t e n c y of respondents' a t t r i b u t i o n judgements. T h i s p e r s p e c t i v e can account f o r i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n response s t y l e . I t can a l s o incorpo-r a t e the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a t t r i b u t i o n r a t i n g s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the stereotypes o f member and non-member groups may vary because of d i f f e r e n c e s i n the s a l i e n c e of the t a r g e t s i n qu e s t i o n . Most c e n t r a l t o the approach, however, i s the view t h a t the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( c o r r e l a t i o n s ) between a t t r i b u t i o n v a r i a b l e s are strong and i n v a r i a n t across t a r g e t types. The view, of course, i s based on the assumption t h a t s t e r e o t y p i n g i s a fundamental process t h a t permits people t o make p r e d i c t a b l e sense of t h e i r s o c i a l environment. These three d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e s can be d e f i n e d and para-phrased even more b r i e f l y . E s s e n t i a l l y we are t a l k i n g about cognition-based, s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e and t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i a l psycho-l o g i c a l approaches to the study of s t e r e o t y p i n g . ' Each viewpoint focuses on d i f f e r e n t types of independent v a r i a b l e s and emphasizes d i f f e r e n t aspects of the s t e r e o t y p i n g process. Thus, each suggests d i f f e r e n t outcomes from a study of the c a u s a l and r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g stereotype content. The r e s e a r c h design of the present study allowed a comparison o f these v a r y i n g s e t s of expectancies. - 33 -Stereotyping and the impact of context Thus far, the discussion has considered the manner in which the meaning embodied in stereotypes may be reflected in the attributions associated with the t r a i t ascriptions. The question of why individ-uals choose the particular t r a i t terms that they include in their group descriptions has been l e f t unconsidered. This is not an insignificant issue in any general examination of the meaning under-lying stereotype content. When discussing a particular stereotype, i t is reasonable to assume that the characteristics ascribed to the target group represent the stereotyper's beliefs about the modal personality (cf. Wallace, 1970) of the target members, independently of related judgements regarding the frequency of occurrence of these same t r a i t s among the members of other groups. For instance, the assump-tion would hold that i f a person feels that friendliness is the most characteristic attribute of the Greeks i t w i l l be included in his stereotype of the Greeks, regardless of the fact that he also feels friendliness to be the most characteristic t r a i t of the Irish, Italians, and Egyptians. Alternatively, workers such as Bronfenbrenner (1961; see also, Osgood, I960; and White, 1961), Diab (1963), and Campbell (1967) have argued, empirically and on a p r i o r i grounds, that stereotypes - 34 -a r e seldom h e l d i n i s o l a t i o n t u t are i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o an e l a b o r a t e framework i n v o l v i n g i m p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t comparisons. I l l u s t r a t i n g t h i s p o i n t , Diab (1963) found t h a t by a l t e r i n g the l i s t o f n a t i o n a l groups i n which a key t a r g e t group was embedded, the content of the t a r g e t group's ster e o t y p e s was r a d i c a l l y changed. Moreover, Campbell (1967) determined t h a t among t r i b a l groups i n East A f r i c a , the terms i n c l u d e d i n t h e i r s e l f - s t e r e o t y p e s , and i n t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l s t e r e o t y p e s o f each o t h e r , accentuated " r e a l " between group d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o f a c t o r s such as c u l t u r a l t r a d i -t i o n s and the degree of "modernization". These f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a t people may c o n s i d e r the content o f t h e i r stereotypes t o be not merely r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the p e r s o n a l i t i e s o f the t a r g e t members, but a l s o d i s t i n c t i v e o f the t a r g e t groups i n q u e s t i o n . The use of a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n as w e l l as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e r u l e i n s e l e c t i n g terms w i t h which t o d e s c r i b e a s o c i a l t a r g e t can be expected t o markedly i n f l u e n c e the s e t o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s c r i b e d t o p a r t i c u l a r groups. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between such a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n and the a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g s t e r e o t y p e content has been w e l l d e f i n e d by McCauley and h i s c o l l e a g u e s (McCauley and S t i t t , 1978; McCauley, S t i t t , & S e g a l , 1980). I n a s e r i e s o f s t u d i e s , they asked respon-dents t o e s t i m a t e the p r o p o r t i o n o f t a r g e t group members (e.g., Germans) t h a t possessed s t e r e o t y p i c a l (e.g., i n d u s t r i o u s ) and n o n - s t e r e o t y p i c a l (e.g., p l e a s u r e - l o v i n g ) t r a i t s . They a l s o had - 35 -t h e i r respondents judge the p r o p o r t i o n of people i n general posses-s i n g such c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Using the l a t t e r r a t i n g s as base-rate data, McCauley and h i s co-workers found t h a t s t e r e o t y p i c a l t r a i t s c o n s i s t e n t l y had h i g h e r d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s r a t i n g s r e l a t i v e t o non-s t e r e o t y p i c a l t r a i t s . When, f o r each t r a i t , the mean p r o p o r t i o n estimates per t a r g e t group were d i v i d e d by the mean p r o p o r t i o n estimates f o r people i n g e n e r a l , the r a t i o s f o r the s t e r e o t y p i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d e v i a t e d markedly from u n i t y and were l a r g e r than those f o r the n o n - s t e r e o t y p i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A strong i m p l i c a t i o n of the McCauley e t a l . research i s t h a t w h i l e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s and d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s are both important c r i t e r i a i n determining stereotype content, d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s may be the more h e a v i l y weighted of the two markers. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n leads t o some f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s . Because o f the s i n g l e sample nature of most st e r e o t y p e research, and because of the a r b i t r a r y and unconnected format of most t a r g e t l i s t s , i t remains u n c l e a r as t o whether o r not s t e r e o -type content i s always marked by d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s . I t may be t h a t where a s o c i a l c o n t e x t o r a frame of r e f e r e n c e i s s a l i e n t , d i s t i n c t -iveness may operate as the primary c r i t e r i o n f o r the s e l e c t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r s t e r e o t y p e terms ( c f . , the r e l a t e d work of McGuire and h i s c o l l e a g u e s , e.g., McGuire, McGuire, C h i l d , & F u j i o k a , 1978; McGuire, McGuire, & Winton, 1979). Under other c o n d i t i o n s people - 36 -may c h a r a c t e r i z e t a r g e t groups without any reference to a s o c i a l context, i n which case representativeness might be the dominant c r i t e r i o n governing the choice of t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s . I t i s p o t e n t i a l l y d i f f i c u l t to s t r u c t u r e an experimental s e t t i n g i n which one can be assured that a stereotyping task i s performed without any i m p l i c i t or e x p l i c i t contextual references. I t i s p o s s i b l e , though, to manipulate the s a l i e n c e of the compara-t i v e framework w i t h i n which stereotypes are e l i c i t e d , and to examine the r e s u l t a n t use of the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s and representativeness c r i t e r i a . One s u i t a b l e format for such research i s a multi-group study, attending to r e c i p r o c a l stereotypes - the format of the present study. Not only i s i t unclear whether or not stereotype content i s always marked by d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s , i t i s uncertain whether or not t h i s d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n i s r e f l e c t e d i n content-related r e f e r e n t i a l and causal a t t r i b u t i o n s other than judgements concerning the proportion of group members considered to possess the various stereotype c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . By employing the McCauley technique of obtaining base-rate data f o r each of the dependent v a r i a b l e s , diagnostic r a t i o s can be generated f o r each of the a t t r i b u t i o n measures. I t becomes p o s s i b l e to explore f u r t h e r the extent to which the use of a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n a f f e c t s the r e f e r e n t i a l and causal a t t r i b u t i o n s underlying stereotype content. - 37 -Research q u e s t i o n s and t a r g e t s e l e c t i o n B u i l d i n g on the v a r i o u s bodies of r e s e a r c h so f a r reviewed, the p resent study was s t r u c t u r e d t o examine the r e f e r e n t i a l and causal a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g stereotype content, w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r -ence t o the e f f e c t s of group membership on the a t t r i b u t i o n r a t i n g s , and w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o the respondents' use of the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n i n t h e i r s e l e c t i o n of t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s . One f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the o v e r a l l r e s e a r c h d e s i g n . T h i s i n v o l v e d the c h o i c e of stereotype t a r g e t s . I m p l i c i t i n any d i s c u s s i o n of s o c i a l groups, and of group membership, i s the i s s u e concerning the manner i n which s o c i a l t a r g e t s can be c a t e g o r i z e d . There are any number of s u b s t a n t i v e and s t r u c t u r a l dimensions along which t a r g e t groups can be arrayed and compared. For example, s o c i a l groups can be c l a s s i f i e d according t o whether o r not they are permeable or impermeable, l a r g e or s m a l l , h i g h l y s t r u c t u r e d o r l o o s e l y o r g a n i z e d , task o r i e n t e d o r need f u l f i l l i n g , e t h n i c , s o c i a l , o c c u p a t i o n a l , o r r e l i g i o u s . On the b a s i s of t r a d i t i o n and pragmatism, workers studying s t e r e o t y p e s have tended t o look t o j u s t one type of s o c i a l group when choosing t h e i r t a r g e t l a b e l s . More o f t e n t h a t not these have been n a t i o n a l and e t h n i c groups ( c f . Brigham, 1971), although recent - 38 -work has tended t o l a y asid e n a t i o n a l / e t h n i c l a b e l s i n favour of c u l t u r a l l y s a l i e n t o c c u p a t i o n a l , s o c i a l and sex r e l a t e d t a r g e t s ( c f . Hamilton, 1979). In e i t h e r case, because d i f f e r e n t types of t a r g e t groups have not been s i m u l t a n e o u s l y represented i n the same s t u d i e s , i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o determine the e x t e n t t o which the f i n d i n g s d e r i v e d using one type of t a r g e t group g e n e r a l i z e across other c l a s s e s of t a r g e t s . An attempt t o achieve a somewhat broader l e v e l of g e n e r a l i z -a b i l i t y was undertaken i n t h i s r e s e a r c h by s e l e c t i n g two d i f f e r e n t s e t s of t a r g e t s . One of these s e t s was d e f i n e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o the t a r g e t groups' o v e r a l l value o r i e n t a t i o n , and the other s e t was d e f i n e d i n demographic terms. The r e s e a r c h content area The d e c i s i o n t o examine the e f f e c t s of group membership on the a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g s t e r e o t y p e c o n t e n t , and, a t the same time, t o s y s t e m a t i c a l l y vary the type o f t a r g e t s used i n the study, posed some l o g i s t i c a l problems when i t came t o t r a n s l a t i n g the research d e s i g n i n t o p r a c t i c a l , data c o l l e c t i o n procedures. F o r t u n a t e l y , the burgeoning p s y c h o l o g i c a l a t t e n t i o n t o the impact of environmental v a r i a b l e s on s o c i a l behaviour and v a l u e s suggested a s u i t a b l e s u b s t a n t i v e area i n which to ground the pre s e n t study. - 39 -The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the urban - non-urban dichotomy has been w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n the s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l , as w e l l as the s o c i o -l o g i c a l , l i t e r a t u r e (e.g.. B u t t , 1971; Milgram, 1970; and Newman & McCauley, 1977). Consequently, a " b i g c i t y " - "sm a l l town" d i s t i n c -t i o n appeared t o be an i n t u i t i v e l y i n t e r e s t i n g one w i t h r e s p e c t t o the choice o f "demographic" t a r g e t l a b e l s . Moreover, i t appeared t o be a workable c l a s s i f i c a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o o b t a i n i n g "member" and "non-member" respondents. L i k e w i s e , ^ K e c h n i e ' s work on environmental d i s p o s i t i o n s ( c f . McKechnie, 1977), i n the context o f a growing s o c i a l p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y r e l a t e d i s s u e s , i n d i c a t e d t h a t " c o n s e r v a t i o n -mindedness" and "development-mindedness" would serve as two ego-i n v o l v i n g , v a l u e - d e f i n e d t a r g e t l a b e l s . An important c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n the s e l e c t i o n o f these value l a b e l s was the f a c t t h a t i t appeared l o g i c a l l y p o s s i b l e t o o b t a i n conservation-minded and development-minded respondents who had grown up i n e i t h e r a b i g c i t y o r a s m a l l town s e t t i n g . The study, then, i n v o l v e d b i g c i t y and s m a l l town respondents, who were e i t h e r ronservation-minded o r development-minded, some o f whom d e s c r i b e d e i t h e r b i g c i t y people, o r s m a l l town people, o r development-minded people, o r conservation-minded people. T h i s format p e r m i t t e d a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the c e n t r a l r e s e a r c h questions concerning t h e e f f e c t s o f group membership on the c a u s a l and - 40 -r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g stereotype content, concerning the g e n e r a l use of the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n i n s e l e c t i n g stereotype content, and concerning the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of f i n d i n g s across t a r g e t types. - 41 -CHAPTER TWO: METHOD 1.0 Overview Two hundred and fo r t y volunteers were recruited to complete a f i v e part " s o c i a l attitudes" questionnaire. The f i r s t section of each questionnaire e l i c i t e d demographic and a t t i t u d i n a l data which involved the respondents committing them-selves to membership i n p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l groups, and which allowed these i n d i v i d u a l s to be categorized i n t o one of four respondent subsamples. The second block of questionnaire items provided a uniform orienting set and a standardized context for the subsequent stereo-typing and a t t r i b u t i o n tasks. The respondents were asked to evaluate and make judgements about each of the four target groups i n the study - "people who have grown up i n big c i t i e s " , "people who have grown up i n small towns", "conservation-minded people", and "development-minded people". Some of these measures served as checks on the adequacy of the respondent c l a s s i f i c a t i o n procedure, for example, "To what extent do you agree with the aims and opinions o f people who are conservation-minded?" Other items were intended to provide information that might a i d i n the in t e r p r e t a t i o n of the major r e s u l t s , for instance, "Is your concept of people who have - 42 -grown up in small towns vague or clear?" The remaining questions were essentially f i l l e r items included largely to ensure that each of the respondents had given some attention to each of the target groups prior to the stereotyping and attribution tasks. Included in the latter category of measures were items such as, "To what extent are people who have grown up in large cities likely to leave such cities in order to live elsewhere?" The third part of the questionnaire was c r i t i c a l . The respon-dents were asked to characterize one of the target groups by select-ing a set of appropriate descriptors from an 86 item check l i s t . They were then asked to consider each of the selected trait words, in turn, and to provide two different types of attribution judge-ments. Initially, the individuals were asked to estimate parameters such as the proportion of target group members possessing each of the chosen trait descriptors. There were nine of these target related questions, in a l l . Following the target-directed attribu-tions, the respondents were asked to make eight different ratings concerning the trait terms as they applied to people in general. These latter responses served as base rate data in the generation of variable by variable diagnostic ratio indexes. For example, an individual who characterized small town people as being friendly, and who then estimated that 80% of small town people are friendly, was asked aiso to judge the percentage of - 43 -"people i n g e n e r a l " who are f r i e n d l y . T h i s l a t t e r judgement was used as a denominator i n determining the r a t i o of t a r g e t members t o people i n g e n e r a l who were considered t o be f r i e n d l y . For i n s t a n c e , 80% t- 50% r e s u l t s i n a d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o value of 1.6. T h i s type of r a t i o i n d i c a t e s the ex t e n t t o which a p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t l a b e l m o d i f i e s judgements about the p e r s o n a l i t y - t y p e d e s c r i p t i o n s under study. When they had worked through the s t e r e o t y p i n g and a t t r i b u t i o n t a s k s , the i n d i v i d u a l s completed a s e t of " s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n " items which were i n c l u d e d i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o enhance the cover s t o r y t h a t the study r e l a t e d to people's g e n e r a l views regarding a wide range of s o c i a l groups. These q u e s t i o n s r e q u i r e d the respondents to estimate the degree t o which they themselves, and the members of each of the fou r t a r g e t groups, agreed w i t h i s s u e s such as govern-ment c o n t r o l over land use. The f i f t h , and f i n a l , s e c t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e assessed the i n d i v i d u a l s ' environmental d i s p o s i t i o n s , using the Environmental Response Inventory (McKechnie, 1974). The e i g h t s u b s t a n t i v e sub-s c a l e s of the ERI provided i n f o r m a t i o n r e l e v a n t to a d e s c r i p t i o n of the l i f e s t y l e - r e l a t e d a t t i t u d e s and val u e s of the respondent samples. Of the t o t a l group of 240 v o l u n t e e r s , 120 were people who - 44 -d e s c r i b e d themselves as having grown up i n a s m a l l town s e t t i n g . The remaining 120 were people who had grown up i n what they them-s e l v e s considered t o be l a r g e c i t i e s . W i t h i n each of these two groups, 60 people d e s c r i b e d themselves as being development-minded, i n a general sense, and 60 d e s c r i b e d themselves as being conserva-tion-minded. The o v e r a l l sample, then c o n s i s t e d of four subgroups, each c o n t a i n i n g 60 people. F i f t e e n i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n each of these subgroups were asked t o d e s c r i b e "people who have grown up i n l a r g e c i t i e s " , , 15 d e s c r i b e d "people who have grown up i n s m a l l towns", 15 c h a r a c t e r i z e d "development-minded people", and the remaining 15 c h a r a c t e r i z e d "conservation-minded people". The d e s i g n thus allowed an examination of the r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g members' and nonmembers' concepts of a number o f d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l groups. The data regarding the d e m o g r a p h i c a l l y - d e f i n e d t a r g e t s ( i . e . , " b i g c i t y " and "small town" people) were analyzed s e p a r a t e l y from the responses p e r t a i n i n g t o the a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d t a r g e t groups ( i . e . , "conservation-minded" and "development-minded" p e o p l e ) . In each case, the a n a l y s i s format conformed t o a 2 x 2 x 2 f i x e d e f f e c t s manova. The f i r s t f a c t o r represented the demographic p a r t i t i o n of the respondents ( i . e . , c i t y versus s m a l l town). The second independent v a r i a b l e concerned the value d i f f e r e n c e s between the p a r t i c i p a n t s (conservation-mindedness - 45 -versus development-mindedness), and the t h i r d f a c t o r r e f l e c t e d the t a r g e t s ' s t a t u s w i t h r e s p e c t t o the respondents ( i . e . , member group versus nonmember group). The t h i r d independent v a r i a b l e , then, d i s t i n g u i s h e d between the two d i f f e r e n t types o f stereotypes generated i n the study, those of membership groups and those of outgroups. ..Each o f the respondents c h a r a c t e r i z e d a randomly presented t a r g e t group by s e l e c t i n g "the best" s i x d e s c r i p t o r s from the check l i s t of 86 t r a i t words. The nine measures which formed the f i r s t of the two s e t s of dependent v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d t o each of these t r a i t terms, f e l l i n t o three d i s t i n c t groupings. Two of the measures, estimates o f the favourableness o f the t r a i t terms and of the confidence w i t h which the t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s were made, r e f l e c t e d dimensional ( t e x t u r a l ) f e a t u r e s of the respondents' ste r e o t y p e s . Another two v a r i a b l e s measured c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s regarding the impact of i n h e r i t e d f a c t o r s and s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s on the development of the s t e r e o t y p e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The remaining f i v e q u e s tions concerned r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s about the p r o p o r t i o n of group members considered t o have each of the s e l e c t e d t r a i t s ; the chance t h a t any p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t member might have each of the s i x c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; the range of s i t u a t i o n s i n which the c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s were expressed by the t a r g e t members; the range of behaviours through which the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were manifested; and the s t a b i l i t y o f the v a r i o u s t r a i t s . The r a t i n g s f o r each of the t r a i t terms were - 46 -averaged across the s i x stereotype c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to y i e l d nine separate stereotype a t t r i b u t i o n scores. The second, complementary set of dependent measures incorpo-rated the base rate information, and provided eight diagnostic  ratio-type a t t r i b u t i o n scores per stereotype. Each respondent's estimate on each variable, for each of the s i x stereotype character-i s t i c s as they applied to the target group, was divided by the equivalent r a t i n g made for the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n question as i t applied to people i n general. The t r a i t by t r a i t r a t i o measures were then averaged to generate o v e r a l l stereotype scores on each of the diagnostic r a t i o indexes. There were eight rather than nine such indexes since no base rate estimates were obtained regarding the confidence with which the respondents would use the stereotype t r a i t s to describe people i n general. The a t t r i b u t i o n and the diagnostic r a t i o measures were treated separately i n the data analyses. 2.0 Questionnaire materials 2.1 Stereotype targets: The four target groups, as described to the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study, were "People who have grown up i n small towns", "People who have grown up i n big c i t i e s " , "Conserva-tion-minded people", and "Development-minded people". - 47 -The c i t y and small town t a r g e t s were d e f i n e d i n a r a t h e r c i r c u m s c r i b e d manner i n o r d e r t o d i r e c t a t t e n t i o n toward those p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s who were s o c i a l i z e d i n t o an urban or non-urban m i l i e u by f o r c e of circumstances r a t h e r than by choice of l i f e s t y l e . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , the l a b e l s chosen f o r the "value" groups were as broad as p o s s i b l e t o encompass those many i n d i v i d u a l s whose general value o r i e n t a t i o n s are expressed i n d i v e r s e concerns and somewhat d i f f e r e n t s e t s of a c t i v i t i e s . The i n i t i a l i n s t r u c t i o n s t o respondents completing the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n c l u d e d more e x p l i c i t d e f i n i t i o n s of the t a r g e t groups: People who have grown up i n s m a l l towns (or b i g c i t i e s ) can be thought o f as people who have spent the g r e a t e r p a r t of t h e i r e a r l y l i v e s , up u n t i l the teenage y e a r s , i n one or more sm a l l towns (or l a r g e c i t i e s ) . We would l i k e you t o r e l y on your own impressions of what are " s m a l l towns" and "big c i t i e s " when answering the r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n s . - 48 -By development-minded people we mean people who are i n t e r e s t e d i n q u e s t i o n s of economic expansion and i n d u s t r i a l , b usiness and resource growth. For development-minded people these i s s u e s would be considered more important than, f o r example, c o n s e r v a t i o n and environmental i s s u e s . Development-minded people can work i n bus i n e s s and i n d u s t r y , but they needn't neces-s a r i l y do so. By conservation-minded people we mean people who t h i n k t h a t q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d to the p r o t e c t i o n o f the environment and n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s are more important than, say, develop-ment i s s u e s . As w i t h development-minded people, these i n d i v i d u a l s can be i n v o l v e d i n many d i f f e r e n t types of jobs and l i f e s t y l e s . ( F u r t h e r note: Development-minded people can f e e l t h a t c o n s e r v a t i o n i s s u e s are important i n many senses. Y et, they t h i n k t h a t such i s s u e s are not as important as development-- 49 -r e l a t e d i s s u e s . L i k e w i s e , conservation-minded people can t h i n k t h a t development-related q u e s t i o n s are important, but they don't f e e l t h a t these q u e s t i o n s are as v i t a l and important as long term environmental and c o n s e r v a t i o n i s s u e s . ) 2.2 Stereotype Check L i s t : An e f f o r t was made to develop a check l i s t of t r a i t terms t h a t was b r o a d l y heterogeneous i n content, but t h a t i n c l u d e d p e r s o n a l i t y d e s c r i p t o r s p a r t i c u l a r l y r e l e v a n t t o s o c i a l t a r g e t s d e f i n e d along p e r s o n a l i t y and l i f e s t y l e dimensions. Thus the-pool of items was c o n s t r u c t e d " l a r g e l y from data reported i n the Environmental Response Inventory Manual (McKechnie, 1974), w i t h some supplementary words s e l e c t e d from the A d j e c t i v e Check L i s t (Gough, 1952). In conducting v a l i d a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h on the subscales of the ERI, McKechnie (1974) e s t a b l i s h e d the types of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t are f r e q u e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h high and low s c o r e r s on each of the dimensions. For i n s t a n c e , people s c o r i n g high on the P a s t o r a l i s m s c a l e are o f t e n d e s c r i b e d as outspoken and unconventional, w h i l e those s c o r i n g low on the Need f o r P r i v a c y dimension can be seen as a p p r e c i a t i v e and c o o p e r a t i v e ( c f . McKechnie, 1974, p. 2). The complete s e t of such t r a i t terms, as rep o r t e d by McKechnie, was - 50 -s y s t e m a t i c a l l y sampled t o produce a stereotype check l i s t f o r the prese n t study. Some imbalances i n a p r e l i m i n a r y l i s t were redressed w i t h the i n c l u s i o n o f a s m a l l number o f complementary items drawn from the A d j e c t i v e Check L i s t . The f i n a l t r a i t l i s t contained 86 p e r s o n a l i t y type d e s c r i p t o r s which were p r e s e n t e d t o the respondents i n a l p h a b e t i c a l order (Table 1) . The s e t o f t r a i t terms i n c l u d e d favourable and unfavourable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , as w e l l as items r e l a t e d t o the i n t e r p e r s o n a l , mood, and v a l u e domains o f p e r s o n a l i t y d e s c r i p t i o n . When pr e s e n t e d w i t h the check l i s t , each o f the respondents was asked t o s e l e c t the s i x words which seemed (to him or her) t o b e s t d e s c r i b e the l i s t e d t a r g e t group. 2.3 Questions r e g a r d i n g stereotype content: F o l l o w i n g the s t e r e o t y p i n g t a s k , t h e respondents were asked t o answer a s e t of questions d i r e c t e d a t each one of t h e i r s i x chosen t r a i t s . 2.3.1 Target-directed questions 1. D i m e n s i o n - r e l a t e d items: Two out of the nine t a r g e t d i r e c t e d questions r e f e r r e d t o what has been c a l l e d the t e x t u r a l f e a t u r e s o f th e s t e r e o t y p e d e s c r i p t i o n s (see p. 5). The i n d i v i d u a l s were r e q u i r e d t o r a t e the favourableness o f each s e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c - 51 -TABLE 1. T r a i t t e r m s i n c l u d e d i n t h e s t e r e o t y p e c h e c k l i s t AFFECTIONATE ALOOF APATHETIC APPRECIATIVE ARROGANT AWKWARD CALM CHANGEABLE COLD COMPLICATED CONSERVATIVE CONSCIENTIOUS CONVENTIONAL COOPERATIVE CRITICAL CURIOUS DEPENDABLE DEPENDENT DISSATISFIED DISTRUSTFUL EASY-GOING EFFICIENT EMOTIONAL ENTERPRISING EXTROVERTED FORMAL FRIENDLY GENEROUS HARD-HEADED HIGHBROW HONEST IDEALISTIC IMPULSIVE INDEPENDENT-MINDED INFLEXIBLE INTROSPECTIVE DSITRCVERTED LACK CONFIDENCE HAVE MANAGERIAL IOTERESTS MANIPULATIVE MOODY MORALISTIC NONCONFORMING OPPORTUNISTIC OUTSPOKEN PATIENT POLISHED POWER & MONEY ORIENTED PRACTICAL PREJUDICED PROGRESSIVE RESENTFUL RESOURCEFUL RESPONSIBLE RIGID RULE-FOIl/XvING SEEK ACCEPTANCE SEEK REASSURANCE SELF-CONTROLLED SELF-SEEKING SELFISH SENSITIVE SIMPLE SINCERE SKEPTICAL SOCIABLE STABLE STUBBORN SULKY SYMPATHETIC TOLERANT TRUSTING UNCONVENTIONAL UNDEFENDABLE UNDERSTANDING UNEMOTIONAL UNKIND UNPREDICTABLE UNSELFISH VALUE D7IELLECT-TUAL ACTIVITIES'' WARM WELL-ADJUSTED WORRYING - 52 -on a n i n e - p o i n t s c a l e (1 = very unfavourable t o 9 = very favour-able) . They were a l s o asked to judge the degree of confidence w i t h which they chose each p a r t i c u l a r d e s c r i p t o r , u s i n g a s i m i l a r nine-p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e (1 = extremely c o n f i d e n t to 9 = not c o n f i d e n t at a l l ) . 2. R e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s : The s e t of r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s i n c l u d e d p r o b a b i l i t y estimates of the p r o p o r t i o n of group members pos s e s s i n g each of .the c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s . I t a l s o i n c l u d e d estimates of the l i k e l i h o o d that any p a r t i c u l a r group member encountered possessed the t r a i t i n question. ( P o t e n t i a l l y , the responses on each v a r i a b l e c o u l d range from 0% t o 100%.) The remaining r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , made on n i n e - p o i n t , b i p o l a r r a t i n g s c a l e s , i n v o l v e d judgements concerning the range of s i t u a t i o n s i n which the ste r e o t y p e t r a i t s are l i k e l y t o be d i s -p l a y e d , the range of behaviours through which the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e r e f l e c t e d (1 = very few to 9 = very many, i n each i n s t a n c e ) , and the s t a b i l i t y of the v a r i o u s t r a i t s (1 - very s t a b l e to 9 = very u n s t a b l e ) . 3. Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s : The c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d t o the p e r c e i v e d c o n t r i b u t i o n s of p s y c h o b i o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l f a c t o r s i n the development of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s c r i b e d to the - 53 -t a r g e t groups. The a t t r i b u t i o n s i n v o l v e d separate e v a l u a t i o n s of the e f f e c t s o f i n h e r i t e d ( p s y c h o b i o l o g i c a l ) p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s , and the s o c i a l environment ( l e a r n i n g , norms, confo r m i t y pressures) i n the development of the t r a i t s a c c r e d i t e d t o the members of the t a r g e t groups. As w i t h most of the ot h e r items, the r a t i n g s were made on nine-p o i n t , b i p o l a r s c a l e s , the low ends marked by "not i n h e r i t e d at a l l " .and "not le a r n e d a t a l l , i . e . , not caused by s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s " l a b e l s , and the top ends marked by "completely i n h e r i t e d " and "completely learned..." l a b e l s . 2.3.2 Base r a t e q u e s t i o n s The i n d i v i d u a l s were asked t o respond t o s i x groups of t a r g e t d i r e c t e d q u e s t i o n s , one f o r each of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t h e i r s tereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s . Upon completion of each of these separate q u e s t i o n s e t s , the respondents were r e q u i r e d to c o n s i d e r the s t e r e o -type t r a i t under a t t e n t i o n as i t a p p l i e d t o people i n g e n e r a l . With the e x c e p t i o n o f the "confidence" judgement, each respondent repeated the r e f e r e n t i a l , c a u s a l , and d i m e n s i o n - r e l a t e d a t t r i b u t i o n r a t i n g s f o r each stereotype c h a r a c t e r i s t i c as i t r e l a t e d t o people i n general. These more broadly o r i e n t e d responses were used as base r a t e data from which to generate d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o indexes, r e f l e c t -i ng the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' use of a " d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n " when - 54 -s t e r e o t y p i n g . The wording and format of the base r a t e q u e s t i o n s were the same as those f o r the t a r g e t d i r e c t e d items i n every r e s p e c t o t h e r than the group l a b e l used. 2.4 P e r s o n a l Information Two somewhat d i f f e r e n t types of p e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n were obtained from the respondents. They were asked to provide s e l f -d e s c r i p t i v e demographic data and a l s o to complete the m u l t i s c a l e , broad-bandwidth Environmental Response Inventory ( c f . McKechnie, 1977). 2.4.1 S e l f - d e s c r i p t i v e d a t a : As a p a r t of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e package, the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study were asked t o g i v e d e t a i l s of t h e i r age, sex, occupation, p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e , p l a c e of o r i g i n , f a m i l y s i z e , m a r i t a l s t a t u s , major pastimes, and, most i m p o r t a n t l y , t h e i r g e n e r a l value o r i e n t a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o c o n s e r v a t i o n and environmental i s s u e s . The c e n t r a l item i n the "Personal Information" s e c t i o n of the s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s was: F o r the purposes of data a n a l y s i s , choose (and - 55 -c i r c l e ) the category which best d e s c r i b e s you o u t of the f o l l o w i n g f o u r : -A. A person who grew up l a r g e l y i n a s m a l l town s e t t i n g and who, g e n e r a l l y speaking, i s conservation-minded. B. A person who grew up l a r g e l y i n a s m a l l town s e t t i n g - and who, g e n e r a l l y speaking, i s development-minded. C. A person who grew up l a r g e l y i n a l a r g e c i t y s e t t i n g and who, g e n e r a l l y speaking, i s conservation-minded. D. A person who grew up l a r g e l y i n a l a r g e c i t y s e t t i n g and who, g e n e r a l l y speaking, i s development-minded. I t was on the b a s i s of the responses t o t h i s l a t t e r item and two p r e l i m i n a r y and s i m i l a r q u e s t i o n s about home environment and s o c i o -environmental va l u e s t h a t the p a r t i c i p a n t s were c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o subsamples. 2.4.2 Environmental Response Inventory data: The ERI was included i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e m a t e r i a l s t o generate i n f o r m a t i o n about the g e n e r a l , l i f e s t y l e r e l a t e d values of the respondents; as a p o t e n t i a l a i d i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of f i n d i n g s r e l a t e d to group membership; - 56 -and to lend face v a l i d i t y to the c l a i m t h a t the study was concerned w i t h a wide range of a t t i t u d e s toward l i f e s t y l e i s s u e s . There are nine subscales i n the ERI, e i g h t r e p r e s e n t i n g a v a r i e t y of environmental d i s p o s i t i o n s and one s e r v i n g as a v a l i d i t y index. The themes represented by the s u b s t a n t i v e s c a l e s of the ERI have been summarized and evaluated by McKechnie (1977), G i f f o r d (1980), and o t h e r s . B r i e f l y paraphrased, they are as f o l l o w s : P a s t o r a l i s m (PA) i s a p r o - c o n s e r v a t i o n , antidevelopment dimen-s i o n , c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a preference f o r n a t u r a l environments and a concern f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of raw resou r c e s . Urbanism (UR) r e l a t e s t o the enjoyment of the d i v e r s e and i n t e n s e a c t i v i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h densely populated c i t y s e t t i n g s . Environmental Adaptation (EA) taps a "bulldoze and be damned" a t t i t u d e , i n t h a t high s c o r e r s favour the r e t e x t u r i n g of the environment t o s u i t the needs of convenience and "progress". S t i m u l u s Seeking (SS) measures a p r e f e r e n c e f o r e x p l o r i n g - 57 -d i f f e r e n t types of s e t t i n g s and adding t o one's l i f e experiences. Environmental T r u s t (ET), t o quote G i f f o r d (1980, p. 389), "taps s e c u r i t y , l a c k of f e a r of being alone o r l o s t , and openness t o new environmental experiences." A n t i q u a r i a n i s m (AN) r e f l e c t s a p r e f e r e n c e f o r t r a d i t i o n a l d e s i g n s , o l d a r t i f a c t s , and h i s t o r i c a l p l a c e s r a t h e r than modern des i g n and s t r u c t u r e s . Need f o r P r i v a c y (NP) measures the r e l a t i v e enjoyment of s o l i t u d e and an a v e r s i o n t o neighbouring. Mechanical O r i e n t a t i o n (MO) c o n j u r e s images of . a grease covered, wrench b r a n d i s h i n g motorcycle a f f i c i o n a d o , and the s c a l e items support the impression, w i t h some concession t o an added i n t e r e s t i n e l e c t r o n i c and t e c h n o l o g i c a l hardware. The Gommunality (CO) s c a l e , or v a l i d i t y measure, i s a u s e f u l index of c a r e f u l and a t t e n t i v e q u e s t i o n n a i r e responding. 2.5 General t a r g e t e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s : P r i o r t o the s t e r e o t y p i n g t a s k s , the respondents were asked a s e r i e s of q u e s t i o n s about each o f the t a r g e t groups. As a s e t , these items served t o provide a standard framework and t o r e g u l a r i z e the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' o r i e n t a t i o n - 58 -t o the st e r e o t y p e r e l a t e d p o r t i o n s of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . A number of the measures were intended to assess the adequacy o f the subsample c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . Some questions were in c l u d e d to pro v i d e i n t e r p r e t i v e data regarding the respondents' stereotypes. Other items were e s s e n t i a l l y f i l l e r s , added so t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l s had t o c o n s i d e r each of the t a r g e t s i n t u r n from a number of p e r s p e c t i v e s . W i t h the e x c e p t i o n of some p r o p o r t i o n estimates and some age judgements, the responses t o the v a r i o u s q u e s t i o n s were made on n i n e - p o i n t r a t i n g s c a l e s . 2.5.1 C l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e l e v a n t q u e s t i o n s : Each i n d i v i d u a l was asked t o judge how s i m i l a r i n p e r s o n a l i t y and out l o o k he or she was t o the members of each of the four t a r g e t groups (e.g., t o people who are development-minded). The p o t e n t i a l responses could range from the "completely s i m i l a r " (1) t o the "completely d i s s i m i l a r " (9) end of the s c a l e . The respondents were a l s o asked to i n d i c a t e the exten t t o which they agreed (1) or disagreed (9) w i t h the aims and o p i n i o n s of conservation-minded and development-minded people. 2.5.2 Stereotype and t a r g e t e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s : The p a r t i c i p a n t s - 59 -were i n s t r u c t e d t o i n d i c a t e the r e l a t i v e vagueness (1) or c l a r i t y (9) of t h e i r concepts o f each o f the four t a r g e t groups. They were asked t o estimate the s t a t u s o f each o f the t a r g e t s , from the p e r s p e c t i v e o f Canadian s o c i e t y a t l a r g e (very h i g h = 1/ very low = 9 ) . They were requested, f u r t h e r , t o judge how c l e a r l y they p e r c e i v e d the aims and o p i n i o n s o f conservation-minded and develop-ment-minded people (very c l e a r = l / v e r y u n c l e a r = 9 ) . 2.5.3 Supplementary t a r g e t r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n s : A d d i t i o n a l r a t i n g s and e s t i m a t e s were e l i c i t e d r e g a r d i n g : the p r o p o r t i o n o f the Canadian p o p u l a t i o n represented by each o f the fo u r t a r g e t groups (0% - 100%); t h e e x t e n t t o which the members o f each o f the groups were s i m i l a r i n terms o f t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t i e s and o u t l o o k s ; the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t a r g e t members would leave t h e i r c h i l d h o o d e n v i r o n -ment t o l i v e elsewhere o r change t h e i r conservation/development v a l u e s (not a t a l l = 1 - t o a very great extent = 9 ) ; t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e i r e n t i r e l i v e s t h a t people spend l i v i n g i n s m a l l towns o r l a r g e c i t i e s , o r remain committed t o t h e i r environmental value p e r s p e c t i v e s ; t h e age a t which people become conservation-nunded o r development-minded; and the degree o f p e r s o n a l freedom e n t a i l e d i n adopting one o r the o t h e r o f the value p o s i t i o n s . - 60 -2.'5.4 L i f e s t y l e a t t i t u d e q u e s t i o n s : The q u e s t i o n n a i r e m a t e r i a l s i n c l u d e d one f u r t h e r s e t of items r e l a t e d t o the respondents' own a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g a number of l i f e s t y l e and environmental i s s u e s , and t o the respondents' estimates of each o f the t a r g e t group's g e n e r a l views on the is s u e s . The p a r t i c i p a n t s i n d i c a t e d the e x t e n t t o which they agreed (1) o r d i s a g r e e d (9) w i t h " o p p o s i t i o n t o l a n d development" and "a concern w i t h the p r e s e r v a t i o n of n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s , i n c l u d i n g the co u n t r y s i d e and open space". They made s i m i l a r r a t i n g s of the p o s i t i o n s of s m a l l town people, b i g c i t y people, conservation-minded people, and development-minded people on each of the i s s u e s . F u r t h e r judgements were made about whether o r not "the enjoy-ment of crowds and high d e n s i t y l i v i n g " , "an i n t e r e s t i n c u l t u r a l l i f e " , " o p p o s i t i o n to government c o n t r o l over p r i v a t e land use", and "f a v o u r i n g the use of technology t o s o l v e environmental problems" represented (1) or opposed (9) the v i e w p o i n t s of the i n d i v i d u a l s themselves, and of the members of each of the four t a r g e t groups. A f i n a l s e t of own and other r a t i n g s were provided concerning the degree t o which "an i n t e r e s t i n t r a v e l " , "an openness and t r u s t o f the g e n e r a l environment", "an enjoyment of antique s and h i s t o r -i c a l p l a c e s " , "a need f o r p r i v a c y " , and "an i n t e r e s t i n mechanics i n i t s v a r i o u s forms" c h a r a c t e r i z e d the s e l f and the d i f f e r e n t t a r g e t - 61 -group members (very characteristic - 1/very uncharacteristic - 9). The 11 attitude items related to the various themes of the EPJ subscales. While the 55-rating question set was not directly relevant to the major purpose of the study, i t was included for two reasons. I • A primary concern centered on the desire to build face v a l i d i t y into the stimulus materials "measuring attitudes about environmental issues, and perceptions about different social groups", and to minimize the emphasis on the stereotyping and attribution tasks. It was f e l t that by embedding the stereotype questions in a broader context the participants would be less sensitized to "appropriate" modes of responding. In one sense, then, the attitude items served to expand the scope of the study, from the respondents' perspective. The second consideration emerged from speculations about the pattern of intercorrelations among the causal and referential attribution measures. An unstable or nonsignificant matrix of coefficients could result either because individuals' attributions were not related psychologically, or because of inappropriate measuring procedures. To assist in teasing out the more l i k e l y explanation for null findings, i t was important to e l i c i t a set of ratings in a separate content domain, for comparative purposes. The attitude judgements f i l l e d this requirement. - 62 -3 . 0 S t r u c t u r e o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was designed t o be s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r i n g . I t was d i v i d e d i n t o f i v e d i f f e r e n t s e c t i o n s w i t h accompanying i n s t r u c -t i o n s and a s e t of p r e l i m i n a r y comments and caveats. D e t a i l s of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t r u c t u r e and examples of the items included i n each o f the f i v e s e c t i o n s are presented i n Appendix A. With the excep-t i o n of the s t e r e o t y p e a t t r i b u t i o n s e c t i o n , the questions w i t h i n each of the separate segments of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were arranged i n a non-systematic and/or randomized order. The stereotype a t t r i b u -t i o n items were grouped on the b a s i s of feedback from a small p i l o t sample (n=15). These people made s e v e r a l comments about the p a r t i c u l a r arrangement of q u e s t i o n s t h a t was most comfortable f o r them. 4 . 0 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n procedure Data were c o l l e c t e d i n Whitehorse, Yukon, i n Vancouver, B.C. and i n a v a r i e t y of o t h e r communities around western Canada, i n c l u d i n g Dawson C i t y , Carcross, F o r t Nelson, Vanderhoof, Aggassiz, M i s s i o n , V i c t o r i a , and Kelowna. A v a r i e t y of procedures were invoked t o r e c r u i t v o l u n t e e r s and dispense the q u e s t i o n n a i r e m a t e r i a l s . C a l l s f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s were - 63 -made i n u n i v e r s i t y c l a s s e s i n the psychology, education, commerce, geography, e n g i n e e r i n g , economics, anthropology, and p h y s i c a l education departments. Teachers and students i n Yukon s c h o o l s , and i n the Yukon V o c a t i o n a l and T e c h n i c a l T r a i n i n g Centre were approached and drawn i n t o the study. Networks of f r i e n d s and acquaintances were combed f o r s u i t a b l e respondents. F i t n e s s c l a s s e s were s o l i c i t e d , so, too, were t y p i n g c l a s s e s , and courses on income tax r e t u r n s and p r o s p e c t i n g . • C i r c u l a r s were mailed t o the members o f s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t groups such as the Yukon Conservation S o c i e t y and the Yukon H o s t e l i n g A s s o c i a t i o n . B u s i n e s s , mining, and resource groups were p e t i t i o n e d , and data were obtained from banks, heavy equipment f i r m s , a power c o r p o r a t i o n , and a v a r i e t y of s m a l l businesses. N o t i c e s were posted i n p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s such as l i b r a r i e s and post o f f i c e s . A c a l l f o r v o l u n t e e r s was voi c e d a t the end of a l o c a l r a d i o i n t e r v i e w about the study, and, t o cap the e l e c t i o n e e r i n g tone of the r e c r u i t m e n t process, some m a i n s t r e e t i n g was done w i t h l i m i t e d success. In a l l i n s t a n c e s , whether the respondents were r e c r u i t e d i n s m a l l groups o r i n d i v i d u a l l y , and whether they were contacted by m a i l o r i n person, the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were handed out w i t h some i n t r o d u c t o r y e x p l a n a t o r y remarks. A c o n t a c t phone number was provided i n case of any encountered d i f f i c u l t y , and the p a r t i c i p a n t s were allowed t o take the s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s w i t h them so t h a t they c o u l d complete them a t t h e i r own convenience. S u i t a b l e r e t r i e v a l - 64 -arrangements were made and the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were returned a t i n t e r v a l s t h a t ranged from a couple of hours t o a number of weeks. 5.0 Data e v a l u a t i o n c r i t e r i a The d a t a were c o l l e c t e d i n a v a r i e t y of s e t t i n g s over the course of an i n t e r v a l t h a t , from s t a r t t o f i n i s h , spanned 12 months. During t h i s time a number of unexpected problems developed, and, very e a r l y on i n the study, a set of ad hoc c r i t e r i a emerged w i t h r e s p e c t t o the d e c i s i o n t o i n c l u d e o r exclude q u e s t i o n n a i r e s from the response sample. Returned d a t a s e t s t h a t were incomplete i n any way were excluded from the study. In one or two i s o l a t e d i n s t a n c e s i t was p o s s i b l e t o salvage u n f i n i s h e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s by r e c o n t a c t i n g the p a r t i c i p a n t s . However, the c o n d i t i o n s of anonymity precluded t h i s f o r the most p a r t . W i t h the e a r l y l o s s of some q u e s t i o n s e t s due t o a m b i g u i t i e s i n the respondents' s e l f - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , a check was e s t a b l i s h e d immediately upon the r e t u r n of each q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Three responses were examined w i t h a view t o d e t e c t i n g p o s s i b l e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s and/or i n t e r p r e t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s . The answer t o the q u e s t i o n regarding whether or not the p a r t i c i p a n t had grown up i n a s m a l l town or a b i g c i t y s e t t i n g was s c r u t i n i z e d as was the response to - 65 -the q u e s t i o n about whether the i n d i v i d u a l was c o n s e r v a t i o n - o r i e n t e d or•development-minded. These answers were then compared w i t h the respondent's s e l f - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n t o one of the four subsample c a t e g o r i e s . I n c o n s i s t e n c i e s were noted and an attempt was made to r e s o l v e them w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l i n q u e s t i o n . I n t e r p r e t i v e d i f f i -c u l t i e s most f r e q u e n t l y arose i n cases where people d e s c r i b e d themselves as being both c o n s e r v a t i o n - and development-minded. Unless such problems were unambiguously r e s o l v e d the data were excluded from the analyses. Because of incompleteness and ambiguity, approximately the same number of q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e t u r n s were excluded from the data samples as were included.5 As each t a r g e t was des c r i b e d and ev a l u a t e d by a d i f f e r e n t subgroup w i t h i n each of the four subsamples, there were 16 c e l l s i n the o v e r a l l e x p e r i m e n t a l design. F i f t e e n s e t s of responses vere i n c l u d e d i n each of these c e l l s . Tne four v e r s i o n s of the q u e s t i o n -n a i r e , c o n s t r u c t e d t o e l i c i t stereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s of the four d i f f e r e n t t a r g e t groups, were administered b l i n d and at random. Thus a l a r g e number of the experimental c e l l s (12) became o v e r f u l l p r i o r t o the completion of data c o l l e c t i o n . R e l u c t a n t l y , but t o ensure eq u a l c e l l s i z e s and thus f a c i l i t a t e d a t a a n a l y s e s , s u r p l u s q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d e l e t e d on a random b a s i s from the f i n a l sample o f responses. - 66 -6.0 Scoring procedure and the experimental design 6.1 Stereotype content: The d e s c r i p t i v e terms i n c l u d e d i n the p e r s o n a l s t e r e o t y p e s o f the members of the 15-person experimental subgroups were t a b u l a t e d t o generate a t o t a l o f four s o c i a l s t e r e o -types ( c f . K a r l i n s , Goffman, and Walters, 1969; McTiernan, 1977) f o r each o f the fo u r t a r g e t groups. For i n s t a n c e , the t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s o f the s m a l l town development-minded people who c h a r a c t e r i z e d conservation-minded i n d i v i d u a l s were compiled t o determine the s e t o f p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s most f r e q u e n t l y a t t r i b u t e d t o the t a r g e t i n q u e s t i o n . I n the case o f each o f the 16 s o c i a l s tereotypes so co n s t r u c t e d , the l i s t o f t r a i t terms i n c l u d e d those items a s c r i b e d t o the t a r g e t by a t l e a s t 25% (four o r more) of the subgroup. The s o c i a l s t e r e o t y p e s , then, encapsulate and exemplify the types o f terms i n the p e r s o n a l stereotypes o f the members o f the d i f f e r e n t e x p e r imental groups. 6.2 Stereotype dimension measures: Favourableness and confidence (of s t e r e o t y p i n g ) scores were computed f o r each stereotype by averaging t h e r a t i n g s a p p l i e d t o the s i x d i f f e r e n t t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s i n each c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores were c a l c u l a t e d f o r the favourableness dimension, as an index o f the e x t e n t t o which the - 67 -target group la b e l s affected t r a i t evaluations (cf. McCauley and S t i t t , 1978, p. 939). These measures were obtained by a two-step process. The favourableness rati n g for each stereotype t r a i t as i t described the target group i n question was divided by the complemen-tary judgement made when the t r a i t was evaluated i n r e l a t i o n to people i n general (the base rate judgement). The s i x t r a i t s p e c i f i c r a t i o s were then averaged to obtain a stereotype s p e c i f i c diagnostic r a t i o score. 6.3 Referential and causal a t t r i b u t i o n measures: In the same way that favourableness and confidence ratings were generated, the respondents' t r a i t directed causal and r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n judgements were averaged to produce mean stereotype scores. There were seven such measures, f i v e r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n variables, and two causal a t t r i b u t i o n items. These included (1) the mean estimate of the target population considered to have the stereotype t r a i t s , (2) the mean rating of the range of settings i n which the stereotype t r a i t s were l i k e l y to be manifested, (3) the mean estimate of the range, of behaviours through which the t r a i t s are re f l e c t e d , (4) the mean s t a b i l i t y rating of the t r a i t s , and (5) the mean estimate of the l i k e l i h o o d that encountered target members possess the t r a i t s , as w e l l as the mean ratings of (6) the influences of inherited predispositions and (7) the s o c i a l environ-ment on the development of the stereotype t r a i t s . - 68 -The two-step process described i n the previous paragraph was used to produce complementary d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o measures f o r each of the r e f e r e n t i a l and causal a t t r i b u t i o n v a r i a b l e s . 6.4 A d d i t i o n a l composite v a r i a b l e s : The eig h t substantive, and the a d d i t i o n a l v a l i d i t y s c a l e s of the ERI were computer scored according t o the p r e s c r i p t i o n s i n McKechnie's manual (p. 4). 6.5 Target c l a s s i f i c a t i o n : The experimental design, o u t l i n e d below, was b u i l t around the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the tar g e t s i n t o member and non-member groups v i s - a - v i s the respondents. I t i s important to note, i n t h i s respect, that the stereotypes and stereo-type measures associated with any p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t group were c l a s s i f i e d d i f f e r e n t l y , depending on the respondents who provided them. Thus the stereotypes of big c i t y people were ingroup stereo-types f o r the big c i t y conservation-minded and development-minded respondents, but outgroup c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s f o r the small town p a r t i c i p a n t s . Likewise, the d e s c r i p t i o n s of conservation-minded people c o n s t i t u t e d member group stereotypes f o r the big c i t y and small town conservation-minded i n d i v i d u a l s , but not so f o r t h e i r development-minded counterparts. 6.7 Experimental design and an a l y s i s - stereotype measures: The o v e r a l l experimental design, t e s t i n g the e f f e c t s of group membership on the a t t r i b u t i o n s underlying the content of ( d i f f e r e n t types of) - 69 -s t e r e o t y p e s , conforms t o a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 f a c t o r i a l , between groups, f i x e d e f f e c t s , m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e model. Two of the f a c t o r s r e p r e s e n t sample v a r i a b l e s , the demographic d i f f e r e n c e between the respondents and the c o n t r a s t i n g value o r i e n t a t i o n s o f the p a r t i c i p a n t s (demogroups and value-groups). The remaining two f a c t o r s r e p r e s e n t s t e r e o t y p e v a r i a b l e s , the member group - non-member group dichotomy, and the d i f f e r e n t t a r g e t types demographically d e f i n e d versus a t t i t u d i n a l l y d e f i n e d . For convenience purposes, and t o avoi d the p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f h i g h e r order i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s , the ste r e o t y p e measures r e l a t e d t o the a t t i t u d i n a l l y d e f i n e d t a r g e t s were analyzed s e p a r a t e l y from those o b t a i n e d f o r the demographically d e f i n e d s t i m u l u s groups. Thus, p r a c t i c a l l y , the study can be construed as a 2 x 2 x 2 manova experiment w i t h one r e p l i c a t i o n using somewhat d i f f e r e n t t a r g e t s t i m u l i . The independent v a r i a b l e s remaining w i t h i n the manova format are t h e Demogroup (see p r e v i o u s paragraph), Value-group, and Target membership f a c t o r s . Three m u l t i v a r i a t e analyses o f v a r i a n c e were performed on the dependent measures w i t h i n each separate s e t o f st e r e o t y p e data. The two s t e r e o t y p e dimension v a r i a b l e s were i n c l u d e d w i t h the f i v e r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n measures i n one o f the manovas, the ca u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s were examined i n another, and a l l o f the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores were i n c o r p o r a t e d i n the t h i r d a n a l y s i s . As w i t h the - 70 -compartmentalization of the o v e r a l l d e s i g n , these dependent measure groupings were e s t a b l i s h e d to f a c i l i t a t e the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the f i n d i n g s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the a t t r i b u t i o n and stereotype dimension v a r i a b l e s were explored w i t h c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses. In a l l , e i g h t c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i c e s were generated. The group members' responses f o r each t a r g e t (ns = 30) were analyzed s e p a r a t e l y from the non-members' dependent v a r i a b l e scores. Thus, i n examining the i n t e r - v a r i a b l e c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the s t e r e o t y p e s of Big C i t y People, the scores from the b i g c i t y development-minded and conservation-minded people were t r e a t e d independently from the data provided by the s m a l l town respondents. Supplementary analyses were performed on the s t e r e o t y p e a t t r i -b u t i o n measures and these w i l l be d e s c r i b e d i n the a p p r o p r i a t e s e c t i o n s of the r e s u l t s and d i s c u s s i o n chapters. The t a r g e t e v a l u a t i o n and ERI subscale scores were examined w i t h i n the framework of 2 x 2 between-groups, m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e mode. The independent v a r i a b l e s represented the demo-gra p h i c and value s t a t u s of the respondents. 7.0 Respondents The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s included i n the data analyses were completed - 71 -by 87 males and 153 females who ranged in age from 15 to 66. The majority of the respondents were in their twenties. The mean age for the sample was 26. The small town participants tended to be older than their big city counterparts (M = 28.1 and 23.8, respectively; F (1,236) = 17.30, p<.0001), and the development-minded respondents were somewhat older than the conservation-minded volunteers (M = 27.0 and 24.9, respectively; F(l,236) = 4.13, p<.04). The sample represented a diverse set of occupations from Wildlife Biologist, Radio Operator, Nurse, Firefighter, and Student (College and Highschool) to Corporation Manager, Hair Dresser, Lawyer, Artist, R. CM.P. Officer, Broadcaster, and Furniture Polisher. Likewise, the respondents came from a wide variety of settings, including small towns in a l l of the Canadian Provinces and many of the U.S. states. Indeed, some of the individuals had grown up in countries such as Nigeria, New Zealand, England, Ireland, Australia, Kenya, Holland, and Trinidad. Among the cities most frequently represented by the "big city" respondents were Montreal, Hong Kong, Vancouver, Toronto, and Winnipeg. More specifically, the individuals who professed to be small - 72 -town conservation-minded people ranged in age from 16 to 53 (M = 26.8; sd = 8.3). Ten were males and 50 were females, and, of these, 22 were married or cohabiting and 38 were single or divorced. Twenty-eight men and 32 women formed the small town develop- ment-minded sample. Half of them were married and the other half single. Their ages varied between 15 and 66, the average being 29.4 (sd =11.1). The big city conservation-minded respondents included 15 males and 45 females whose ages ranged between 18 and 38 (M = 23.0; sd = 4.6). Seven were married and 53 were single. The individuals who described themselves in big city develop- ment-minded terms included 34 men and 26 women. The youngest of these was 18 and the oldest was 54. The average age was 24.6 (sd = 6.6). Twelve of the 60 people were married or cohabiting, and 48 were single or divorced. In general, the small town respondents came from larger families than the big city sample members (M = 6.1 and 5.2, respec-tively; F(l,236) = 14.25, p<.0003). There was no indication in the data, though, that the four groups of respondents differed from each - 73 -o t h e r w i t h r e s p e c t t o the number and type of t h e i r hobbies and r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . W h ile the o v e r a l l sample i n c l u d e d N a t i v e I n d i a n , I n u i t , Chinese, and E a s t I n d i a n members, the v a s t m a j o r i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s were white Canadians and people of European a n c e s t r y . CHAPTER THREE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION PROCEDURAL CHECKS AND THE TREATMENT OF METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES On the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f respondents The p a r t i c i p a n t s were c l a s s i f i e d i n t o one of the four subsample groups on the b a s i s of t h e i r answers t o the e i t h e r / o r questions r e g a r d i n g whether they were from small town o r b i g c i t y s e t t i n g s , and whether they were conservation-minded o r development-minded. Some of the items i n the i n i t i a l t a r g e t - r e l a t e d block of q u e s t i o n s y i e l d e d responses t h a t allowed a t e s t of the adequacy of t h i s c a t e g o r i z a t i o n procedure. I n making g e n e r a l e v a l u a t i o n s of the four t a r g e t groups, the i n d i v i d u a l s were asked t o r a t e t h e i r own s i m i l a r i t y , i n p e r s o n a l i t y and o u t l o o k , t o b i g c i t y people, small town people, c o n s e r v a t i o n -minded people, and development-minded people. They were asked a l s o t o judge the exten t t o which they agreed w i t h the aims and opi n i o n s o f both conservation-minded i n d i v i d u a l s and development-minded people. The mean scores f o r each of the subsample groups are presented i n Table 2. These d a t a , together w i t h measures on 14 o t h e r e v a l u a t i o n T a b l e 2 Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r the subsample members' r a t i n g s o f t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y t o each o f the f o u r t a r g e t g r o u p s , and f o r t h e i r agreement w i t h the aims o f c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d and d e v e l o p m e n t - m i n d e d p e o p l e RESPONDENT S i m i l a r i t y t o S i m i l a r i t y t o S i m i l a r i t y t o S i m i l a r i t y t o Agree w i t h Agree w i t h GROUPS S m a l l Town B i g C i t y C o n s e r v a t i o n - Development- C o n s e r v a t i o n - Development-(ns = 60) P e o p l e P e o p l e P e o p l e P e o p l e P e o p l e P e o p l e M M M M M M sd sd sd s d s d Sd S m a l l Town C o n s e r v a t i o n - 4. 57 6.6 8 3.43 6.72 2.34 6.23 Minded^ P e o p l e 2.08 1.67 1.54 1.56 1.12 1.86 S m a l l Town Development- 4.68 5.78 5.35 4.18 4.93 3.57 Minded P e o p l e 1.69 1.68 1.34 1.52 1.41 1.2 3 B i g C i t y C o n s e r v a t i o n - 5.69 5.06 3.91 5.84 3.01 5.74 Minded P e o p l e 1.61 1.74 1.31 1.55 1.51 1. 58 B i g C i t y Development- 6.23 4.85 5.73 4 . 37 5.07 3.32 Minded P e o p l e 1.47 1.92 1.53 . 1.73 1.59 0.95 Note: 1 = c o m p l e t e l y s i m i l a r / c o m p l e t e l y a g r e e ; 9 = c o m p l e t e l y d i s s i m i l a r / c o m p l e t e l y d i s a g r e e , - 76 -dimensions,' were analyzed i n a 2. (demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f respondents) x 2 (value o r i e n t a t i o n of respondents) m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . The m u l t i v a r i a t e t e s t s of s i g n i f i c a n c e , using W i l k s 1 Lamda ( l i k e l i h o o d - r a t i o ) c r i t e r i o n , y i e l d e d s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s f o r both the demographic f a c t o r (F(20,217) = 6.88, jX.001) and the a t t i t u d i n a l f a c t o r (F(20,217) = 15.98, j X . 0 0 1 ) . The t e s t of the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was n o n s i g n i f i c a n t (F(20,217) = 1.10, p<.35). Supplementary u n i v a r i a t e analyses of v a r i a n c e were performed s e p a r a t e l y f o r each of the dependent v a r i a b l e s , and the r e s u l t s f o r the s i x measures r e l a t e d to the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of respondents are summarized i n Table 3. The s m a l l town respondents r a t e d themselves as being more s i m i l a r to s m a l l town people (M = 4.62 ve r s u s 5.96) and l e s s s i m i l a r t o b i g c i t y people (M = 6.23 versus 4.96) than d i d the b i g c i t y p a r t i c i p a n t s . In t h e i r t u r n , the conservation-minded i n d i v i d u a l s considered themselves t o be more l i k e conservation-minded people (M = 3.67 versus 5.54) and l e s s l i k e development-minded i n d i v i d u a l s (M = 6.28 versus 4.28) than d i d the development-minded respondents. Moreover, the conservation-minded respondents agreed more w i t h the aims and o p i n i o n s o f conservation-minded people than d i d the development-minded p a r t i c i p a n t s (M - 2.12 versus 5.00). The r e v e r s e happened T a b l e 3 U n i v a r i a t e F-values and e r r o r terms f o r the a n a l y s e s of the s i m i l a r i t y and agreement r a t i n g s p e r t a i n i n g t o the t a r g e t groups Source of V a r i a n c e df VARIABLE E s t i m a t e d s i m i l a r i t y t o : Sma l l Town B i g C i t y Con. - Md. People People People E s t i m a t e d agreement w i t h : Dev. - Md. Con. - Md. Dev. - Md. People P e o p l e P e o p l e Demographic Groups (A) 1 V a l u e Groups (B) 1 A X B 1 36.03*** 31.88*** 5.38* 2.83 2.18 5.98* 102.22*** 94.98*** 0.91 2.33 0.06 6.62** 3.73 3.94* 154.38*** 185.89*** 1.45 0. 42' E r r o r Term 236 2.98 3.08 2.06 2.54 2 .02 2.09 *£ < .05 **£ = .011 ***p_<. 0001 - 78 -when they r a t e d t h e i r agreement w i t h the o p i n i o n s of development-minded people (M = 5.98 versus 3.44). In essence, then, the c l a s s i f i c a t o r y procedure seemed e f f e c t i v e  i n c a t e g o r i z i n g the respondents i n t o d i s t i n c t i v e , p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  s a l i e n t , membership subgroups. The broader p s y c h o l o g i c a l r a m i f i c a t i o n s o f the subsample c a t e g o r i e s are r e f l e c t e d i n the r e s u l t s of the 2 (demogroups) x 2 (value-groups) m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on the ERI v a r i a b l e s . There were s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s f o r the demographic (F(9,228) = 5.46, p<.001) and a t t i t u d i n a l f a c t o r s (F(9,228) = 21.48, p<.001). The m u l t i v a r i a t e t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was n o n s i g n i f i c a n t (F(9,228) = 1.19, p<.30). As the subgroup means i n d i c a t e (Table 4 ) , and the u n i v a r i a t e F values c o n f i r m (Table 5 ) , the s m a l l town respondents scored d e t e c t -a b l y h i gher than t h e i r b i g c i t y c o u n t e r p a r t s on the p a s t o r a l ism s c a l e (M = 77.9 ver s u s 75.33). They a l s o had s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower urbanism s c o r e s (M = 55.15 versus 64.18), and m a r g i n a l l y lower environmental t r u s t scores (M = 63.39 versus 65.32).8 The d i f f e r e n c e s between the conservation-minded and develop-ment-minded respondent c a t e g o r i e s were more pronounced s t i l l . The conservation-minded i n d i v i d u a l s had higher p a s t o r a l i s m scores (M = T a b l e 4 M e a n s a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s o n e a c h o f t h e E R I s u b s c a l e s f o r e a c h o f t h e s u b g r o u p s o f r e s p o n d e n t s RESPONDENT GROUP (ns = 60) S n w l l Town C c n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d B i g C i t y Ccnservatian-mirided ERI S u b s c a l e s PA UR EA SS E T AN NP MO CO M M M M M M . M - M M s d s d s d s d . s d s d s d s d s d / 82.52 51 .85 62 .05 66 .22 62 .00 71.75 56.48 63 .97 82 .07 P e o p l e 8.42 10 .30 9 .97 10 .35 8.54 7.79 7.40 10 .60 5 .66 S m a l l Town Dsve- l o p n e n t - m i n d e d P e o p l e 9.66 13.12 7.93 13 .36 6 .75 10.63 7.69 11 .27 6 .68 73.28 58 .45 74.25 67 .22 64.78 64.53 56 .60 68 .88 8 0 . 0 5 80.33 60 .57 64 .93 67 .87 61 .43 71.25 56 .47 62 .08 81 .98 People 8.20 10.34 9.46 9 .66 7 .33 8.80 8.16 • 11 .07 5 .27 B i g C i t y D e v e l o p m e n t - m i n d e d P e o p l e 7.58 9.80 7.26 9 .72 7.75 10.10 7 .91 9 .88 6 .96 70.33 67.78 73 .87 69 .78 69 .20 62.58 56.08 69 .98 78 .87 T a b l e 5 U n i v a r i a t e F-v a l u e s and e r r o r terms f o r the a n a l y s e s o f the ERI s c a l e s c o r e s Source o f V a r i a n c e d f VARIABLE PA UR EA SS ET AN NP MO CO Demographic Groups (A) 1 5.47** 40.63*** 1.23 2.25 3.83* 1.02 0.07 0.08 0.63 Value Groups (B) 1 76.80*** 23.81*** 88.00*** 1.08 28.76*** 42.85*** 0.02 21.44*** 10.35*** A X B 1 0.12 0.05 2.10 0.11 6.42** 0.36 0.06 1.16 0.48 Error Term 236 72.24 120.29 76.13 118.34 58.06 88.31 60.75 114.96 38.20 *£<.052 **£ <.02 **£<.001 - 81 -81.42 versus 71.80), lower urbanism scores (M = 56.21 versus 63.12), lower environmental adaptation scores (M = 63.49 versus 74.06), lower environmental t r u s t (M = 61.72 versus 66.99), higher a n t i -quarianism (M = 71.50 versus 63.56), and a lower mechanical o r i e n t a t i o n (M = 63.02 versus 69.43) than the development-minded p a r t i c i p a n t s . They also scored more highly on the communality scale (M = 82.02 versus 79.46). To summarize the o v e r a l l findings, the subsamples were separ-ated neatly along a somewhat narrow urban non-urban dimension and along a much more broadly based environmental value dimension. 9 S e l f - i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and the target groups When considering the effects of group membership on stereotype responses, i t i s of interest to know i f the respondents construed i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with one target group as being re l a t e d , p o s i t i v e l y or negatively, to i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the other groups. I t was pos-s i b l e to examine the correlations between a number of the p a r t i c i -pants' r a t i n g scores. These included the i n d i v i d u a l s ' estimates of t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y to small town, big c i t y , conservation-minded and development-minded people, respectively. They also included the ratings of agreement with the aims and opinions of conservation-minded and development-minded people. The correlations between these s i x " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n " measures were calculated separately for - 82 -each of the subgroups of respondents, as w e l l as f o r the sample as a whole. Regardless of whether the p a r t i c i p a n t s were from a s m a l l town o r a b i g c i t y , t h e i r p e r c e i v e d s i m i l a r i t y t o people from a small town s e t t i n g was u n r e l a t e d to t h e i r p e r c e i v e d s i m i l a r i t y t o people from l a r g e c i t i e s . Nor d i d estimated s i m i l a r i t y t o s m a l l town people c o r r e l a t e w i t h estimated s i m i l a r i t y t o (or agreement with) conservation-minded and development-minded i n d i v i d u a l s . L i k e w i s e , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h b i g c i t y people tended t o be unrelated t o i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h the p e r s o n a l i t y or o p i n i o n s of conservation-minded and development-minded people. The exceptions t o t h i s p a t t e r n o c c u r r e d i n the responses of the s m a l l town conser-vation-minded and the b i g c i t y development-minded p a r t i c i p a n t s . Both groups y i e l d e d a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between r a t i n g s of s i m i l a r i t y t o b i g c i t y people and judgements of s i m i l a r i t y t o development-minded people (rs = 0.374 p<.01 and 0.329 p<.02 f o r the S.T.C.-m. and B.C.D.-m. groups, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . For the most p a r t , p a r t i c i p a n t s who judged themselves as being s i m i l a r to conservation-minded people i n p e r s o n a l i t y and o u t l o o k d i d not r a t e themselves as being u n l i k e development-minded people ( t o t a l sample r = -0.136, f o r example). However, agreement w i t h the aims and o p i n i o n s of conservation-minded people was n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d - 83 -w i t h agreement w i t h the aims and o p i n i o n s of development-minded people ( t o t a l sample r = -0.262, p<.01; subsample r = -0.279, p<.05), suggesting t h a t these t a r g e t s were seen t o be on opposite ends of the same value spectrum. On the r e l i a b i l i t y of the data s e t s The t a s k t h a t faced the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n completing the ques-t i o n n a i r e package was long and r e p e t i t i v e . Many of the items were unusual o r couched i n an u n f a m i l i a r form. The modal response time turned out t o be between two and three hours. Given these c o n d i -t i o n s , any preamble t o the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the major f i n d i n g s of the study should i n c l u d e some comment on the confidence w i t h which one can address the data. The evidence a t hand i s r e a s s u r i n g . Indeed, the r e s e a r c h requirements p r a c t i c a l l y ensured t h a t o n l y those i n d i v i d u a l s who responded c a r e f u l l y and d i l i g e n t l y were in c l u d e d i n the sample. An uncomfortably l a r g e number of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s disappeared i n t o the Northern bush, i n t o government f i l i n g systems, and i n t o the o f f i c e towers of the b u s i n e s s s e c t i o n of downtown Vancouver, never to be seen again.10 Those t h a t were returned showed every evidence o f having been t r e a t e d i n a s e r i o u s manner. Apart from the i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c e v a l u a t i o n of the d a t a , there - 84 -are a number of indexes t o the e f f e c t t h a t the respondents p a i d c l o s e a t t e n t i o n t o the s t i m u l u s items throughout the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . In the i n i t i a l b l o c k o f t a r g e t e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n s , the c o r r e l a t i o n between the respondents' estimates of t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y t o conservation-minded people and t h e i r judgements of the ex t e n t to which they agreed w i t h the o p i n i o n s of conservation-minded people was p o s i t i v e and s i g n i f i c a n t , as might be expected ( t o t a l sample r = 0.335, p<.01; subsample r = 0.332, p<.02). S i m i l a r l y , the subgroup c o r r e l a t i o n s f o r the estim a t e s of the s i m i l a r i t y t o and agreement w i t h development-minded people ranged between 0.288 (p<.05) and 0.518 (jx.01). The c o r r e l a t i o n a l and va r i a n c e analyses of the ge n e r a l l i f e -s t y l e a t t i t u d e q u e s t i o n s t h a t f o l l o w e d the s t e r e o t y p i n g t a s k produced a w e a l t h o f s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s t h a t were i n t u i t i v e l y understandable and r e a d i l y i n t e r p r e t a b l e . . For i n s t a n c e , conserva-tion-minded respondents considered themselves t o be much more opposed to land development than d i d development-minded respondents (M = 4.33 v e r s u s 6.42; F(l,236) = 71.25, p<.001). Small town respondents r a t e d t h e i r enjoyment of crowds as being much l e s s than d i d b i g c i t y p a r t i c i p a n t s (M = 7.01 versus 5.77; F(l,236) = 26.95, p<.001), and the t o t a l sample c o r r e l a t i o n between i n t e r e s t i n t r a v e l judgements and r a t i n g s of one's openness and t r u s t of the e n v i r o n -ment was 0.283 (p<.01). - 85 -In a d d i t i o n i t was s a t i s f y i n g to note t h a t , f o r the subgroups as w e l l as f o r the t o t a l sample, the p a t t e r n s o f c o r r e l a t i o n s between the ERI s c a l e s (Appendix C) were s i m i l a r t o those re p o r t e d i n the ERI Manual (McKechnie, 1974). When these v a r i o u s observations are pi e c e d t o g e t h e r , they provide a st r o n g body of c i r c u m s t a n t i a l evidence suggesting t h a t the q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses y i e l d e d r e l i a b l e data. There i s no i n d i c a -t i o n t h a t the s t e r e o t y p e r e l a t e d judgements, embedded as they were i n a broader s e t of t a s k s , were made a r b i t r a r i l y o r wit h o u t due care. S e c t i o n Summary P r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s e s of the data confirmed t h a t the p a r t i c i -pants i n the study had been c l a s s i f i e d a p p r o p r i a t e l y i n t o the four respondent subgroups. There was evidence t o suggest t h a t i d e n t i -f i c a t i o n w i t h s m a l l town people was independent of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h b i g c i t y people, but t h a t agreement w i t h the o p i n i o n s of development-minded people was seen t o e n t a i l disagreement w i t h the op i n i o n s o f conservation-minded i n d i v i d u a l s . I m p r e s s i o n i s t i c o b s e r v a t i o n s and q u a n t i t a t i v e f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the p a r t i c i -pants responded t o the q u e s t i o n n a i r e task i n a c a r e f u l and r e l i a b l e manner. - 86 -THE CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF THE RESPONDENTS' STEREOTYPES In t h e f b l lowing s e c t i o n s the content and s t r u c t u r e o f the stereo t y p e s about b i g c i t y and small town people w i l l be examined s e p a r a t e l y from the content and s t r u c t u r e o f the stereotypes about conservation-minded and development-minded people. The stereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s w i l l be discussed f i r s t . Then the e f f e c t s o f group membership on the stereotype a t t r i b u t i o n s w i l l be analyzed, and the p a t t e r n s o f c o r r e l a t i o n s between the a t t r i b u t i o n v a r i a b l e s w i l l be summarized. The respondents' use o f a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n when s t e r e o t y p i n g the t a r g e t s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n the f i n a l s e c t i o n o f the chapter. The content and dimensional f e a t u r e s o f t h e respondents' s t e r e o - types: Demographic Target Groups Examples o f the t r a i t s f r e q u e n t l y used t o d e s c r i b e s m a l l town and b i g c i t y people are presented i n the s o c i a l s tereotypes l i s t e d i n Table 6. Tne p r o f i l e s generated from the p e r s o n a l stereotypes of the members o f each o f the four subsamples are summarized separ-a t e l y . The t a b l e i n d i c a t e s the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t t r i b u t e d t o the t a r g e t s by 25% o r more (4 o r more) o f the people i n the d i f f e r e n t groups o f respondents. I t i s c l e a r from even a curs o r y scan o f the fou r p r o f i l e s t h a t T a b l e 6 T r a i t terns used most frequently by the members of the respondent groups to describe "People who have grown up i n small towns" and "People who have grown up. i n big c i t i e s " RESPONDENTS SMALL TOWN TARGETS SMALL TOWN PEOPLE BIG CITY PEOPLE CONSERVATION-MINDED PEOPLE DEVELOPMENT-MINDED PEOPLE No. % No. % T r a i t term as ing t r a i t T r a i t term using t r a i t FRIENDLY 12 80% FRIENDLY • 9 60% CONSERVATIVE 6 40% CONSERVATIVE 7 47% PRACTICAL 6 40% SOCIABLE 6 40% RESOURCEFUL 6 40% RESOURCEFUL 5 33% CONVENTIONAL 5 33% CONVENTIONAL 4 27% SOCIABLE 5 33% SINCERE 4 27% WARM 5 33% STABLE 4 27% DEPENDABLE 4 27% WARM TRUSTING 4 4 27% 27% POWER & MONEY ORIENTED 8 53% ALOOF 9 60% SOCIABLE 7 47% DISTRUSTFUL 6 40% SELF-SEEKING 6 40% INDEPENDENT-MINDED 4 27% TOLERANT 4 27% VALUE INTELLECT-UAL ACTIVITIES 4 27% PROGRESSIVE 4 27% / BIG CITY CONSERVATION-MINDED PEOPLE DEVETXJPMENT-NITNDED PEOPLE T r a i t term No. % as ing t r a i t T r a i t term FRIENDLY RESOURCEFUL SIMPLE CONSERVATIVE HELPFUL PRACTICAL SOCIABLE SEEK ACCEPTM-CE POWER & MONEY ORIENTED VALUE INTELLECT!) A C T I V I T I E S ALOOF APATHETIC CHANGEABLE DISTRUSTFUL OPPORTUNISTIC RULE-FOLTJCWING No. % using t r a i t 8 53% CONSERVATIVE 8 53% 8 53% FRIENDLY 8 53% 7 47% PRACTICAL 6 40% 6 40% RESOURCEFUL 6 40% 5 33% SOCIABLE 5 33% 4 27% MORALISTIC 4 27% 4 27% STABLE 4 27% 6 40% ENTERPRISING 7 47% 5 33% COLD 5 33% 5 33% ARROGANT 4 27% 4 27% DISTRUSTFUL 4 27% 4 27% TORRYING 4 27% 4 27% 4 27% 4 27% 4 27% OO Note: The percentages are rounded to whole numbers and the to t a l number of respondents i n each stereotyping condition was 15. - 88 -there was s u b s t a n t i a l agreement between the s m a l l town and b i g c i t y respondents, whether they were conservation-minded o r development-minded, i n d e p i c t i n g s m a l l town people as being f r i e n d l y , resource-f u l , s o c i a b l e , and c o n s e r v a t i v e . T h i s p o r t r a i t r e f l e c t s an image of a community-oriented and r a t h e r s e t t l e d group which values i n t e r -p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t s . In t h i s r e s p e c t i t i s not d i s s i m i l a r t o the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of o t h e r non-urban and t r a d i t i o n a l groups (e.g., the I r i s h , Welsh, and Scots) when these are stereotyped i n c o n t r a s t w i t h more developed, urban s o c i e t i e s (e.g., the E n g l i s h ; c f . McTiernan and Knox, 1 9 7 9 ) . The consensus i n d e s c r i b i n g b i g c i t y people was not as gr e a t as t h a t obtained i n the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of s m a l l town people. Never-t h e l e s s , t h e r e was g e n e r a l agreement across respondent groups i n r e p r e s e n t i n g people from l a r g e c i t i e s as being l a r g e l y s e l f -o r i e n t e d , s t a t u s - s e e k i n g i s o l a t e s . Few of the s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e a t t r i b u t e s a s c r i b e d t o s m a l l town people were i n c l u d e d i n the st e r e o t y p e s o f b i g c i t y people. Rather, the l a t t e r t a r g e t was d e p i c t e d i n very e g o c e n t r i c and negative terms by members as w e l l as non-members of the group. The s o c i a l - e g o c e n t r i c d i s t i n c t i o n between the s m a l l town and b i g c i t y t a r g e t s i n the present study c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l s a dichotomy t h a t emerged when a group o f I r i s h respondents were asked t o d e s c r i b e the I r i s h , Welsh, Scot s , and E n g l i s h (McTiernan and Knox, - 89 -1979). The " C e l t i c " , and l e s s urban, t a r g e t s were viewed as f r i e n d l y , c o n s e r v a t i v e , and t r a d i t i o n l o v i n g , w h i l e the E n g l i s h , c h a r a c t e r i z e d as urban, were seen t o be c o n c e i t e d and ambitious. The s i m i l a r i t y between the f i n d i n g s of these two s t u d i e s based on very d i f f e r e n t samples, using markedly d i f f e r e n t t a r g e t l a b e l s , and employing q u i t e d i s p a r a t e procedures, r a i s e s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t there might be h i g h l y s t a n d a r d i z e d and w i d e l y disseminated c u l t u r a l p o r t r a i t s of s m a l l town and b i g c i t y people from which i n d i v i d u a l s draw the content of t h e i r p e r s o n a l s t e r e o t y p e s , regard-l e s s of t h e i r membership i n the r e s p e c t i v e groups. Indeed, s o c i e t a l prototypes based on an urban - non-urban d i s t i n c t i o n , and c l o s e l y resembling the s o c i a l s t e r e o t y p e s i n Table 6, have been advanced by s o c i o l o g i s t s such as Tonnies ( c f . Gemeinschaft und G e s e l l s c h a f t , 1887). Dimensional f e a t u r e s of the demographic s t e r e o t y p e s : The p o s i t i v e impression conveyed by the content of the s m a l l town s t e r e o t y p e s , and somewhat l e s s d e s i r a b l e p o r t r a i t r e f l e c t e d i n the s o c i a l s t e r e o -types of b i g c i t y people, were a f f i r m e d i n the a n a l y s i s of the favourableness s c o r e s f o r the d e s c r i p t i o n s of the demographic t a r g e t groups. The 2 (Demogroup) x 2 (Value-group) x 2 (Own-group - o t h e r group stereotype) a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e y i e l d e d o n l y one s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t . 1 1 There was a s t r o n g i n t e r a c t i o n between the demo-g r a p h i c s t a t u s of the respondents and the f a c t o r r e p r e s e n t i n g the - 90 -stereotypes of member and non-membership groups (F(1,112) = 43.92, p<.001). The favourableness means i n Table 7 suggest that small town respondents described t h e i r own group more p o s i t i v e l y than they did the outgroup,- while big c i t y respondents saw t h e i r own group i n less favourable terms than they viewed the non-member target. In essence, as a Scheffe t e s t indicated (p<.01), both groups of respon-dents characterized small town people more favourably than they described big c i t y people.12 This pervasive tendency to stereotype small town people more p o s i t i v e l y than big c i t y people can be viewed within the broader framework provided by the other dimensional variables and the more general target evaluations. The two target groups were described with much the same degree of confidence by members and non-members a l i k e (Table 7 and Table 8). In t h e i r responses to the e a r l i e r portion of the questionnaire, both the small town conservation-minded and the small town develop-ment-^ninded respondents indicated that they had clearer concepts of small town people than they did of big c i t y people (Table 9). 13 The big c i t y conservation-minded and development-minded respondents, on the other hand, judged themselves to have clearer concepts of big c i t y individuals than of small town people. - 91 -Table 7 Means and standard devia t ions for the small town and b i g c i t y respondents' favourableness and confidence ra t ings for t h e i r ingroup and outgroup stereotypes of the demographic targets VARIABLE RESPONDENT GROUP TARGET STATUS MSM3ER GROUP N0N-MKM3ER GROUP FAVOURABLENESS . Small Town Conservation-minded Respondents Small Town Deve lopmsn t-minded Respondents Big City Ccnservaticrj-minded Respondents Big City D3veloprrent-mi_nded Respondents sd 6.57 1.22 6.67° 6.77 1.05 4.68 1.33 4.89 5.09 1.38 sd 4.85 1.27 4.68 4.52 1.72 6.28 1.68 6.24 6.20 1.25 COt'FIDENCE Small Town Conservation-mixided Respondents Small Town Develcpmant-minded Respondents Big City Conservation-mixided Respondents Big City Developrnent-minded Respondents 3.22 1.09 3.35 3.48 1.00 4.04 1.15 3.90 3.76 0.86 3.54 0.89 3.46 3.38 1.24 3.87 3.87 3.52" 3.18 1.10 Note: There were 15 respondents in each of the above conditions. High scores cn the favourableness variable reflect more positive stereotypes. Lew scores an the confidence variable indicate more confident ratings. •^"ember group means for small town respondents ^Ken-member target means for small town respondents Climber target means for big city respondents ^Non-member target means for big city respondents - 92 -Table 8 Analyses of variance of the favourableness and confidence ratings for the stereotypes of the demographic targets FAVOUT^LENESS CONFIDENCE Source of Variance ' df MS F MS F Demographic Respondents (A) 1 0. 38 0. ,20 2. .77 2. .44 Value Group Respondents (B) 1 0. 08 0. ,04 1. .45 1. .27 Stereotype Target Status (C) 1 2, 98 1. ,57 0. .53 0. ,46 A X B 1 0. 38 0, .20 2, .10 1, .84 A X C 1 83. 40 43. .92* 1. .77 1. .56 B X C 1 1. 91 1. .01 1. .30 1, .14 A X B X C 1 0. 00 0. .00 0, .00 0, .00 Error 112 1. 90 1, .14 *p <.001 Table 9 Means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r the respondents' r a t i n g s of the s t a t u s and the c l a r i t y of t h e i r concepts of s m a l l town and b i g c i t y people RESPONDENT GROUP SMALL TOWN TARGET Status C l a r i t y of concept M M sd sd BIG CITY TARGET Status C l a r i t y o f concept M' M sd sd SMALL TOWN Conservation-minded Respondents Development-minded Respondents 5.38 7.08 l;-8 3 1.82 5.10 6.47 1.59 1.96 4.13 ' 6.03 1.86 2.04 4.28 5.78 1.53 1.79 BIG CITY Conservation-minded Respondents Development-minded Respondents 5.62 5.26 1.44 1.87 5.98 5.13 1.20 2.08 3.54 6.18 1.09 1.71 3.55 6.27 1.52 1.89 Note: There were 15 respondents i n each c o n d i t i o n . 1 = very h i g h s t a t u s / very vague concept; 9 = very low s t a t u s / very c l e a r concept. - 94 -Across groups, the s m a l l town sample a t t r i b u t e d g r e a t e r c l a r i t y t o t h e i r concepts of s m a l l town people than d i d the p a r t i c i p a n t s from l a r g e c i t i e s (Table 10). No such group d i f f e r e n c e s emerged w i t h respect t o the b i g c i t y t a r g e t . W i t h i n subsamples, and t o a l e s s e r e x t e n t between groups, then, the analyses of the c l a r i t y r a t i n g s suggest t h a t the respondents considered themselves t o have c l e a r e r concepts of a demographic membership group than of a s i m i l a r l y d e f i n e d demographic outgroup. L a s t l y , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t s m a l l town respondents a t t r i b u t e d h i g h e r s t a t u s to s m a l l town people than d i d b i g c i t y respondents (Table 9 and Table 10). B i g c i t y p a r t i c i p a n t s a s c r i b e d h i g h e r s t a t u s to i n d i v i d u a l s from l a r g e c i t i e s than d i d s m a l l town respondents. However, i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n each of the subsamples f e l t t h a t b i g c i t y people had h i g h e r s t a t u s than s m a l l town p e o p l e . 1 4 Drawing together the f i n d i n g s , i t i s apparent t h a t membership s t a t u s v i s - a - v i s the demographic t a r g e t groups d i d not a f f e c t the type of content i n c l u d e d i n the s t ereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s provided. I t d i d not a f f e c t the p e r c e i v e d favourableness of the s t e r e o t y p e content, nor d i d i t i n f l u e n c e the confidence w i t h which t r a i t words were a s c r i b e d to the t a r g e t groups i n q u e s t i o n . Rather the nature o f the demographic t a r g e t s , themselves, seemed t o govern the content - 95 -T a b l e 10 A n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s 1 r a t i n g s o f t h e s t a t u s and t h e c l a r i t y o f t h e i r c o n c e p t s o f s m a l l town and b i g , c i t y p e o p l e Status C l a r i t y of Concept Source of Variance df MS F MS F SMALL TOWN TARGET Demographic Groups (A) .1 18. .98 8. .08* 149. 62 39. ,91** Value Groups (B) 1 0. ,08 0. .04 8. .25 2. .20 A X B ' 1 6. .18 2. .63 3. ,63 0. .97 Error 236 2. .35 3. .75 BIG CITY TARGET Demographic Groups (A) 1 26. .33 11. .33** 5. .86 1, .66 Value Groups (B) 1 0. .38 0. .16 0. .38 0, .11 A X B 1 0, .30 0. .13 1. .75 0. .50 Error 236 2. .32 3. .53 *p <.005 Note: There were 60 respondents i n each condition. **p <.001 - 96 -and dimensional f e a t u r e s of the e l i c i t e d s t e r e o t y p e s . Indeed, an i n t r i g u i n g i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the demographic groups possess f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d i d e n t i t i e s independent of t h e i r membership i s the f a c t t h a t while a l l of the respondents c h a r a c t e r i z e d s m a l l town people i n favourable terms r e l a t i v e to b i g c i t y people, they a l l judged, a t the same time, t h a t s m a l l town i n d i v i d u a l s had l e s s s t a t u s than t h e i r b i g c i t y c o u n t e r p a r t s . However, w h i l e membership i n the demographic t a r g e t groups d i d not a f f e c t the nature o f the t a r g e t stereotypes i n any r a d i c a l sense, i t d i d moderate a t l e a s t some stereotype r e l a t e d judgements. I n d i v i d u a l s judged t h e i r concepts of the ingroup to be c l e a r e r than t h e i r concepts of the outgroup, and there was an o v e r a l l p o s i t i v i t y b i a s i n t h e i r e s t i m a t e s of the s t a t u s of t h e i r own group. 15 ^ number of these r e s u l t s i l l u s t r a t e many of the p o i n t s made by Roger Brown i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n of s o l i d a r i t y and s t a t u s as dimensions of r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Brown, 1965, pgs. 71-99). R e f e r e n t i a l A t t r i b u t i o n s The f i v e r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n measures (prop, group members having t r a i t s ; chance i n d i v i d u a l gp. member has t r a i t ; range of s i t u a t i o n s i n which t r a i t s expressed; range of behaviours through which t r a i t s are r e f l e c t e d ; t r a i t s t a b i l i t y ) were analyzed together w i t h the two s t e r e o t y p e dimension v a r i a b l e s (favourableness, and - 97 -confidence w i t h which t r a i t s were a s c r i b e d ) i n a 2 (Demogroup) x 2 (Value-group) x 2 (Ingroup t a r g e t versus outgroup t a r g e t ) m u l t i -v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e . 16 The c e l l means f o r each of the f i v e a t t r i b u t i o n indexes are summarized i n Table 11. The m u l t i v a r i a t e t e s t o f the key independent v a r i a b l e , the membership group s t a t u s o f the stereotype t a r g e t s , was n o n - s i g n i f i -cant (F(7,106) = 1.77, p<.10). Indeed, t h e o n l y s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t i n the e n t i r e a n a l y s i s was a Target s t a t u s by Demogroup i n t e r a c t i o n (F(7,106) = 6.96, p<.001), and, as can be seen from the means i n Table 7 and T a b l e 11, t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was a r e s u l t o f the h i g h e r favourableness scores g i v e n t o the c o ntent o f the s m a l l town ste r e o t y p e s r e l a t i v e t o the content of the b i g c i t y s t e r e o t y p e s . (A d e t a i l e d p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s i s contained i n Appendix D.) Causal Attributions The a t t r i b u t i o n s concerning the i n f l u e n c e s o f i n h e r i t a n c e and l e a r n i n g on t h e development o f the s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t s were' examined i n a 2 (Demogroup) x 2 (Value-group) x 2 (Target s t a t u s ) m u l t i -v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e , summarized i n Appendix E. As w i t h the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , the t a r g e t s ' s t a t u s as membership groups or outgroups had no impact on the estimates of the Table 11 Means and standard deviations for the re f e r e n t i a l attributions made by the members of the four respondent groups when characterizing their own and the outgroup demographic targets VARIABLE Demographic Value Target Characteristics Orientation Status of Respondents of Respondents Prop. Group Chance Ind. Extent to which t r a i t s shown T r a i t with Traits has Traits . s i t u a t i c n s i n Behaviours s t a b i l i ^ Conservation-minded 9,. 9 8 „ . . • M 69.61 69.39 Member Group ^ 9.37 „ M 64.14 60.11' Nan-menber Group g d 1 3 6 1 13.24 6.68 0.91 6.76 0.76 6.68 0.77 6.96 0.86 4.02 4.10 1.10 1.09 SMALL TOWN Development-minded _ M 70.13 69.92 6.64 Menber Group ^ ^ - g^g 1.1Q . „ M 63.27 61.86 6.53 Nan-menber Group g d 1 5 _ g g 1 8 _ 0 2 1.00 6.70 0.86 6.39 0.99 3.81 3.91 1.02 1.32 vo 00 Conservation-minded „ , _ u r M 69.88 69.58 6.57 Member Group ^ g_gg O j i „ . _ . M 69.13 66.92 6.62 Nm-menber Group g d l l 0 B 1 3 3 1 0 9 2 6.67 0.71 6.78 0.60 4.36 3.90 0.91 1.32 BIG CITY Development-minded Member Group M 65.52 sd 12.77 Ncn-marber Group ^ 6 7 ' 3 0 ^ 64.13 12.98 63.61 11.45 6.33 0.99 6.74 0.64 6.61 0.87 6.49 0.91 4.23 3.74 1.10 1.23 Table 11 (cont.) Note: There were 15 re s p o n d e n t s i n each o f the e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s . 1 = v e r y few s i t u a t i o n s , v e r y few b e h a v i o u r s , and v e r y s t a b l e . 9 = v e r y many s i t u a t i o n s , v e r y many b e h a v i o u r s , and v e r y u n s t a b l e . The p r o p o r t i o n and chance e s t i m a t e s were made i n p e r c e n t a g e s . The s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e p r o p o r t i o n and chance e s t i m a t e s suggest t h a t i t might prove w o r t h w h i l e t o examine f u r t h e r t h e e f f e c t s o f group membership on w i t h i n sample v a r i a b i l i t y i n judgements c o n c e r n i n g the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t s a c r o s s t a r g e t group members. - 100 -importance of psychobiological or social factors in the development of the stereotype characteristics (F(2,lll) = 0.532, p<.59). A significant main effect for the Demogroup variable was detected, however, ( F ( 2 , l l l ) = 3.32, p<.04). Supporting an impres-sion voiced at cocktail parties and in media caricatures, the follow-up univariate anovas indicated that small town respondents placed more weight on the role of inheritance in t r a i t development than did the participants from large ci t y settings (M = 4.08 versus 3.34; F(l,112) = 6.42, p<.013; see Table 12 for more details). This between-group difference finding regarding attributions about the causal factors in t r a i t development nicely complements Funder's (1980) finding that there are individual differences in the tenden-cies to ascribe personality t r a i t labels to people.17 Summary of results for the demographic target groups The respondents' role as members or non-members of the demo-graphic target groups in the study had no s t a t i s t i c a l l y detectable effect on the content of their stereotypes, either with respect to i t s favourableness or the degree of confidence with which i t was expressed. Nor did membership roie affect the nature of the refer-ential and causal attributions underlying this stereotype content. Indeed, the target labels themselves accounted for most of the qualitative and quantitative differences between the stereotypes. T a b l e 12 Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s made by the members of the f o u r r espondent groups when c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e i r own and the o u t g r o u p demographic t a r g e t s Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Respondents VARIABLE V a l u e O r i e n t a t i o n of Respondents T a r g e t S t a t u s C o n t r i b u t i o n of L e a r n i n g t o t r a i t dev. C o n t r i b u t i o n of I n h e r i t a n c e t o t r a i t dev. SMALL TOWN C o n s e r v a t i o n -Minded Development-minded Member Group Non-member Group Member Group Non-member Group sd s d sd s d 6.60 6.66 6.27 7 .10 1. 52 1.09 1.96 1. 52 4 . 20 4.14 4.72 3.26 1.90 1. 51 1.48 1.74 BIG CITY C o n s e r v a t i o n -minded Development-minded Member Group Non-member Group .' Member Group Non-member Group s'd sd sd sd 7.10 6.78 6.91 6.97 1. 01 1.20 1.31 0.91 3.12 3.49 3.41 3.36 1.35 1.39 1.79 1.48 - 102 -Small town people were d e s c r i b e d i n much more fa v o u r a b l e and community-oriented and much l e s s e g o c e n t r i c terms than b i g c i t y people, r e g a r d l e s s o f who was p r o v i d i n g the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s . However, w h i l e the content o f the p e r s o n a l s t e r e o t y p e s was determined by the p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t group b e i n g d e s c r i b e d , the r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s remained u n a f f e c t e d by t h i s v a r i a b l e . The c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , r a t h e r , d i f f e r e d as a f u n c t i o n o f the i n d i v i d u a l s p r o v i d i n g them. Small town respondents gave more emphasis t o the r o l e o f i n h e r i t a n c e i n t r a i t development t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t t han d i d p a r t i c i p a n t s from b i g c i t i e s . R e p l i c a t e d A n a l y s e s ; A t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d Target Groups The terms most cxarimonly used t o d e s c r i b e conservation-minded and development-minded people are l i s t e d i n Table 13. As w i t h the s o c i a l s t e r e o t y p e s o f the demographic groups, the p r o f i l e s generated from the respondents i n each of the four subsamples are presented s e p a r a t e l y . The t a b l e i n c l u d e s the t r a i t terms a t t r i b u t e d t o the t a r g e t s by 25% o r more (f o u r or more) of the people i n the d i f f e r e n t groups of p a r t i c i p a n t s . The d i f f e r e n c e s i n the subgroups' c h o i c e o f d e s c r i p t o r s f o r each of the v a l u e - d e f i n e d t a r g e t s are s u b t l e a t b e s t . T a b l e 13 T r a i t terms used most frequently by the members of (lie respondent groups to describe Ccnservaticri-mLnded People and Development-minded People RESPONDENTS TARGETS CONSERVATION-MINDED PEOPLE DEVELOPMENT-MINDED PEOPLE SMALL TO.VN Ccnservaticn-ininded People Develciprnent-minded People T r a i t term No. % using t r a i t PCWER (, MONEY ORIENTED ENTERPRISING OPPORTUNISTIC PROGRESSIVE CAPABLE RESOURCEFUL 9 60% 53% 47% 47% 27% 27% T r a i t term APPRECIATIVE 7 47% EMOTIONAL CONSCIENTIOUS 7 47% IDEALISTIC IDEALISTIC 6 40% CRITICAL CONSERVATIVE 4 27% SINCERE IN DEPENDENT—MINDED 4 27% CONSERVATIVE RESOURCEFUL 4 27% CONSCIENTIOUS SINCERE 4 27% NONCONFORMING WORRYING ENTERPRISING PROGRESSIVE RESOURCEFUL CAPABLE EFFICIENT OPPORTUNISTIC PO'JER & MONEY ORIENTED CONSERVATIVE HAVE MANAGERIAL INTERESTS PRACTICAL No. % using t r a i t 60% 47% 40% 33% 27% ' 27% 27% 27% 47% 47% 47% 40% 33% 33% 33% 27% 27% 27% BIG CITY Ca-iservaticn-minded People Developnent-minded People T r a i t term No. % using t r a i t T r a i t term No. using t r a i t % IDEALISTIC 8 53% CONSCIENTIOUS 8 53% RESOURCEFUL 6 40% IDEALISTIC 8 53% APPRECIATIVE 4 27% MORALISTIC 6 40% CONSCIENTIOUS 4 27% EMOTIONAL ' 5 33% MORALISTIC 4 27% CRITICAL 4 27% VALUE rWTELLECTUAL A OUTSPOKEN 4 27% ACTIVITIES H SINCERE 4 27% SKEPTICAL 4 27% STUBBORN 4 27% ENTERPRISING 11 73% ENTERPRISING 9 60% PO'JER & MONEY ORIENTED X JL / INDEPETCENT-f'lINDED 6 40% OPPORTUNISTIC 10 67% OPPORIUNISTIC 6 40% MANIPUIA'iTVE 6 40% PRACTICAL 6 40% EFFICIENT 5 33% PROGRESSIVE 6 40% PROGRESSIVE 5 33% MANIPULATIVE 4 27% PRACTICAL 4 27% PO\'ER & MONEY 4 27% ORIENTED RESOURCEFUL 4 27% o Note: The percentages are rounded to whole numbers and the t o t a l number of respondents i n each stereotyping c o n d i t i o n was 15. - 104 -' There was g e n e r a l agreement t h a t conservation-minded people c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d as i d e a l i s t i c , c o n s c i e n t i o u s , and s i n c e r e . While conservation-minded respondents themselves saw these t r a i t s as being l i n k e d w i t h r e s o u r c e f u l n e s s and a p p r e c i a t i v e n e s s , development-minded respondents viewed them as b e i n g a s s o c i a t e d w i t h e m o t i o n a l i t y and a f a c i l i t y t o be c r i t i c a l . These somewhat d i f f e r e n t emphases i n the use o f d e s c r i p t i v e terms f a i l e d t o obscure the o v e r r i d i n g homogeneity i n the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s o f conservation-minded people, however. The g e n e r a l consensus i n the a s c r i p t i o n o f s p e c i f i c t r a i t s t o development-minded people was sharper s t i l l . Independent of member-s h i p i n the group, respondents seemed t o have a c l e a r l y d e f i n e d image o f development-minded i n d i v i d u a l s as b e i n g e n t e r p r i s i n g , p r o g r e s s i v e , o p p o r t u n i s t i c , and power and money o r i e n t e d . These, of course, are e n t r e p r e n e u r i a l a t t r i b u t e s v a l u a b l e i n any f o r a y i n t o the world o f b u s i n e s s . The s o c i a l s t e r e o t y p e s o f the s m a l l town and b i g c i t y t a r g e t groups c o u l d be c o n t r a s t e d on a s o c i a l - e g o c e n t r i c dimension. The content d i f f e r e n c e s between the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s o f c o n s e r v a t i o n -minded and development-minded people are somewhat more d i f f i c u l t t o d e f i n e . I t can be suggested, however, t h a t the p o r t r a i t of conser-vation-minded people connotes a sense of earnest and y e t p a s s i v e r e f l e c t i v e n e s s , i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the dynamic, t a s k o r i e n t e d image of - 105 -development-minded people. Dimensional features of the value group stereotypes Although the conservation-minded respondents had c l e a r e r concepts o f conservation-minded people than d i d the development-minded p a r t i c i p a n t s , and although the conservation-minded respon-dents were a l s o c l e a r e r i n t h e i r own minds about the aims and op i n i o n s of conservation-minded i n d i v i d u a l s than were the develop-ment-minded respondents, the sample group members d i d not d i f f e r from each o t h e r w i t h r e s p e c t t o the confidence w i t h which they described the (membership and non-membership) t a r g e t groups (see Tables 14, 15, 16, and 1 7 ) . 1 8 Nor d i d the i n d i v i d u a l s i n the va r i o u s subsamples d i s a g r e e w i t h r e s p e c t t o the s t a t u s they accorded each of the t a r g e t groups (Tables 14 and 15). G e n e r a l l y speaking, the respondents f e l t t h a t conservation-minded people have lower s o c i a l s t a t u s than development-minded i n d i v i d u a l s . 1 9 D espite the f a c t t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l s i n the d i f f e r e n t sub-samples s e l e c t e d t h e i r s t e r e o t y p e d e s c r i p t o r s from much the same domain of p e r s o n a l i t y terms, and r e g a r d l e s s of the f a c t t h a t the r e l a t i v e s t a t u s of the two t a r g e t groups was agreed upon g e n e r a l l y by the respondents, there were s u b s t a n t i a l and s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ences between p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h regard t o t h e i r r a t i n g s o f the favourableness o f the p e r s o n a l i t y terms a s c r i b e d t o the t a r g e t s . T a b l e 14 Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r the r e s p o n d e n t s ' r a t i n g s o f the s t a t u s , . t h e c l a r i t y o f t h e i r c o n c e p t s , and t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the aims and o p i n i o n s of c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d and development-minded p e o p l e RESPONDENT GROUP CONSERVATION-MINDED RESPONDENTS from SMALL TOWS from BIG CITIES STATUS Conservation- Davelopmsnt-minded people minded people sd 5.32 5.09 1.62 1.48 sd 3.69 3.28 1.89 1.36 VARIABLE CXARITY^OF CONCEPT Conservation- Development-minded people minded people sd sd 6.57 6.32 2.14 1.75 5.89 5.68 1.86 ' 1.86 CLARITY CF AIMS • Conservation- Development-minded people minded people sd sd I 2.73 4.18 u 1.78 2.19 I 3.26 3.44 1.59 1.69 DEVELOPMENT-MINDED RESPONDENTS from SMALL TO'MS from BIG CITIES 5.05 5.10 1:47 1.45 3.20 3.17 1.56 1.74 5.72 5.85 1.66 1.81 5.58 5.97 1.82 2.00 3.95 3.58 1.86 1.97 4.22 3.20 1.80 1.62 Note: There were 50 respondents i n each of the four subgroups 1 = very high status, very vague concept, very clear understanding of the aims and goals of the target groups; 9 = very lew status, very clear concept, very unclear understanding of the aims and goals of the targets. Table 15 Analyses of variance of the respondents' ratings of the status, the clarity of their concepts, and their understanding of the aims and opinions of conservaticn-minded and developrnent-minded people Source of Variance CONSERVATICN-MINDED TARGET . Demographic Groups Value Groups A X B Error (A) (B) DEVELOPMENT-MINDED TARGET Demographic Groups Value Groups A X B Error (A) (B) Status VARIABLE Clarity Clarity of concept of aims df MS F MS F MS F 1 0.46 0.20 9.80 . 2.78 9.40 3.03 • 1 1.00 0.44 20.13 . 5.72* 70.96 22.88** 1 1.13 0.50 4.40 1.25 . 1.00 0.32 236 2.27 3.52 3.10 . 1 3.04 1.12 4.27 1.24 18.98 5.36* 1 5.40 1.98 0.50 0.15 10.63 3.00 1 2.20 0.81 8.82 2.56 1.93 0.54 236 2.72 3.45 3.54 *p < .02 **p< .001 - 108 -Table 16 Means and. standard deviations for the conservation-minded and development-minded respondents' favourableness and confid-ence ratings for their ingroup and outgroup st^ereotypes of the attltudinally-defiJied targets TARGET STATUS VARIABLE - RESPONDENT GROUP MEMBER GROUP NON-MEMBER'GROUP M -, M sd sd Small town Conservati.cn-minded Respondents. Big c i t y 5 8 6 Conservation-minded Respondents FAVOURABLENESS Small town Small town (ZonservatJ.on-minded Respondents Big c i t y 4 0 Q Oonservatlon-mrnded Respondents CONFIDENCE Small town 7.18 5.04 1.32 1.55 5.24 1.38 1.17 Development-nrrnded 6 ' 4 6 5 ' 5 7 ± ? 2 Respondents — - — ' — B i g c i t y 6 0 2 4 9 1 Development-minded * , nr- ' , r n „ j 1.35 1.6/ Respondents 3.22 3.60 1.11 1.45 3.86 0.89 1.90 Development-mrnded , c r - i n ^ J x. 1.56 l.Z I Respondents Big c i t y „ Development-minded * m S * , n o , O Q Respondents — Note: There were 15 respondents i n each condition. 1 = very unfavourable, and extremely confident; 9 ' very favourable and not confident at a l l . - 109 -Table 17 Analyses of variance of the favourableness and confidence ratings for the stereotypes of the a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d targets VARIABLE FAVOURABLENESS ' CONFIDENCE Source of Variance df MS . . ' F . MS , F Demographic Respondents (A) 1 9.09 4. 04 * 1.37 0.76 Value Groups (B) 1 0.26 0. 1 1 2.60 1.44 Stereotype Target Status {L-> 1 42.30 18. 79** 0.00 0.00 A X B 1 0.00 0. 00 2.70 1.49 A X C 1 3.15 1. 40 0.20 0.11 B X C 1 1.06 0. 47 0.41 0.23 A X B X C 1 5.67 2. 52 0.94 0.52 Error 112 2.25 1.81 *p< .05 **p <.001 - 110 -People's d e s c r i p t i o n s o f t h e i r own groups were more f a v o u r a b l e than t h e i r d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the c o n t r a s t i n g value groups (M = 6.37 versus 5.19; F(l,112) = 18.79, p<.001). Thus, when conservation-minded and developrrent-minded respondents stereotyped themselves, they viewed the content o f t h e i r p e r s o n a l stereotypes q u i t e p o s i t i v e l y . When non-members o f the groups produced what appeared t o be s i m i l a r s t e r e o t y p e s o f conservation-minded and development-minded people, they d i d so w i t h the sense t h a t the t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s were not i n any way as f a v o u r a b l e . T h i s f i n d i n g , then, can be added t o the a l r e a d y s u b s t a n t i a l body o f evidence t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s f r e q u e n t l y express an a f f e c t i v e b i a s i n favour o f the ingroup (e.g., Quattrone and Jones, 1980; T a j f e l , 1970). The analyses o f the content and dimensional f e a t u r e s o f the stereo t y p e s about conservation-minded and development-minded people p r o v i d e d r e s u l t s t h a t both complement and c o n t r a s t w i t h those obtained from the analyses o f the s m a l l town and b i g c i t y s t e r e o -types . I n b oth i n s t a n c e s the choi c e o f t r a i t d e s c r i p t o r s was d e t e r -mined much more by the t a r g e t group b e i n g c h a r a c t e r i z e d than by the respondents' s t a t u s as members o r non-members o f the group. I n both cases, too, the p e r c e i v e d s o c i a l s t a t u s o f the t a r g e t groups, r e l a t i v e t o one another, was agreed upon by the respondents, i r r e s p e c t i v e o f t h e i r membership i n the groups. Moreover, the - I l l -confidence w i t h which the t a r g e t s were d e s c r i b e d d i d not vary across s tereotype or respondent group c o n d i t i o n s . While the only i n d i c a t i o n of an ingroup p o s i t i v i t y b i a s i n the e v a l u a t i o n s of the demographic t a r g e t s was weak and p e r i p h e r a l , o c c u r r i n g as i t d i d i n the s o c i a l s t a t u s r a t i n g s , such a b i a s was s t r o n g l y represented i n the favourableness r a t i n g s f o r the ingroup s t e r e o t y p e s about the a t t i t u d i n a l l y d e f i n e d t a r g e t groups. L a s t l y , w i t h r e s p e c t t o the demographic t a r g e t s , the p a r t i c i -pants f e l t t h a t they had c l e a r e r ingroup than outgroup concepts. T h i s f i n d i n g d i d not r e p l i c a t e w i t h the a t t i t u d i n a l l y d e f i n e d t a r g e t groups i n any sharp or c l e a r - c u t manner. I t has been argued o f t e n t h a t much of the content of i n d i v i d -u a l s ' p e r s o n a l s t e r e o t y p e s i s borrowed from c u l t u r a l stereotypes and o t h e r forms of s o c i a l l y s a l i e n t " p u b l i c " i n f o r m a t i o n (e.g., Lippmann, 1922; K l i n e b e r g , 1964; and c f . McTiernan, 1977). F o l l o w -ing from t h i s , one can s p e c u l a t e t h a t when r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l t a r g e t are reasonably c o n s i s t e n t , p e r v a s i v e , and a v a i l a b l e t o the m a j o r i t y of a r e g i o n a l , l i n g u i s t i c , o r c u l t u r a l p o p u l a t i o n there w i l l be a h i g h degree of content homogeneity i n i n d i v i d u a l s ' d e s c r i p t i o n s of the t a r g e t group i n q u e s t i o n . T h i s would appear t o account f o r the unfortunate case where Blac k s have been c h a r a c t e r i z e d i n a standard derogatory manner not only by white - 112 -Americans, but by respondents i n I n d i a , Lebanon, Great B r i t a i n , and A u s t r a l i a , as w e l l as by some B l a c k s themselves (e.g., Bayton, 1941; H i c k s , Goldman, and Kang, 1968; P r o t h r o and M e l i k i a n , 1954; Stanley, 1969). I t accounts, too, f o r the r e p e a t e d l y measured "stage I r i s h " d e p i c t i o n o f the I r i s h ( c f . K a r l i n s , Coffman, and Walters, 1969), and Campbell's (1967) f i n d i n g t h a t t h e r e was c o n s i d e r a b l e agreement • among t r i b a l groups i n East A f r i c a r e g a r d i n g the t r a i t s a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e i r own and each others' groups. The same phenomenon seems t o have manifested i t s e l f i n the pr e s e n t study. A g r e a t many media sources i n the E n g l i s h speaking w o r l d c a r r y sharp and p e r s i s t e n t p o r t r a i t s o f urban and non-urban people. The tone and content o f these media images i s r e f l e c t e d i n the respondents' d e s c r i p t i o n s o f s m a l l town and b i g c i t y people. L i k e w i s e , the contemporary North American media p r o j e c t r e l a t i v e l y standard c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s o f conservation-minded and development-minded people, and these, t o o , are m i r r o r e d i n the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' p e r s o n a l s t e r e o t y p e s o f the t a r g e t groups. A s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t s e t o f c o n d i t i o n s has t o occur b e f o r e group membership a f f e c t s the content o f p e r s o n a l stereotypes about s o c i a l t a r g e t s . T y p i c a l o f such circumstances are p e r i o d s o f s t r i f e , h o s t i l i t y , and i n t e r - g r o u p t e n s i o n s i n which censorship, s e l e c t i v e r e p o r t i n g , and p e r c e p t u a l d i s t o r t i o n ensure t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o the members o f one s o c i a l group i s markedly - 113 -d i f f e r e n t from the i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o the i n d i v i d u a l s i n opposing groups. War time s t e r e o t y p e s , and s t e r e o t y p e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i n t e r - c u l t u r a l f r i c t i o n s are good examples o f t h i s genre (e.g., Dudycha, 1942; Simmons, 1961). Y e t even though i n d i v i d u a l s may be i n g e n e r a l agreement about the f a c t s o f a s i t u a t i o n o r the manner i n which a s o c i a l t a r g e t can be c h a r a c t e r i z e d , i t does not mean t h a t they w i l l focus on or evaluate p a r t i c u l a r d e t a i l s w i t h any degree o f consensus. H a s t o r f and C a n t r i l (1954), f o r i n s t a n c e , provided a powerful demonstration o f the e f f e c t s o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r f o o t b a l l team on the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f u n s p o r t i n g behaviour i n an i n t e r c o l l e g i a t e game. The same g e n e r a l phenomenon, o f t e n r e p l i c a t e d i n l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s (e.g., Rabbie and Horowitz, 1969), i s e v i d e n t i n the ingroup b i a s i n the favourableness r a t i n g s o f the conservation-minded and development-minded s t e r e o t y p e s . As w i t h the H a s t o r f and C a n t r i l study, and s i m i l a r s t u d i e s a t t e n d i n g t o v a r i o u s f a c e t s o f i n t e r -group c o m p e t i t i o n (e.g., Ferguson and K e l l e y , 1964), t h e tendency f o r conservation-minded and development-minded respondents t o evaluate t h e i r own c h a r a c t r i s t i c s more f a v o u r a b l y than these are evaluated by outgroup members can be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the r i v a l r y and c o n f l i c t i n v a l u e s t h a t i s evident between the two groups. When d i r e c t r i v a l r y does not e x i s t , o r when s o c i a l groups have somewhat d i f f e r e n t s e t s o f concerns and preoccupations, an ingroup - 114 -b i a s i s not so evident (e.g., Dion, 1973; Rabbie and Horowitz, 1969). This was the case with the c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s of small town and big c i t y people i n the present study.- An analogy that springs t o mind i s where a Montreal baseball fan and a Montreal f o o t b a l l fan both agree that the Expos are a good baseball team and the A l s . are a weak f o o t b a l l team. In that both i n d i v i d u a l s acknowledge t h e i r d i f f e r e n c e s i n i n t e r e s t s and s p o r t s - r e l a t e d behaviours, neither has t o save face or b o l s t e r the ingroup image i n d i s c u s s i n g the r e l a t i v e merits and demerits of t h e i r teams. The f a c t that an e v a l uation bias toward the ingroup occurred i n the case of some stereotypes i n t h i s study, but not f o r others, suggests that c a r e f u l consideration has to be given to the choice of targets, and to the use of membership status as a v a r i a b l e i n stereotype research. As studies i n the f i e l d attend to an ever broader range of s o c i a l groups i t i s to be hoped that comprehensive systems f o r c l a s s i f y i n g targets w i l l emerge. I t i s to be hoped, too, that more d e t a i l e d accounts of the e f f e c t s of membership in d i f f e r e n t t a r g e t groups w i l l be o f f e r e d . For example, one such attempt to examine the impact on the self-concept of being a member of a d i s t i n c t i v e minority group i s represented i n the recent work of McGuire and h i s colleagues (e.g., McGuire and McGuire, 1980; McGuire, McGuire, C h i l d , and Fujioka, 1978; McGuire, McGuire, and Winton, 1979). - 115 -While respondents f e l t they had c l e a r e r concepts o f demographic ingroups than demographic outgroups, t h e i r concepts o f the a t t i t u d -i n a l l y - d e f i n e d ingroups were no c l e a r e r than t h e i r concepts o f a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d outgroups. The d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o the demographic t a r g e t s can be ex p l a i n e d simply by suggesting t h a t t h e respondents f e l t t h a t they had g r e a t e r exposure t o and more i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e i r own group, and thus had g r e a t e r f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h i t . I n f o r m a t i o n about one t a r g e t group d i d not e n t a i l o r imply h a v i n g an e q u i v a l e n t amount of i n f o r m a t i o n about the ot h e r t a r g e t . I n the case o f groups t h a t can be c o n t r a s t e d d i r e c t l y on some dimension, p a r t i c u l a r l y a value dimension, one can always d e f i n e one t a r g e t i n terms t h a t are a n t i t h e t i c a l t o the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the c o n t r a s t i n g group. Thus, i f one b e l i e v e s t h a t conservation-minded people are concerned w i t h the p r e s e r v a t i o n o f n a t u r a l resources, one, i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , has an e q u a l l y strong i m p r e s s i o n t h a t development-minded people don't care what happens t o our n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s . L i k e w i s e , i f one f e e l s t h a t development-minded people are i n t e r e s t e d i n c r e a t i n g , f u l l employment, one proba b l y has a sense o f where conservation-minded people stand on t h e i s s u e , as w e l l . I n t h i s way, we can hy p o t h e s i z e t h a t i n c r e a s e d complexity i n the c o n s t r u a l o f one's own group i s r e l a t e d t o an i n c r e a s e d a b i l i t y t o c h a r a c t e r i z e an outgroup i n complex terms, when such groups can be c o n t r a s t e d o r compared d i r e c t l y on some i s s u e o r some dimension. Such a c o r r e l a t i o n w i l l not be e v i d e n t i n those i n s t a n c e s where t a r g e t s do not f a l l on o p p o s i t e ends o f the same - 116 -( s a l i e n t ) dimension. Once a g a i n , t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n f i n d i n g s between the two s e t s of t a r g e t groups, although not overwhelming i n i t s own r i g h t , i n d i c a t e s the n e c e s s i t y o f c a r e f u l l y a t t e n d i n g t o the types of t a r g e t s employed i n s t u d i e s of st e r e o t y p e s . There i s c e r t a i n l y evidence t o i n d i c a t e t h a t r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s obtained u s i n g one s e t of t a r g e t group l a b e l s w i l l not n e c e s s a r i l y g e n e r a l i z e accross a v a r i e t y of t a r g e t c a t e g o r i e s . R e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s about the content o f the c o n s e r v a t i o n - minded and development-minded s t e r e o t y p e s The analyses of the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s about the s t e r e o -types of conservation-minded and development-minded people followed the same format as the analyses f o r the st e r e o t y p e s of the demo-g r a p h i c a l l y d e f i n e d t a r g e t s . The c e l l means f o r each of the v a r i a b l e s are l i s t e d i n Table 18 and a comprehensive summary of the m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e i s presented i n Appendix D. The o v e r a l l a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d l i t t l e i n the way of s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s . Indeed, the o n l y s t a t i s t i c a l l y d e t e c t a b l e m u l t i v a r i a t e e f f e c t occurred w i t h the t a r g e t membership v a r i a b l e . And t h i s was due i n l a r g e measure t o the c o n t r i b u t i o n of the favourableness scores which were i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s together w i t h the Table 18 Means and standard deviations for the referential attributions made by the members of the four respondent groups when characterizing their own and the outgroup attitudinally-defined targets Value Orientation of Respondents Demographic Target Characteristics Status of Respondents VARIABLE Prop. Group Chance Ind. Extent to which t r a i t s shown T r a i t with Traits has Traits i n S t a b i l i t y Situations Behaviours CCKSERVATION-MINDEO Small town Big c i t y , r M 73.39 G r o u p sd 11.12 .. . _ M 68.54 Non-member Group ^ 1 3 _ l g M ~ J r- M 68.29 Member Group g d 1 4 _ 0 4 Non-member Group M 70.84 sd 10.63 73.62 12.66 68.97 14.58 64.33 13.37 67.98 11.54 6.70 0.74 6.74 1.03 6.59 1.08 6.70 0.94 6.53 0.71 6.80 0.82 6.40 1.00 6.46 1.19 3.13 1.32 4.08 1.19 3.75 0.84 3.97 1.35 DEVELOPMENT-MINDED Small town Big c i t y r- M 70.37 MarberGrcup ^ U . 6 o „ , _ M . 64.67 Non-member Group g d 1 4 > 4 g K ^ _ U _ n M 70.51 Member Group s & Q ^ Non-member Group M 77.84 sd .8.96 68.78 13.24 61.51 19.98 68.08 10.17 73.70 12.03 6.67 0.90 6.31 0.85 6.30 0.98 7.08 0.91 6.50 0.96 6.29 0.89 6.31 0.90 7.03 0.86 3.47 1.24 3.89 1.26 3.26 1.10 3.62 1.05 T a b l e 18 (cont.) Note: There were 15 respond e n t s i n each c o n d i t i o n . 1 = v e r y few s i t u a t i o n s , v e r y few b e h a v i o u r s and v e r y s t a b l e ; 9 = v e r y many s i t u a t i o n s , v e r y many b e h a v i o u r s , and v e r y u n s t a b l e . The p r o p o r t i o n and chance e s t i m a t e s were g i v e n i n p e r c e n t a g e s . - 119 -r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . There was a s l i g h t tendency f o r i n d i v i d u a l s to consider the t r a i t s ascribed to t h e i r own group to be more stable than the t r a i t s ascribed to the outgroup target (M = 3.40 versus 3.89, F(l,112) = 5.10, p<.03), but t h i s i s a weak f i n d i n g at best. In general, the scores on each of the dependent measures d i d not vary g r e a t l y from one respondent group to the other, nor from one stereotype target to the other. The p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s i n t h i s case i s very s i m i l a r to the fi n d i n g s from the analyses of the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s about the demographic stereotypes. Neither i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , the p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t groups i n question, nor the respondents' member-sh i p status v i s - a - v i s the targets, influenced the manner i n which the p a r t i c i p a n t s generalized about the t r a i t s that they used to describe the demographic and a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d groups.20 Causal a t t r i b u t i o n s about the content of the conservation-minded and  development-minded stereotypes The m u l t i v a r i a t e analyses of the causal a t t r i b u t i o n s revealed a number of s i g n i f i c a n t , and i n some cases unexpected, e f f e c t s (see Appendix E f o r a summary of the r e s u l t s ) . - 120 -Post hoc u n i v a r i t e analyses indicated that small town respon-dents rated the r o l e of inheritance i n stereotype t r a i t development more strongly than did big c i t y respondents (M = 4.28 versus 3.35, F(l,112) = 9.55, p<.003). Complementing t h i s , respondents from large c i t i e s f e l t learning to be a stronger component i n t r a i t development than did small town pa r t i c i p a n t s (M = 6.74 versus 6.08, F_(l,112) = 6.05, p<.02). These respondent group differences i n the emphasis placed on the r o l e of learning and inheritance i n the growth of the t r a i t s ascribed to conservation-minded and develop-ment-minded people r e p l i c a t e s and extends the causal a t t r i b u t i o n r e s u l t s for the demographic group stereotypes. In that instance, too, to r e c a l l , small town p a r t i c i p a n t s placed a r e l a t i v e l y strong emphasis on the r o l e of inheritance i n t r a i t development. As the means i n Table 19 r e a d i l y indicate, however, despite the i n d i v i d u a l differences along each of the learning and inheritance dimensions, a l l of the respondents f e l t that learning played a greater o v e r a l l r o l e than inheritance i n the emergence of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that are t y p i c a l of conservation-minded and development-minded people.21 The eye-catching finding i n the analyses i s represented graph-i c a l l y i n Figure 1. S i g n i f i c a n t Value group X Target membership status interactions on each of the learning (F(l,112) = 12.44, p<.001) and inheritance (F(l,112) = 5.29, p<.02) variables suggest that both conservation-minded and development-minded respondents T a b l e 19 Means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s made by th e members o f th e f o u r r e s p o n d e n t groups when c h a r a c t e r i z i n g t h e i r own and the ou t g r o u p a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d t a r g e t V a l u e O r i e n t a t i o n of Respondents CONSERVATION-MINDED Demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Respondents T a r g e t S t a t u s S m a l l town B i g c i t y Member Group Non-member Group Member' Group Non-member Group sd sd sd sd VARIABLE C o n t r i b u t i o n of L e a r n i n g t o t r a i t dev. 5.64 6.62 5.87 7.54 1.63 1.40 1.96 0.83 C o n t r i b u t i o n o f I n h e r i t a n c e t o t r a i t dev. 4 .81 4. 12 3.93 2.69 1.97 1.68 1.85 1.47 I—1 DEVELOPMENT-MINDED S m a l l town B i g c i t y Member Group Non-member Group Member Group Non-member Group - M sd sd sd sd 6.26 5.78 7.13 6.43 1.07 1.92 1.16 1.54 4.20 4.01 2.86 3.91 1.70 1.49 1.29 1.75 Note: 1 = n o t l e a r n e d a t a l l , and n o t i n h e r i t e d a t a l l ; 9 = c o m p l e t e l y l e a r n e d , and c o m p l e t e l y i n h e r i t e d . u c +J •A u X • c • H U-l 0 aJ U fu a, e ^ OJ •P fu £ ' 4J UJ W 9A 8H 7H 4H 3^ F i g u r e 1. INHERITANCE OWN GROUP OTHER GROUP Conservation-minded respondents Development-minded respondents c rrj rH 7H U-l 0 4J o e GJ 4J £ • H 4J UJ w 6^ 5H 3-H LEARNING OWN GROUP OTHER GROUP Mean r a t i n g s of the c o n t r i b u t i o n of i n h e r i t a n c e and l e a r n i n g t o the development of the t r a i t s i n the c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d and development-minded respondents' s t e r e o t y p e s of t h e i r own and the o t h e r a t t i t u d i n a l l y -def i n e d groups. - 123 -considered the p e r s o n a l i t i e s of conservation-minded people to have a g r e a t e r i n h e r i t a n c e component than the p e r s o n a l i t i e s of development-minded people. C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s , they l i k e w i s e f e l t t h a t the p e r s o n a l i t i e s o f development-minded people had a l a r g e r l e a r n i n g component than the p e r s o n a l i t i e s of conservation-minded people. One can be born i d e a l i s t i c and c o n s c i e n t i o u s , but one has t o l e a r n to be e n t e r p r i s i n g , p r o g r e s s i v e , and power and money o r i e n t e d . Being a l i t t l e t r i t e , perhaps, we can surmise t h a t Rousseau would have been happy w i t h the respondents' judgements.22 In sum, the r e s u l t s of the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n analyses i n d i c a t e t h a t a d d i t i o n a l work i s needed to b e t t e r understand the f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the emphasis on the r o l e of i n h e r i t a n c e and l e a r n i n g i n t r a i t development. More work i s needed, too, to understand the manner i n which p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t l a b e l s can a f f e c t and temper the nature of c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . Review of the f i n d i n g s concerning the s t e r e o t y p e s of the f o u r t a r g e t  groups The t r a d i t i o n a l emphasis i n stereotype research has been on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t e r e o t y p e content and the p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t l a b e l s i n a s t i m u l u s l i s t . C e n t r a l a t t e n t i o n has tended t o be place d on the d i f f e r e n c e s between the stereotypes of one s p e c i f i c group and another. Indeed, such d i f f e r e n c e s are more than e v i d e n t - 124 -i n the p r e s e n t study when one looks a t some of the standard s t e r e o -type measures. D i s t i n c t i v e s e t s of t r a i t terms were used t o c h a r a c t e r i z e each of the fou r t a r g e t groups. ' Furthermore, the favourableness of the stereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s was a f f e c t e d by the t a r g e t group i n q u e s t i o n i n the case of the demographic t a r g e t s , and by the respondents' membership s t a t u s i n the t a r g e t group i n the case o f the a t t i t u d i n a l l y d e f i n e d t a r g e t s . In t h i s r e s p e c t , the c u r r e n t f i n d i n g s f i t a gene r a l p a t t e r n t h a t has emerged from many years of r e s e a r c h i n the stereotype f i e l d ( c f . Brigham, 1971). The expected p a t t e r n of r e s u l t s f a i l e d t o emerge, however, when the r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s about st e r e o t y p e content were examined w i t h i n the framework of the t r a d i t i o n a l assumptions about t a r g e t r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s . The r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s were marked more by t h e i r u n i f o r m i t y across the v a r i o u s c o n d i t i o n s i n the study than by t h e i r tendency to be i n f l u e n c e d by the nature of the t a r g e t being d e s c r i b e d o r by the respondents' membership s t a t u s i n the s t i m u l u s groups. The c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , on the ot h e r hand, although s u s c e p t i b l e t o t a r g e t - r e l a t e d f a c t o r s , seemed t o be more c o n s i s t e n t l y moderated by i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e s . O v e r a l l , the data (summarized i n Tables 11, 12, 18 and 19) suggest, t h a t a s t a b l e and c o n s i s t e n t s t r u c t u r e u n d e r l a i d the i n d i v i d u a l s ' d e s c r i p -t i o n s of the v a r i o u s demographic and a t t i t u d i n a l l y d e f i n e d groups. Aspects o f t h i s a t t r i b u t i o n s t r u c t u r e w i l l be ex p l o r e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s . - 125 -Structural analyses of the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s From b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s i t can be argued t h a t a f a i l u r e to f i n d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between experimental c o n d i t i o n s i s a r e s u l t e i t h e r of random and non-systematic responding o r of a s t a b l e and i n v a r i a n t process which operated throughout the study. Two approaches were taken here to determine which of the above explana-t i o n s b e t t e r f i t the data a t hand. S i n g l e sample H o t e l l i n g ' s T^ analyses were performed t o generate confidence ranges f o r each of the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s (and st e r e o t y p e dimension v a r i a b l e s ) . These are graphed i n Fi g u r e 2 i n r e l a t i o n t o the s c a l e s on which the r a t i n g s were made.23 j n a d d i t i o n , the c o r r e l a t i o n s among the a t t r i b u t i o n (and stereotype dimension) v a r i a b l e s were computed. The s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s o f c o r r e l a t i o n among the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s are summarized i n Table 20 and l i s t e d i n Appendix F. As a curs o r y glance a t the f i g u r e and the t a b l e suggests, the T 2 and c o r r e l a t i o n analyses were conducted on e i g h t separate s e t s o f data. The responses of the s m a l l town i n d i v i d u a l s who d e s c r i b e d s m a l l town people were t r e a t e d independently of the responses of the b i g c i t y people who c h a r a c t e r i z e d s m a l l town i n d i v i d u a l s . L i k e w i s e , the scores from the s m a l l town and b i g c i t y p a r t i c i p a n t s ' s t e r e o -types of b i g c i t y people were analyzed s e p a r a t e l y . The same procedure was adopted i n the case of the scores f o r the stereotypes o f conservation-minded and development-minded people. - 126 -FIGURE 2: C o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l s f o r t h e r e f e r e n t i a l a n d c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s a n d t h e s t e r e o t y p e . d i -m e n s i o n v a r i a b l e s f o r t h e s m a l l town a n d b i g c i t y r e s p o n d e n t s ' s t e r e o t y p e s o f s m a l l t o w n a n d b i g c i t y p e o p l e , a n d t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d a n d d e v e l o p m e n t - m i n d e d r e s p o n d e n t s ' s t e r e o t y p e s o f -c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d a n d d e v e l o p m e n t - m i n d e d p e o p l e . - 127 -LEGEND TARGET STATUS: Own Group Other Group TARGET NAME: a S m a l l Town People © B i g C i t y People A C o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d P e o p l e • Development-minded People PROPORTION OF GROUP MEMBERS HAVING STEREOTYPE TRAITS s m © m A A T W 20% 50% 80% o% J • • 1 • • — : — • • ! • L 1 0 0 % 40% 60% Q ^ © -@ Ar- A CHANCE INDIVIDUAL GROUP MEMBER POSSESSES STEREOTYPE TRAITS A A ^ W 20% "'50% . 80% 0% -! ! ! • ' ! ! ! « » L 1Q0% 40% • 60% -W - 128 -RANGE OF SITUATIONS Few . 2 . 3. i i RANGE OF BEHAVIOURS 1 Few -'-4. • .4. i . — a 3 ® A 1 A ^ 6 7 8 j ? i_ a a _n A A T - - T s a © d A- A F W 6 7 8 i i i_ n -a © -9 A A v- W , Many — Many^ TRAIT STABILITY 1 2 S t a b l e , 7 a a Q ® A- A T • .3 4 . 5 I I I Q fj o o A A . 8 i — Unstable - 129 -RATINGS OF THE INHERITANCE COMPONENT OF THE TR A I T S n o t i n h e r i t e d 1 a t a l l ±-A — A ^ ^ c o m p l e t e l y 2 3 4 5 . 6 . 7 . . 8 .9 i n h e r i t e d » i i t I i i i _ s - - ; m ^ Q A- - --A V • RATINGS OF THE LEARNING COMPONENT OF THE TR A I T S 13 IS © ® A A T ^ n o t c o m p l e t e l y l e a r n e d 1 . 2 3 4 5 6. . 7 . 8 9 l e a r n e d a t a l l — s ! 5 ! ! s ! s-- 130 -STEREOTYPE FAVOURABLENESS H a © & A U n f a v o u r a b l e . 1 . 2 3 4 5. .6. . ". . 7 . 8 . 9 F a v o u r a b l e j i i i i I i i i _ a- -a # 0 A: ; A v-CONFIDENCE IN ASCRIBING TRAITS a a © © A A • • N o t C o n f i d e n t 1 2 .3 4 5. 6 7 8 9 C o n f i d e n t i i i i _ i t i i !_ a a 0 -H - 131 -T a b l e 20 The numbers o f s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e s t e r e o t y p e - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s summed a c r o s s e i g h t e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s VARIABLES % G p / t r Ch/mb S i t . Behav Stab.. I n h e r - L r n . Fav. Chance m b r . / t r a i t S i t u a t i o n B e h a v i o u r S t a b i l i t y I n h e r i t a n c e 0 L e a r n i n g F a v o u r a b l e . 3(+/~) 2 4(+/") 2 2 ( + / " ) 2 l C o n f i d e n c e The c r i t e r i o n f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e was p <.05, w i t h ns - 30 The e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s i n c l u d e d s m a l l town p e o p l e d e s c r -i b i n g s m a l l town and b i g c i t y p e o p l e (n = 30 i n each c a s e ) ; b i g - 132 -T a b l e 20 c o n t . ) c i t y r e s p o n d e n t s d e s c r i b i n g s m a l l town and b i g c i t y p e o p l e (n = 30 i n e a c h c a s e ) ; c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d r e s p o n -d e n t s d e s c r i b i n g c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d a n d d e v e l o p m e n t - m i n d e d i n d i v i d u a l s (n = 30 i n e a c h c a s e ) ; and d e v e l o p m e n t - m i n d e d r e s p o n d e n t s d e s c r i b i n g d e v e l o p m e n t - m i n d e d and c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d -ed p e o p l e (n = 30 i n e a c h c a s e ) . N o t e : U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e i n d i c a t e d , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s was p o s i t i v e . F o r e x a m p l e , " h i g h l y . c o n f i d e n t " r a t i n g s were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h j u d g e m e n t s t h a t t h e s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t s w ere r e f l e c t e d i n a g r e a t many b e h a v i o u r s . "*"The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e s e v a r i a b l e s 2 B o t h p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s among t h e s i g n i f i c a n t v a l u e s . One o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s was p o s i t i v e , t h e o t h e r was n e g a t i v e . was n e g a t i v e . were f o u n d - 133 -T2 analyses An examination of the confidence i n t e r v a l s f o r the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s strongly i n d i c a t e s that the process of a s c r i b i n g t r a i t terms to a s o c i a l target i s . l i n k e d with a f i r m set o f assumptions regarding the range of target members, range of s e t t i n g s and range of p o s s i b l e behaviours to which one can general-i z e about the t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s . For instance, the proportion r a t i n g s ( i . e . , the percentage of target members possessing the t r a i t s ) given by the respondents r e f l e c t a tendency to provide c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s that are representative of the group at large but not u n i v e r s a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to a l l members of the population i n question. T h i s was the case i r r e s p e c t i v e of the p a r t i c u l a r target being described, and i r r e s p e c t i v e of whether the target was an ingroup or an o u t g r o u p . 2 4 Such a response strategy i s highly e f f e c t i v e , of course, because i t n i c e l y covers two broad sets of conditions. On the one hand the example of a group member behaving i n a s t e r e o t y p i c a l manner i s accounted for since "most of them are l i k e that", and yet the exception to the r u l e presents no d i f f i c u l t y because "while most of them are , not n e c e s s a r i l y a l l of them are l i k e that". T h i s representative but not exceptionless s t y l e of responding i s as f u n c t i o n a l f o r the bigot as i t i s f o r the r a t i o n a l man. I t allows both to cope with the unexpected without having to r a d i c a l l y a l t e r t h e i r fundamental b e l i e f s . The respondents maintained the same approach i n t h e i r judge-ments of the range of s i t u a t i o n s and behaviours i n which the - 134 -stereotype t r a i t s were manifested t h a t they used when e s t i m a t i n g the p r o p o r t i o n o f group members posses s i n g the stereotype t r a i t s . The confidence ranges f o r the s i t u a t i o n and the behaviour r a t i n g s , l i k e those f o r the p r o p o r t i o n e s t i m a t e s , f e l l between the midpoint and the upper bounds of the s c a l e s , r e f l e c t i n g the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e but not e x c e p t i o n l e s s response s t y l e . The c o n s i s t e n c y i n s t y l e of responding across the p r o p o r t i o n , chance, s i t u a t i o n and behaviour estimates was n o t i c e a b l e , too, i n the r a t i n g s o f t r a i t s t a b i l i t y . However, i n the case of the s t a b i l i t y scores the confidence ranges tended t o be somewhat broader than those f o r the behaviour and s i t u a t i o n v a r i a b l e s . Moreover, the lower bounds o f the ranges f e l l much f u r t h e r i n t o the mid or n e u t r a l p o r t i o n of the s c a l e . Such was the case a l s o w i t h the confidence r a t i n g s and the l e a r n i n g scores. The i n h e r i t a n c e and favourableness r a t i n g s tended to y i e l d somewhat wider confidence i n t e r v a l s t h a t f e l l along a broad segment o f the r a t i n g s c a l e s . I t would appear t h a t f o r t h i s study, a t l e a s t , the process of d e s c r i b i n g a s o c i a l group was l i n k e d c o n s i s t e n t l y w i t h a strong s et of assumptions about the a t t r i b u t i o n s t h a t can be made regarding the - 135 -p r o p o r t i o n of t a r g e t members posse s s i n g the stereotype t r a i t s and regarding the range of s i t u a t i o n s and behaviours i n which these t r a i t s are expressed. T h i s g e n e r a l c o n s i s t e n c y was not maintained i n the case of the favourableness and i n h e r i t a n c e r a t i n g s , those v a r i a b l e s t h a t d i d • r e f l e c t d i f f e r e n c e s among the experimental c o n d i t i o n s . The data a t hand, then, p r o v i d e a s t r o n g answer t o the q u e s t i o n posed a t the beginning of t h i s s e c t i o n . . The f a i l u r e to f i n d wide-spread s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the experimental c o n d i t i o n s was due not t o a random response s t y l e but t o the o v e r a l l u n i f o r m i t y w i t h which the p a r t i c i p a n t s made r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s about the ex t e n t to which stereotype t r a i t s c o u l d be g e n e r a l i z e d across t a r g e t group members, s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s and behaviour p a t t e r n s . C o r r e l a t i o n a nalyses The c o r r e l a t i o n s between the s t e r e o t y p e -r e l a t e d measures were computed f o r each o f the e i g h t experimental c o n d i t i o n s d e s c r i b e d i n the second paragraph of t h i s s e c t i o n . The numbers of s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r each p a i r of v a r i a b l e s are l i s t e d i n Table 20. The p a t t e r n t h a t emerges from the t a b l e p r o v i d e s some s u r p r i s e s and reassurances and, g e n e r a l l y speaking, i t r e f l e c t s the s t r e n g t h of the a s s o c i a t i o n s between the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n measures. (See Appendix F f o r an i n d i c a t i o n o f the magnitude of many of the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s . ) - 136 -There were s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the estimates of the percentage of t a r g e t group members having stereotype t r a i t s , the judgements of the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t any p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t member would have the st e r e o t y p e t r a i t s , and the r a t i n g s of the range of s i t u a -t i o n s and behaviours i n which the t r a i t s were expressed. T h i s c o r r e l a t i o n s t r u c t u r e among the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s r e p l i c a t e d c o n s i s t e n t l y across the e i g h t experimental c o n d i t i o n s . Somewhat unexpectedly, there was no c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t the r a t i n g s of t r a i t s t a b i l i t y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h any of the other r e f e r e n -t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . Moreover, counter t o i n t u i t i o n , the s t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s were not a s s o c i a t e d e i t h e r w i t h estimates of the importance o f i n h e r i t a n c e i n t r a i t development. As the respondents construed i t , then, the s t a b i l i t y of s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t s was independent of the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of these t r a i t s a cross group members and s i t u a -t i o n s , and independent of the degree t o which these t r a i t s were " g e n e t i c a l l y b u i l t i n " t o the t a r g e t members' p e r s o n a l i t i e s . Ratings of the importance of l e a r n i n g t o t r a i t development were n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h e s t i m a t e s of the importance of i n h e r i -tance t o the development of st e r e o t y p e t r a i t s . In a d d i t i o n t o more t h e o r e t i c a l concerns, the d i r e c t i o n and magnitude of t h i s c o r r e l a -t i o n lends f u r t h e r support t o the methodological argument t h a t the respondents performed the a t t r i b u t i o n t a s k s w i t h care and a t t e n t i o n . - 137 -I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g and s u r p r i s i n g to note that the causal a t t r i b u t i o n s were unrelated ( l i n e a r l y , a t l e a s t ) to the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . One might have p r e d i c t e d , f o r instance, that high estimates of the proportion of target members having the stereotype t r a i t s could be associated with high inheritance ratings. Yet, such was not the case. F i n a l l y , reading across the numbers i n Table 20, i t i s evident that the favourableness measures di d not c o r r e l a t e i n any strong or c o n s i s t e n t manner with the r e f e r e n t i a l and causal a t t r i b u t i o n s . T h i s r e s u l t i s consistent with the p r e v i o u s l y discussed f i n d i n g s that target and membership group d i f f e r e n c e s were found along the favourableness dimension but that the p a t t e r n of underlying r e f e r e n -t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s was s t a b l e across experimental conditions. Indeed, the o v e r a l l set of r e s u l t s has important implications f o r future research on stereotype s t r u c t u r e . I t appears that where variance and d i f f e r e n c e s i n stereotype response s t y l e are of i n t e r e s t , one should attend p r i m a r i l y to the t r a d i t i o n a l dimensional measures r e l a t e d to stereotype content. Where invariance i n stereo-typing processes i s of t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t , one should examine the various r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s that respondents make about the content of t h e i r stereotypes. In the l a t t e r case i t i s important to c o n t r o l f o r the confidence with which i n d i v i d u a l s provide stereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s since confidence, as a response v a r i a b l e , was h i g h l y r e l a t e d to the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n measures used i n the - 138 -present study. In sum, then, the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s provided by the respondents i n t h i s study were independent of the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . Moreover, both s e t s of measures were unrelated tb the favourableness of the s t e r e o t y p e d e s c r i p t i o n s , although the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o the confidence w i t h which the t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s were made. With the exc e p t i o n o f the s t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s , the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , themselves, were a l l s t r o n g l y i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d . - 139 -THE USE OF A DISTINCTIVENESS CRITERION IN  STEREOTYPING The analyses o f the r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n data i n d i c a t e d t h a t the respondents were q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t i n using a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n when s e l e c t i n g terms w i t h which t o d e s c r i b e a stereotyped t a r g e t . That i s , the i n d i v i d u a l s used p e r s o n a l i t y d e s c r i p t o r s t h a t they f e l t c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d t o a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f the t a r g e t group members and t h a t c o u l d be expected t o be manifested i n more than t h e average number o f s i t u a t i o n s and behaviours. T h i s s e c t i o n w i l l examine the f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n o f whether or not the respondents a l s o used a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n when s t e r e o t y p i n g the four t a r g e t groups. A review o f the work r e l a t e d t o the concept o f a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n w i l l be fol l o w e d by a d e s c r i p t i o n and d i s c u s s i o n o f the r e l e v a n t data. As McCauley, S t i t t and Segal (1980, p. 197) i n d i c a t e d , when a person uses a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n i n s e l e c t i n g stereotype t r a i t s he o r she i s suggesting t h a t the t a r g e t group members are  more l i k e l y than other people t o possess the t r a i t s i n question. Thus, t o say t h a t "Mounties" are determined i s t o say t h a t Mounties are more l i k e l y t o be determined than other people, or a l t e r n a -t i v e l y , t h a t the dete r m i n a t i o n o f Mounties i s stro n g e r (or more i n t e n s e , o r more deeply rooted) than the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f other - 140 -people. McCauley and h i s c o l l e a g u e s (McCauley and S t i t t , 1978; McCauley, S t i t t , and Sega l , 1980) exp l o r e d people's use of a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n using a d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o measure. They asked respondents to estimate the percentage of Germans who are e f f i c i e n t (or pleasure l o v i n g ) . They a l s o asked f o r the percentage o f " a l l o f the world's people" who are e f f i c i e n t (or pleasure l o v i n g ) . They found t h a t the r a t i o of German %/world p o p u l a t i o n % was g r e a t e r than u n i t y (1) f o r the s t e r e o t y p i c t r a i t s ( e f f i c i e n c y had a r a t i o of 1.27) and somewhat l e s s than u n i t y f o r the non-s t e r e o t y p i c t r a i t s (pleasure l o v i n g had a r a t i o of 0.89). The pr e s e n t study extended t h i s approach by gen e r a t i n g d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s c ores f o r each of the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n , c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n , and stereotype dimension v a r i a b l e s . The assumption was t h a t h i g h d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores on the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n measures would i n d i c a t e t h a t the respondents viewed stereotyped p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s to be more s t r o n g l y r e f l e c t e d i n the a c t i o n s o f t a r g e t group members than i n the a c t i o n s of people i n g e n e r a l . 25 rpo use an uncomfortable example t h a t has some s o c i a l r e l e v a n c e , i n the case of Canadian Indians26 being c a l l e d l a z y , h i g h d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores f o r the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i -b u t i o n s would suggest t h a t the h y p o t h e t i c a l respondents viewed l a z i n e s s as being more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of more Indians, i n more - 141 -behaviours, i n more s i t u a t i o n s than i s the case f o r other people (even those who can a l s o be c a l l e d l a z y ) . ' High (or low) d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores on the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n measures would i n d i c a t e t h a t the c o n t r i b u t i o n of l e a r n i n g and/or i n h e r i t a n c e to the development of the st e r e o t y p e t r a i t s i s d i f f e r e n t i n the case of t a r g e t group members than i t i s f o r people i n gene r a l . To extend the above example, " l a z i n e s s " i n Canadian Indians could be p e r c e i v e d as being more due t o i n h e r i t a n c e and genes and l e s s due t o l e a r n i n g than i s judged to be the case f o r ot h e r people. The p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e s concerning the respondents' use of a d i s -t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n t h a t were r a i s e d i n t h i s study were examined through the same types of analyses a l r e a d y performed on the r e f e r e n -t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n v a r i a b l e s . In s h o r t , the scores were subjected t o 2 (demogroup) x 2 (value-group) x 2 (own-group - o t h e r group stereotype) manovas t o examine the e f f e c t s of t a r g e t group membership s t a t u s and subsample d i f f e r e n c e s on the magnitude o f the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o indexes. As w i t h the p r e v i o u s manova t e s t s , these analyses were conducted s e p a r a t e l y f o r the st e r e o t y p e s of the s m a l l town and b i g c i t y t a r g e t s and the s t e r e o t y p e s of the c o n s e r v a t i o n -minded and development-minded t a r g e t s . U n l i k e the previous t e s t s , however, the c a u s a l and r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n v a r i a b l e s were inc l u d e d together i n the same ( e i g h t dependent v a r i a b l e ) analyses. - 142 -Supplementary H o t e l l i n g ' s and c o r r e l a t i o n analyses were performed on e i g h t subsets of data i n c l u d i n g , among o t h e r s , the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores f o r the s t e r e o t y p e s of s m a l l town people provided by small town respondents; those f o r the st e r e o t y p e s of s m a l l town people p r o v i d e d by b i g c i t y respondents; and those scores f o r the stere o t y p e s o f conservation-minded people provided by the development-minded respondents. The r e s u l t s of the two m u l t i v a r i a t e analyses of va r i a n c e are summarized i n Appendix G, complete w i t h c e l l means and standard d e v i a t i o n s . . In a l l , o n l y two e f f e c t s p r o v i d e d notable f i n d i n g s . Both of these occurred i n the analyses of the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s cores f o r the s t e r e o t y p e s o f the demographic t a r g e t s . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t m u l t i v a r i a t e e f f e c t f o r the demogroup v a r i a b l e (F(8,105) = 2.57, p<.013). T h i s was due i n l a r g e measure t o the f a c t t h a t the s m a l l town respondents employed a d i s t i n c t i v e -ness c r i t e r i o n when making c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s r e garding l e a r n i n g to  a l e s s e r e x t e n t than d i d the b i g c i t y respondents (F(1,112) = 5.99, p<.016; M = 1.00 and 1.12, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The f i n d i n g d i d not r e p l i c a t e f o r the s t e r e o t y p e s about conservation-minded and develop-ment-minded people and i s not a p a r t i c u l a r l y remarkable one. How-ever, i t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the pr e v i o u s o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t the s m a l l town respondents d i f f e r e d from t h e i r b i g c i t y c o u n t e r p a r t s i n t h e i r r a t i n g s of the importance of i n h e r i t a n c e i n st e r e o t y p e t r a i t - 143 -development. The m u l t i v a r i a t e i n t e r a c t i o n between the demogroup and t a r g e t membership s t a t u s v a r i a b l e s a l s o approached s i g n i f i c a n c e (F(8,105) -2.01, p<.052). Three measures c o n t r i b u t e d t o the o v e r a l l m u l t i -v a r i a t e e f f e c t : the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s f o r the p r o p o r t i o n estimates (F(l,112) = 12.44, p<.001), the r a t i o scores f o r the chance estimates ( F ( l , 1 1 2 ) = 8.88, p<.004), and the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores f o r the s i t u a t i o n r a t i n g s (F(l,112) = 7.08, p<.009). The a b s o l u t e value o f the c o n d i t i o n means, as w e l l as the p a t t e r n o f means w i t h respect t o one another, were extremely s i m i l a r across a l l t h r e e o f the d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s . The c e l l mean scores f o r the p r o p o r t i o n estimates a r e p r o v i d e d i n Table 21 t o i l l u s t r a t e the general f i n d i n g s . (Out of the e i g h t measures i n the present study, t h i s i s the v a r i a b l e t h a t most c l o s e l y resembles McCauley's d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o index.) I t i s c l e a r t h a t the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s r u l e was used much more s t r o n g l y when the respondents, r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r own membership group, s t e r e o t y p e d s m a l l town people than when they stereotyped b i g c i t y people.27 one can speculate, from t h i s , t h a t the use o f a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n when s e l e c t i n g t r a i t terms may be a f f e c t e d by the s t r e n g t h o f the stereotype o f the t a r g e t group being d e s c r i b e d . F u r t h e r work i s needed on t h i s i s s u e . - 144 -T a b l e 21 Mean d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s c o r e s f o r t h e p r o p o r t i o n e s t i m a t e s f o r t h e b i g c i t y and s m a l l t o w n r e s p o n d e n t s 1 s t e r e o t y p e s o f t h e i r own a n d e a c h o t h e r s 1 g r o u p s Member • Non-member g r o u p . g r o u p S m a l l Town 1..44 1 1 . 2 6 2 R e s p o n d e n t s B i g C i t y R e s p o n d e n t s 2 1.17 1 . 4 5 1 " " S m a l l t o w n t a r g e t g r o u p 2 . B i g c i t y t a r g e t g r o u p Note: The means i n t h i s t a b l e and i n Table 22 were c a l c u l a t e d w i t h o u t a p p l y i n g a c o r r e c t i o n formula t o compensate f o r r e l a t i v e l y h i g h weights p l a c e d on r a t i o scores t h a t are s u b s t a n t i a l l y l a r g e r than 1.0, when these are averaged w i t h r a t i o s l e s s than 1.0. A d i s c u s s i o n o f the e m p i r i c a l consequences o f u s i n g a c o r r e c t i v e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i s i n c l u d e d i n Appendix G. - 145 -In broadening the re s e a r c h on t h i s t o p i c i t might prove worth-w h i l e t o employ t a r g e t s t h a t d i f f e r w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r m i n o r i t y s t a t u s and t h a t vary i n the ex t e n t t o which they are perceived as being " d i f f e r e n t " from the respondents' own ( s a l i e n t ) membership or ref e r e n c e group. Such an approach t e s t s the ex t e n t to which the use o f a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n when b u i l d i n g a stereotype d e s c r i p -t i o n i s an element of a more g l o b a l judgement about the c u l t u r a l d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s of the t a r g e t group i n q u e s t i o n . To i l l u s t r a t e how such a process might operate - "Germans sure are not l i k e most people.... Most o f t e n when I t h i n k of them I t h i n k of them as being hardworking. That's not t o say, though, t h a t they're hardworking l i k e the r e s t o f us. No! They're d i f f e r e n t ! For one t h i n g , almost a l l of them are hardworking, and they're t h a t way i n a b s o l u t e l y e v e r y t h i n g they do..." The p r e v i o u s paragraphs covered the degree t o which d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o measures were a f f e c t e d by f a c t o r s such as the type of t a r g e t being stereotyped. The broader q u e s t i o n of whether or not i n d i v i d -u a l s g e n e r a l l y use a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n when s e l e c t i n g the content of t h e i r p e r s o n a l s t e r e o t y p e s remains t o be f u l l y answered. The H o t e l l i n g ' s T^ analyses o f f e r e d some i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g s on t h i s t o p i c . Since a d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o score of one (1) i n d i c a t e s t h a t a st e r e o t y p e r d i d not choose t r a i t d e s c r i p t o r s on the b a s i s of t h e i r - 146 -" d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s " , the (eight) T 2 analyses were performed using vectors of ones (Is) as h y p o t h e t i c a l means. The T 2 values f o r each of the eight data sets were hig h l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Indeed the weakest outcome, f o r the small town respondents' d e s c r i p t i o n s of big c i t y people, y i e l d e d a H o t e l l i n g ' s T 2 o f 42.92, p = .0042. The r e s u l t s are described i n f u l l i n Appendix H, while the means for each of the eight analyses are l i s t e d i n Table 22. Looking over the values i n the t a b l e , i t i s evident that they f a l l i nto two d i s t i n c t groups. The mean d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores f o r the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u -t i o n s were c o n s i s t e n t l y higher than one. Indeed, although they did not quite reach the magnitude of some of the means reported i n Table 2 of McCauley and S t i f f ' s (1978) paper, they were, nevertheless, comparable to those values. On the other hand, the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o means f o r the remaining v a r i a b l e s , i n c l u d i n g the causal a t t r i b u t i o n s and the ratings of t r a i t s t a b i l i t y 2 8 and t r a i t favourableness, f a l l very c l o s e to the base value of one. A preliminary i n s p e c t i o n of the data, then, suggests that the respondents employed a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n when making r e f e r -e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s about t h e i r stereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s , but did not T a b l e 22 Mean d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores on each s tereotype v a r i a b l e when the respondents from each of the four target groups descr ibed t h e i r own or the c o n t r a s t i n g outgroup Pespondents' Membership Group: GROUP ' OTHER GrCUP Stereotyped Target: Sm. 1Vn. a Big City 3 C c n . - n r J . a n5ev.-m3.a Sm. Twn.° Big Ci ty 3 Con . - i Td . a D 3 V . - m d . a People People People People People People People People Variable Prep./Gp./trait 1.14 1.17* 1.6G* 1.56* 1.45* 1.26 1.97 1.42 Chance/mbr. / t r . 1.47 1.22 1.72* 1.71* 1.58* 1.26 1.88 1.46 Situation 1.44 1.17 1.G3* 1.48* 1.41* 1.33 1.51* 1.12* Behaviour 1.32* 1.13 1.41* 1.32 1.32 1.27 1.48* 1.20 Stability 0.90 1.11 0.92 1.02 1.06 1.10 1.02 1.15 Inheritance 1.19 1.11 1.04 1.01 1.00 1.16 1.15 1.10 Learning 1.01. . 1.09 1.0.4 1.07 1.16 0.98 1.07 1.08 Favourableness 1.0S 1.08 ' 1.10 1.08 1.06 1.02 1.04 1.04 ^ o t e l l i n g ' B T 2 value for the data was significant at p_ <.005. * Confidence interval for the mean had a lower limit >1. - 148 -use the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s r u l e when making c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , nor when judging q u a l i t i e s r e l a t e d t o the p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s used i n the stereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s (e.g., the t r a i t favourableness and t r a i t s t a b i l i t y ) . W h i l e the H o t e l l i n g ' s T 2 r e s u l t s , together w i t h the means i n Table 22, i n d i c a t e t h a t tine respondents g e n e r a l l y used the d i s t i n c t -iveness r u l e when making r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , the u n i v a r i a t e confidence i n t e r v a l s f o r each o f the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n measures i n d i c a t e t h a t the i n d i v i d u a l s were n e i t h e r uniform nor c o n s i s t e n t i n the way they a p p l i e d t o the r u l e . In some instances the respondents a p p l i e d the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n s t r o n g l y to a l l of the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , f o r example, when co n s e r v a t i o n -minded i n d i v i d u a l s stereotyped conservation-minded people. In other cases the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n was used i n a much more d i f f u s e and much weaker manner, f o r i n s t a n c e , when b i g c i t y people were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by both b i g c i t y and s m a l l town respondents. These f i n d i n g s o f f e r an i n t e r e s t i n g p e r s p e c t i v e on McCauley and S t i t t ' s work. Based on a d i f f e r e n t method, employing d i f f e r e n t types of t a r g e t s , and w i t h q u i t e d i s s i m i l a r respondents they confirm McCauley and S t i f f ' s e s s e n t i a l p o i n t t h a t people use a d i s t i n c t i v e -ness c r i t e r i o n when c h a r a c t e r i z i n g s o c i a l groups w i t h p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . - 149 -The f i n d i n g s demonstrate f u r t h e r t h a t the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s r u l e i s not a p p l i e d merely t o judgements about the p r o p o r t i o n of t a r g e t group members possessing stereotype t r a i t s but i s extended to other r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . The r a t i n g s of the range of s i t u a t i o n s i n which t a r g e t members d i s p l a y stereotype t r a i t s have higher diagnos-t i c r a t i o v a l u e s , f o r example. C o n s i s t e n t w i t h a common sense i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , tine i d e a l i s m of conservation-minded people, the c o n v e n t i o n a l i s m of s m a l l town people and the power and money o r i e n -t a t i o n of development-minded people were seen by the. respondents to be m a nifest i n more than the standard range of s o c i a l s e t t i n g s , j u s t as the e m o t i o n a l i t y of I t a l i a n s , the shyness of P o l y n e s i a n s , and the a l o o f n e s s of the E n g l i s h seem to be viewed (at l e a s t by the media) as being c o n s t a n t across s i t u a t i o n s and s o c i a l episodes. E q u a l l y important as the f i n d i n g t h a t the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n i s r e f l e c t e d i n a number of measures i s the f i n d i n g t h a t the c r i t e r i o n a p p l i e s o n l y t o r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s and not to c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s nor t o judgements d i r e c t e d a t the p e r s o n a l i t y d e s c r i p t o r s themselves. The f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e the use of the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s r u l e have y e t t o be determined. The present study, w i t h i t s p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e f i n d i n g s , i s l i t t l e more than a p r e l i m i n a r y step i n t o what promises t o be a broad ranging area of r e s e a r c h . For now, though, we must be s a t i s f i e d w i t h the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t v a r i a b l e s such as - 150 -target group membership have l i t t l e impact on the magnitude of dia g n o s t i c r a t i o scores, while d i f f e r e n c e s i n the types of targets employed do seem to a f f e c t the d i a g n o s t i c value of t r a i t r a t i n g s . Three points warrant b r i e f mention before t h i s s e c t i o n i s closed out. McCauley and S t i t t (1978) discussed the p o s s i b i l i t y that the i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e i r study modified t h e i r responses to "look good". The issue of whether or not the volunteers i n t h i s research t a i l o r e d t h e i r answers i n a s o c i a l l y d e s i r a b l e way has been addressed i n broad terms i n a previous section of t h i s chapter. I t was concluded th a t the respondents completed t h e i r questionnaires d i l i g e n t l y and with no evidence of biased or spurious responding. Reconsidering the question with p a r t i c u l a r reference to the diagn o s t i c r a t i o information, there was no evidence from an examination of the raw data that the respondents slanted t h e i r responses to provide "acceptable" r a t i n g s that reduced the emphasis on group d i f f e r e n c e s o r group " d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s " . Indeed, the mean scores reported i n the dia g n o s t i c r a t i o tables mask the f a c t that a number of respondents provided stereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s that were associated with extremely high d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o values (e.g., 2.0, and 3.0). The v i s i b i l i t y o f peak values among the respondents' d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores r a i s e s the p o s s i b i l i t y that an i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e approach to the study of people's use of a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n might provide - 151 -f r u i t f u l r e s u l t s . The q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e between the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o values f o r the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s and those f o r the other v a r i a b l e s was emphasized i n the p a t t e r n s o f c o r r e l a t i o n s between the d i f f e r e n t measures. The scores f o r the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s tended t o c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h each other i n each o f the e i g h t s e t s o f d a t a (see Table 23). There was no r e l i a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between these v a r i a b l e s and the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o measures f o r the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s and t r a i t r a t i n g s . The f i n a l q u e s t i o n concerns the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o measures and the r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n r a t i n g s . The c o r r e l a t i o n s between these d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s were, f o r the most p a r t , low, s t a t i s t i c a l l y n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t , and i r r e g u l a r a cross d a t a s e t s . I n o t h e r words, the d a t a i n d i c a t e t h a t the respondents used the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n independently o f the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n when p r o v i d i n g stereotype t r a i t d e s c r i p t i o n s o f the f o u r t a r g e t groups. - 152 -The n u m b e r s o f s t h e d i a g n o s t i c e i g h t T a b l e 2 3 i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e r a t i o v a r i a b l e s e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n l a t i o n s b e t w e e n summed a c r o s s d i t x o n s D-R D-R D-R D-R D-R D-R D-R V A R I A B L E o r, , , % G p / t r . Ch/mbr S i t . .Behav./: • S t a b . I n h e r . L r n . D-R Ch/mbr. D-R S i t . D-R Behav, D-R F a v . D-R n * S t a b . 1 1 1 1 D-R * I n h e r . D _ R 1 1* 1 L r n . x x x a T h e c r i t e r i o n f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e was p < . 0 5 , w i t h ns = 30. ^ S e e T a b l e 20 f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e e i g h t e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s . * The c o r r e l a t i o n v/as n e g a t i v e . A l l o t h e r c o r r e l a t i o n s w e r e p o s i t i v e • - 153 -Chapter Overview To f a c i l i t a t e a p r e s e n t a t i o n and d i s c u s s i o n of the r e s u l t s the chapter was d i v i d e d i n t o a number of s e c t i o n s . These d e a l t , i n t u r n , w i t h the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondents, methodological questions r e g a r d i n g the dat a , the content of the s t e r e o t y p e d e s c r i p -t i o n s , the nature of the r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , and the respondents' use of a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n when making t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s about the t a r g e t groups. Analyses of the Environmental Response Inventory data i n d i c a t e d t h a t the s m a l l town respondents d i f f e r e d from the b i g c i t y respon-dents on two of the e i g h t s u b s t a n t i v e s u b s c a l e s , w h i l e , independ-e n t l y , the conservation-minded i n d i v i d u a l s d i f f e r e d from the development-minded respondents on s i x of the e i g h t s c a l e s . The s m a l l town v o l u n t e e r s had s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r p a s t o r a l i s m and s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower urbanism scores than the b i g c i t y p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study. The conservation-minded i n d i v i d u a l s , a t the same time, had h i g h e r p a s t o r a l i s m , lower urbanism, lower environmental a d a p t a t i o n , lower environmental t r u s t , h i g h e r a n t i q u a r i a n i s m , and lower mechanical o r i e n t a t i o n scores than the development-minded respondents. There was some evidence i n the data t o suggest t h a t the respondents' l e v e l o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h s m a l l town people was - 154 -independent of t h e i r l e v e l of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h b i g c i t y people. However, agreement w i t h the o p i n i o n s of conservation-minded people was seen t o e n t a i l disagreement w i t h the o p i n i o n s of development-minded people. With r e s p e c t t o the c e n t r a l methodological i s s u e , impression-i s t i c o b s e r v a t i o n s and q u a n t i t a t i v e f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the p a r t i c i p a n t s responded to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e task i n a c a r e f u l and r e l i a b l e manner. The i n d i v i d u a l s i n each of the four subgroups of respondents agreed g e n e r a l l y i n d e s c r i b i n g s m a l l town people as being f r i e n d l y , c o n s e r v a t i v e , p r a c t i c a l , and s o c i a b l e . There was some consensus, too, i n people's d e s c r i p t i o n s of b i g c i t y people as being a l o o f , d i s t r u s t f u l , and power and money o r i e n t e d . O v e r a l l , as might be assumed from these summary c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s , the stere o t y p e s of s m a l l town people were more favourable than the s t e r e o t y p e s of b i g c i t y people. I n t u r n , there was s u b s t a n t i a l agreement between the groups of respondents i n d e p i c t i n g conservation-minded people as being c o n s c i e n t i o u s and i d e a l i s t i c , and i n d e s c r i b i n g development-minded people as being e n t e r p r i s i n g , o p p o r t u n i s t i c , and power and money o r i e n t e d . D e s p i t e the i n t e r - g r o u p u n i f o r m i t y r e g a r d i n g the content o f these s t e r e o t y p e s , the d e s c r i p t i o n s were r a t e d more favo u r a b l y - 155 -when they were p r o v i d e d by ingroup merribers than when they were pr o v i d e d by outgroup respondents. The i n d i v i d u a l s made four d i f f e r e n t r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s about the content o f t h e i r stereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s . They judged the p r o p o r t i o n o f t a r g e t members pos s e s s i n g the stereotype t r a i t s , the chance t h a t any p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t i n d i v i d u a l encountered might possess the t r a i t s , the range o f s i t u a t i o n s i n which t a r g e t members express the t r a i t s , and the range o f behaviours through which they d i s p l a y the t r a i t s . (The r a t i n g s o f t r a i t s t a b i l i t y were discounted as r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . See foot n o t e 28.) For b o t h the stereotypes o f the demographic t a r g e t groups and those o f t h e a t t i t u d i n a l l y d e f i n e d groups, n e i t h e r i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , the p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t i n q u e s t i o n , nor the respondents' membership s t a t u s v i s - a - v i s the t a r g e t s , i n f l u e n c e d the manner i n which the respondents made these a t t r i b u t i o n s . Rather, the r a t i n g s on a l l f o u r r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n dimensions were c o n s i s t e n t l y h i g h , were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h each o t h e r , and i n d i c a t e d s t r o n g l y t h a t the respondents used a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s r u l e when making t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s . That i s , the i n d i v i d u a l s i n the study st e r e o t y p e d t h e t a r g e t groups w i t h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t they f e l t c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d t o a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f the group members and t h a t c o u l d be expected t o be manifested i n more than the average number o f s i t u a t i o n s and behaviours. - 156 -These r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s were not a s s o c i a t e d i n any r e l i a b l e way w i t h the favourableness of the stereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s . They were c o r r e l a t e d , however, w i t h the l e v e l of confidence w i t h which the people d e s c r i b e d the t a r g e t groups. The analyses of the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s r e v e a l e d some i n t e r e s t -i n g and thought provoking r e s u l t s . More emphasis was placed on l e a r n i n g as a f a c t o r i n s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t development than was p l a c e d on the r o l e o f i n h e r i t e d p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s . Small town respondents placed a h e a v i e r weight on the c o n t r i b u t i o n of i n h e r i t a n c e t o t r a i t development than d i d b i g c i t y respondents. Unexpectedly, both conservation-minded and development-minded respondents considered the p e r s o n a l i t i e s of conservation-minded people t o have a g r e a t e r i n h e r i t a n c e component than the p e r s o n a l i t i e s of development-minded people. L i k e w i s e , both of these groups of respondents f e l t t h a t the p e r s o n a l i t i e s of development-minded people had a l a r g e r l e a r n i n g component than the p e r s o n a l i t i e s o f conservation-minded people. The two c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n v a r i a b l e s were n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h each other.' They were u n r e l a t e d t o the r e f e r e n t i a l . a t t r i b u t i o n measures and u n r e l a t e d t o the t r a d i t i o n a l s tereotype dimension v a r i a b l e s . The l a s t broad q u e s t i o n addressed by the data analyses con-cerned the e x t e n t t o which the respondents used a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s - 157 -rule when forming stereotype descriptions. McCauley, S t i t t , and Segal (1980) have argued "that stereotypes are those generalizations about a class of people that distinguish that class from others. In other words, stereotyping i s d i f f e r e n t i a l t r a i t attribution or dif f e r e n t i a l prediction based on group membership information" (p. 197). They described a diagnostic ratio index that reflects the use of this " d i f f e r e n t i a l t r a i t attribution". Variable by variable versions of the index were computed for the stereotypes in the present study. The analyses of the, index scores suggested that the di s t i n c t -iveness rule was used by the respondents when they made their various referential attributions. The distinctiveness c r i t e r i o n was not employed when the causal attributions were made, nor was i t reflected in the diagnostic ratio scores for the t r a i t favourable-ness and t r a i t s t a b i l i t y ratings. The use of the distinctiveness criterion seemed to be affected somewhat by the type of target being stereotyped. Correlation analyses suggested, however, that the use of the distinctiveness criterion was not linearly related to the use of the representative rule. In other words, the respondents' generalizations about the proportion of target members possessing the stereotype t r a i t s were - 158 -made independently of t h e i r judgements about whether or not these stereotype t r a i t s were s h a r p l y d i s t i n c t i v e of the t a r g e t group members i n q u e s t i o n . - 159 -CHAPTER FOUR: SUMMARY AND COSCTJJSIONS The present study grew out of a review of two distinct and complementary sets of research on stereotypes. The review itself was built on an interpretation of Walter Lippmann's original thesis on stereotypes (Lippmann, 1922). Considering the theoretical analyses of Lippmann and other workers who have speculated on the nature of stereotypes, i t was suggested that a detailed understanding of the meanings associated with stereotypes involves not only the study of the content of. stereotypes, but also an examination of the causal and referential attributions underlying stereotype content. Causal attributions were defined as judgements about the importance of factors such as learning and inheritance in the development of stereotype traits. Referential attributions were construed as respondents' judgements about the extent to which stereotype traits were reflected across target group members, their behaviours, and the social situations in which they find themselves. Traditionally, research on stereotypes has revolved around the use of the content-related, Katz and Braly type, adjectival check l i s t . Within this framework much has been learned about the person-ality terms used to describe various social targets. Yet, l i t t l e - 160 -has been d i s c o v e r e d about the r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these t r a i t terms. More r e c e n t l y , a number o f i s s u e s r e l a t e d t o stereotype measurement, t o c o g n i t i v e approaches t o the study o f stereotypes, and t o g e n e r a l aspects o f a t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r i e s , have underscored the value o f e x p l o r i n g the a t t r i b u t i o n s t r u c t u r e u n d e r l y i n g stereotype content. A wide-ranging body o f t h i s work has served t o d e f i n e some o f the a t t r i b u t i o n v a r i a b l e s t h a t might prove u s e f u l i n a more developed and i n t e g r a t i v e programme o f r e s e a r c h . However, most s t u d i e s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h i s work have l e f t the content of respon-dents 1 s t e r e o t y p e s u n s p e c i f i e d and unmeasured. Target i n f o r m a t i o n i s manipulated e x p e r i m e n t a l l y and the r e s u l t a n t a t t r i b u t i o n s are measured as a f u n c t i o n o f t h i s independently p r e s c r i b e d i n f o r m a t i o n . I n s h o r t , the nature o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the t r a i t terms i n c l u d e d by i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e i r own ster e o t y p e s and the r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these t r a i t terms has g e n e r a l l y been l e f t unexamined. The purpose of the pre s e n t study was t o conduct an e x p l o r a t o r y a n a l y s i s o f some r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g s t e r e o t y p e content. The r e s e a r c h d e s i g n a l l o w e d an examination o f the e f f e c t s o f - 161 -t a r g e t group membership on the stereotype responses. I t i n c l u d e d a t e s t o f the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f the f i n d i n g s across d i f f e r e n t types o f t a r g e t groups, and i t p r o v i d e d data concerning whether or not i n d i v i d u a l s used a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s r u l e and a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s  c r i t e r i o n when s e l e c t i n g s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t s . (A r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s r u l e determines t h a t the respondent st e r e o t y p e s t a r g e t groups w i t h t r a i t s t h a t a r e judged t o a p p l y t o the g r e a t e r p o r t i o n o f group members, i n more than the average number o f s i t u a t i o n s , under most c o n d i t i o n s . D i s t i n c t i v e n e s s i m p l i e s t h a t a t r a i t i s more l i k e l y t o occur, o r i s s t r o n g e r , among the members of a t a r g e t group than among people i n g e n e r a l ( c f . McCauley, S t i t t , and S e g a l , 1980).) Two hundred and f o r t y v o l u n t e e r s were r e c r u i t e d t o complete a f i v e p a r t " s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s " q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Of the t o t a l sample of v o l u n t e e r s , 120 were people who d e s c r i b e d themselves as having grown up i n a s m a l l town s e t t i n g . The remaining 120 were people who had grown up i n what they themselves considered t o be l a r g e c i t i e s . W i t h i n each o f these two groups, 60 people d e s c r i b e d themselves as b e i n g development-minded, i n a g e n e r a l sense, and 60 d e s c r i b e d themselves as b e i n g conservation-itiinded. The o v e r a l l sample, then, c o n s i s t e d o f f o u r subgroups, each c o n t a i n i n g 60 people, and each bein g d i s t i n c t from the others i n terms o f the p e r s o n a l i t y charac-t e r i s t i c s , a t t i t u d e s , and values o f the subgroup rrernbers. - 162 -F i f t e e n i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n each o f these subgroups were asked t o d e s c r i b e "people who have grown up i n l a r g e c i t i e s " , 15 d e s c r i b e d "people who have grown up i n sm a l l towns", 15 c h a r a c t e r i z e d "development-minded people", and the remaining 15 c h a r a c t e r i z e d "conservation-minded people". The stereotype c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s were formed by the i n d i v i d u a l s s e l e c t i n g the "best" s i x d e s c r i p t o r s from a check l i s t o f 86 t r a i t words. The check l i s t i n c l u d e d p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t terms t h a t have been shown e m p i r i c a l l y t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h environmental a t t i t u d e s and d i s p o s i t i o n s ( c f . McKechnie, 1974). Nine measures formed the f i r s t o f two s e t s o f dependent v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d t o each o f the respondents' s i x stereotype t r a i t terms. These measures f e l l i n t o t h ree separate groupings. Two of the v a r i a b l e s , estimates o f the favourableness o f the t r a i t terms and o f the confidence w i t h which the t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s were made, r e f l e c t e d d imensional ( t e x t u r a l ) f e a t u r e s o f the respondents' s t e r e o t y p e s . Another two v a r i a b l e s measured c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the impact o f i n h e r i t e d f a c t o r s and s o c i a l c o n d i t i o n s ( l e a r n i n g ) on the development o f the stereotype c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Four o f the remaining f i v e items concerned r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . Included were q u e s t i o n s about the p r o p o r t i o n o f group members considered t o have each o f the s e l e c t e d t r a i t s ; t h e chance t h a t any p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t member might have each o f the s i x c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; - 163 -the range o f s i t u a t i o n s i n which the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are expressed by the t a r g e t members; and the range o f behaviours through which the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are manifested. The f i n a l q u e s t i o n , regarding the s t a b i l i t y o f each o f t h e s i x t r a i t s , on a p o s t e r i o r i grounds, was judged not t o f i t w e l l w i t h any o f the above groupings. As i n d i c a t e d , t h e nine r a t i n g s were made f o r each o f the s i x st e r e o t y p e t r a i t terms. The val u e s f o r each o f t h e r a t i n g v a r i a b l e s were averaged a c r o s s the s i x d e s c r i p t o r s t o y i e l d nine separate a t t r i b u t i o n s c o r e s per stereotype ( t h a t i s , per respondent). The second, complementary s e t o f dependent measures incorpo-r a t e d base r a t e data and provided e i g h t d i a g n o s t i c - r a t i o - t y p e a t t r i b u t i o n s c o r e s f o r each responent ( c f . McCauley, S t i t t , and Seg a l , 1980). Each o f the p a r t i c i p a n t s p r o v i d e d v a r i a b l e by v a r i a b l e e s t i m a t e s about t h e i r s e l e c t e d stereotype t r a i t s as these t r a i t s a p p l i e d t o people i n ge n e r a l . Each respondents' estimate on each v a r i a b l e , f o r each o f the s i x s t e r e o t y p e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as they a p p l i e d t o the t a r g e t group, was d i v i d e d by the e q u i v a l e n t r a t i n g made f o r the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n q u e s t i o n as i t a p p l i e d t o people i n g e n e r a l . The t r a i t by t r a i t r a t i o measures were then averaged t o generate o v e r a l l stereotype - 164 -scores on each of the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o indexes. There were e i g h t r a t h e r t han n i n e such indexes s i n c e no base r a t e estimates were obta i n e d r e g a r d i n g the confidence w i t h which the respondents would use the s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t s t o d e s c r i b e people i n g e n e r a l . The a t t r i b u t i o n and the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o measures were t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y i n the data analyses. The r e s e a r c h d e s i g n allowed an examination o f the r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g members' and ron-members 1 concepts o f a number o f d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l groups. The data regarding the d e m o g r a p h i c a l l y - d e f i n e d t a r g e t s ( i . e . , " b i g c i t y " and "small town" people) were analyzed s e p a r a t e l y from the responses concerning t h e a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d t a r g e t groups ( i . e . , "conservation-minded" and "development-minded" p e o p l e ) . I n each case, the a n a l y s i s format conformed t o a 2 x 2 x 2 f i x e d e f f e c t s manova. The f i r s t f a c t o r r e p r e s e n t e d the demographic p a r t i t i o n o f the respondents ( i . e . , b i g c i t y v e rsus s m a l l town p a r t i c i p a n t s ) . The second independent v a r i a b l e concerned the value d i f f e r e n c e s between the respondents (conservation-mindedness versus development-mindedness), and the t h i r d f a c t o r r e f l e c t e d the t a r g e t s ' s t a t u s w i t h r e s p e c t t o the respondents ( i . e . , member group versus non-member o r outgroup). The t h i r d independent v a r i a b l e , then, d i s t i n g u i s h e d between the two d i f f e r e n t types o f s t e r e o t y p e s generated i n the study, those o f membership groups and those o f outgroups. - 165 -There were s i x m u l t i v a r i a t e analyses. The r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u -t i o n s f o r the stereotypes o f b i g c i t y and s m a l l town people were t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y from the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s about the s t e r e o -types o f these t a r g e t s . The r e f e r e n t i a l and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r the st e r e o t y p e s o f the a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d t a r g e t groups were analyzed s e p a r a t e l y . The d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores f o r the s t e r e o -types o f the demographic t a r g e t s were grouped together i n one manova, w h i l e the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores f o r the a t t i t u d i n a l l y -d e f i n e d t a r g e t s were i n c l u d e d i n another e i g h t - v a r i a b l e manova. The i n d i v i d u a l s i n each o f the f o u r subgroups o f respondents agreed g e n e r a l l y i n d e s c r i b i n g s m a l l town people as b e i n g f r i e n d l y , c o n s e r v a t i v e , p r a c t i c a l , and s o c i a b l e . There was consensus, too, i n people's d e s c r i p t i o n s o f b i g c i t y people as bein g a l o o f , d i s t r u s t -f u l , and power and money o r i e n t e d . As might be assumed from these summary c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s , the stereotypes o f s m a l l town people were more fav o u r a b l e than the stereotypes o f b i g c i t y people. There was s u b s t a n t i a l agreement between the groups o f respon-dents i n d e p i c t i n g conservation—minded people as bein g c o n s c i e n t i o u s and i d e a l i s t i c , and i n d e s c r i b i n g development-minded people as being e n t e r p r i s i n g , o p p o r t u n i s t i c , and power and money o r i e n t e d . Despite the i n t e r - g r o u p u n i f o r m i t y regarding the content o f these s t e r e o -t y p e s , the d e s c r i p t i o n s were r a t e d more f a v o u r a b l y when they were - 166 -p r o v i d e d by ingroup members than when they were provided by outgroup respondents. For both the stereotypes o f the demographic t a r g e t groups and those o f the a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d groups, n e i t h e r i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , the p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t i n q u e s t i o n , nor the respondents' membership s t a t u s v i s - a - v i s the t a r g e t s , i n f l u e n c e d the manner i n which the respondents made t h e i r r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . The r a t i n g s on a l l f o u r r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n dimensions were c o n s i s t -e n t l y h i g h , were s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h each ot h e r , and i n d i c a t e d s t r o n g l y t h a t the respondents used the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s r u l e when making t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s . The i n d i v i d u a l s i n the study stereotyped the t a r g e t groups w i t h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t they f e l t c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d t o a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f the group members, and t h a t c o u l d be expected t o be manifested i n more than the average number o f s i t u a t i o n s and behaviours. These r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s were not a s s o c i a t e d i n any r e l i a b l e way w i t h the favourableness of the stereotype d e s c i p t i o n s . They were p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d , however, w i t h the l e v e l o f c o n f i -dence w i t h which the people d e s c r i b e d the t a r g e t groups. The a n a l y s e s o f the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s r e v e a l e d some i n t e r e s t -i n g and thought provoking r e s u l t s . I n g e n e r a l , more emphasis was p l a c e d on l e a r n i n g as a f a c t o r i n stereotype t r a i t development than - 167 -was p l a c e d on the r o l e o f i n h e r i t e d p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s . W i t h i n t h i s c o n t ext, s m a l l town respondents p l a c e d a h e a v i e r weight on the c o n t r i b u t i o n o f i n h e r i t a n c e t o t r a i t development than d i d b i g c i t y respondents. Unexpectedly, b o t h c»nservation-minded and develop-ment-minded respondents considered the p e r s o n a l i t i e s o f conserva-tion-minded people t o have a g r e a t e r i n h e r i t a n c e component than the p e r s o n a l i t i e s o f development-minded people. L i k e w i s e , both o f these groups o f respondents f e l t t h a t the p e r s o n a l i t i e s o f development-minded people have a l a r g e r l e a r n i n g component than the p e r s o n a l i -t i e s o f conservation-minded people. The two c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n v a r i a b l e s were n e g a t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h each o t h e r . They were u n r e l a t e d t o the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n measures and u n r e l a t e d t o the t r a d i t i o n a l s tereotype dimension v a r i a b l e s . The l a s t broad q u e s t i o n addressed by the data analyses con-cerned the e x t e n t t o which the respondents used a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s r u l e when forming stereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s . McCauley, S t i t t , and Segal (1980) have argued t h a t s t e r e o t y p e s a r e those g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about a c l a s s o f people t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h t h a t c l a s s from o t h e r s . I n other words, s t e r e o t y p i n g i s d i f f e r e n t i a l t r a i t a t t r i b u t i o n o r d i f f e r e n t i a l p r e d i c t i o n based on group membership i n f o r m a t i o n (p. 197). - 168 -They d e s c r i b e d a d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o index t h a t r e f l e c t s the use of t h i s " d i f f e r e n t i a l t r a i t a t t r i b u t i o n " response s t y l e . V a r i a b l e by v a r i a b l e v e r s i o n s o f the index were computed f o r the stereotypes i n the p r e s e n t study, as d e s c r i b e d above (pgs. 156-157). The a n a l y s e s o f the index scores suggested t h a t the d i s t i n c t -iveness r u l e was used by the respondents when they made t h e i r v a r i o u s r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . The d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n was not employed when the ca u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s were made, nor was i t r e f l e c t e d i n the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores f o r the t r a i t f a v o u r a b l e -ness and t r a i t s t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s . The use o f t h e d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n seemed t o be mo d i f i e d somewhat by t h e n a t u r e o f the t a r g e t b e i n g s t e r e o t y p e d . For in s t a n c e , t h e respondents pl a c e d most o f the weight on the s i t u a -t i o n a l v a r i a b l e f o r some o f the t a r g e t groups and d i f f u s e d t h e i r use o f the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s r u l e over a l l o f the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s i n the case o f o t h e r s ( c f . Table 22). C o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s e s suggested t h a t the use of the d i s t i n c t i v e -ness c r i t e r i o n was u n r e l a t e d t o the use o f the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s r u l e . I n o t h e r words, the respondents' g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about the p r o p o r t i o n o f t a r g e t members possessing the st e r e o t y p e t r a i t s were made independently o f t h e i r judgements about whether or not these stereotype t r a i t s were s h a r p l y d i s t i n c t i v e o f the t a r g e t group - 169 -members i n q u e s t i o n . From a g e n e r a l viewpoint, the r e s u l t s o f the study r e a f f i r m the i n t e r e s t v a l u e t o be de r i v e d from conducting t r a d i t i o n a l stereotype s t u d i e s on s p e c i f i c t o p i c s o f s o c i a l r e l e v a n c e . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n d i v i d u a l s ' concepts o f s o c i a l groups, such as conserva-tion-minded people, and the media r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f these same groups i s c l e a r l y r e f l e c t e d i n the research-generated s o c i a l s t e r e o -type p r o f i l e s (Tables 6 and 13). Th i s form o f d e s c r i p t i v e work, f o c u s s i n g as i t does on r e g i o n a l and p e r i o d - s p e c i f i c events, does much t o add a p s y c h o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e t o s o c i o l o g i c a l and h i s t o r i c a l i s s u e s . The r e s u l t s a l s o suggest t h a t the recent e f f o r t bo d e f i n e the c o g n i t i v e p rocesses u n d e r l y i n g stereotypes, when combined w i t h a methodology designed t o measure the content o f s t e r e o t y p e concepts, r e v e a l s - much about t h e assumptions and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h people's d e s c r i p t i o n s o f s o c i a l groups. The pre s e n t study c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h i s emerging area o f concern i n a number o f ways. I t i n d i c a t e s t h a t people use both a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s r u l e and a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n when e s t i m a t i n g the e x t e n t t o which stereotype t r a i t s g e n e r a l i z e across t a r g e t group members, t a r g e t members' beh a v i o u r s , and the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g t a r g e t members. I t i n d i c a t e s , i n a d d i t i o n , t h a t c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s are - 170 -u n r e l a t e d t o r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s and t h a t l e a r n i n g i s given more emphasis than i n h e r i t a n c e i n people's e x p l a n a t i o n s about the development of s t e r e o t y p i c a l p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s . I n broader terms, the study suggests t h a t d e s p i t e content and a f f e c t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s between s t e r e o t y p e s , t h e r e may be s e v e r a l i n v a r i a n t a t t r i b u t i o n processes u n d e r l y i n g the p r o d u c t i o n o f s t e r e o -type d e s c r i p t i o n s . The f u l l range and nature o f these i n v a r i a n t c o g n i t i v e processes remain t o be d e f i n e d . As r e s e a r c h i n the f i e l d develops i t i s t o be expected t h a t t h i s i s s u e w i l l r e c e i v e i n c r e a s -i n g l y more comprehensive a t t e n t i o n . The present work i n d i c a t e s , i n t h i s r e s p e c t , t h a t p l a c i n g undue emphasis on f a c t o r s such as group membership i s l i k e l y t o be t h e o r e t i c a l l y unrewarding. Rather, a more d e t a i l e d examination o f the e f f e c t s o f p a r t i c u l a r types of t a r g e t s , and of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e v a r i a b l e s , on stereotype-r e l a t e d judgements might prove more f r u i t f u l . The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h was a p r e l i m i n a r y attempt t o i n t e g r a t e t r a d i t i o n a l and c u r r e n t methodologies i n an examination of s t e r e o -type s t r u c t u r e s . I t was presented as a h y p o t h e s i s generating study and, indeed, i t served t o sharpen questions r a t h e r than t o answer them, t o focus more d i r e c t l y on t o p i c s o f t h e o r e t i c a l importance r a t h e r than t o l a y them t o r e s t . The f o l l o w i n g paragraphs w i l l r eview a number o f these i s s u e s w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o the c u r r e n t l i t e r a t u r e on s t e r e o t y p i n g and s o c i a l c o g n i t i o n . - 171 -Three c o n t r a s t i n g p e r s p e c t i v e s on stereotype s t r u c t u r e s were o u t l i n e d i n the i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h i s study. The t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i a l  p s y c h o l o g i c a l approach t o s t e r e o t y p i n g suggests t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s e i t h e r c h a r a c t e r i z e t a r g e t groups i n an extreme, h i g h l y e v a l u a t i v e manner or they r e f r a i n from making g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s about such groups a t a l l . -This s t y l e of responding was not e v i d e n t i n the present set o f data. What was l a b e l l e d the c o g n i t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g approach was d e s c r i b e d as a t t e n d i n g t o the i n h e r e n t c o n s i s t e n c y i n respon-dents' s t e r e o t y p e - r e l a t e d judgements. T h i s p e r s p e c t i v e on s t e r e o -t y p i n g focuses on the s t r e n g t h o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s t e r e o -t y p e v a r i a b l e s . I t de-emphasizes the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the s t r u c t u r e o f i n t e r v a r i a b l e c o r r e l a t i o n s might a l t e r across t a r g e t types. There was ample evidence among the f i n d i n g s f o r the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s t o support t h i s v i e w p o i n t . Tne a t t r i b u t i o n s i n q u e s t i o n were c o n s i s t e n t i n form and were h i g h l y i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d across a l l experimental c o n d i t i o n s . The r e s u l t s f o r the c o n t e n t - r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e s and the c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , however, f e l l more c l e a r l y w i t h i n the framework of the t h i r d approach t o s t e r e o t y p i n g , the s o c i a l - c o g n i t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e . T h i s p a r t i c u l a r v i e w p o i n t attends t o the manner i n which s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s such as t a r g e t type, group membership, and p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s can moderate s t e r e o t y p e — r e l a t e d judgements. In the - 172 -present case, both the nature o f the t a r g e t s (e.g., c o n s e r v a t i o n -rriinded people) and the nature o f the respondent groups (e.g., s m a l l town people) a f f e c t e d the type o f c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s made about stereotype c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Moreover, group rrembership, i n one i n s t a n c e , and t a r g e t type, i n the other, a f f e c t e d the favourableness r a t i n g s o f the s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t s . I t i s r e l a t i v e l y easy t o h i g h l i g h t the t h e o r e t i c a l l i n k s between our v a r i o u s p a t t e r n s o f f i n d i n g s and the work of other re s e a r c h e r s i n the f i e l d . I t i s somewhat more d i f f i c u l t t o r e c o n c i l e the obvious d i s p a r i t y between our two d i f f e r e n t subsets o f r e s u l t s . The e f f e c t s o f group rrembership and t a r g e t type on the t r a i t favourableness r a t i n g s i n t h i s study add t o the numerous examples o f the general i n f l u e n c e o f context on s t e r e o t y p e - r e l a t e d judgements. W o l l and h i s a s s o c i a t e s (Woll, Weeks, Fraps, Pendergrass, & Vanderplas, 1980) have demonstrated a s i m i l a r phenomenon w i t h t h e i r f i n d i n g t h a t the manner i n which t r a i t terms are understood can vary w i t h the c o n t e x t i n which the t r a i t s a re embedded. T h i s context e f f e c t i s e v i d e n t , too, i n L i n v i l l e ' s (1982) study i n which she found t h a t group rrembership a f f e c t e d the complexity and the nature o f the e v a l u a t i o n s o f ingroup and outgroup t a r g e t s . Indeed, much o f the s t e r e o t y p e l i t e r a t u r e i s s t i l l d i r e c t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y a t e x p l o r -i n g the i n f l u e n c e o f s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s on stereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s and - 173 -e v a l u a t i o n s ( c f . Brewer, 1979; W i l d e r , 1980). However, as the analyses o f the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n v a r i a b l e s i n d i c a t e , c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t needs t o be d i r e c t e d , as w e l l , a t i d e n t i f y i n g t h e s t e r e o t y p e - r e l a t e d f a c t o r s and processes t h a t are not a f f e c t e d by s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s such as stimulus and i n f o r m a t i o n s a l i e n c e (e.g., Chaiken and Baldwin, 1981), general a t t i t u d e s (e.g., Ross, McFarland, & F l e t c h e r , 1981), and i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t e n d i n g t o the s o c i a l environment ( c f . Bern (1981), F i s k e ( i n p r e s s ) , and Marcus, Crane, B e r n s t e i n , & S i l a d i (1982) f o r d i f f e r e n t d i s c u s s i o n s of schema-moderated judgements). The r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s provided by the respondents i n the present study o f f e r a q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t focus on s t e r e o t y p i n g than t h a t o f f e r e d by the analyses of the more t r a d i t i o n a l measures. The i m p l i c a t i o n t o be d e r i v e d from them i s t h a t people have a f i r m sense o f what they i n t e n d when they use t r a i t terms t o d e s c r i b e groups o f persons. T h i s i n t e n t i o n i s independent o f the t a r g e t i n q u e s t i o n , o f the p a r t i c u l a r t r a i t s used i n the d e s c r i p t i o n , or o f the manner i n which the connotations of the t r a i t s can be changed s u b t l y by c o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e s . The r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s seem t o o f f e r a p a r t i c u l a r type o f reason f o r the c h o i c e o f t r a i t s used t o d e s c r i b e a t a r g e t ( c f . Locke and Pennington, 1982). Indeed, the f a c i l i t y t o g e n e r a l i z e about stereotype t r a i t s a cross people and s i t u a t i o n s serves as a r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n f o r choosing s p e c i f i c t r a i t s as being s t e r e o t y p i c a l o f a t a r g e t group ( c f . Locke and Pennington, - 174 -1932, p.220), j u s t as much as i t serves as a reason f o r behaving toward t a r g e t group members on the assumption t h a t they w i l l a c t i n a s t e r e o t y p i c a l manner. Whether or not these r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u -t i o n s r e f l e c t a c a r e f u l and a n a l y t i c a l approach t o s e l e c t i n g and using s t e r e o t y p i c a l t r a i t s , or merely r e f l e c t a post hoc attempt t o j u s t i f y a p a r t i c u l a r group c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n remains t o be e m p i r i -c a l l y examined. There i s much work and debate on the q u e s t i o n t h a t can be borrowed from i n f u r t h e r s t u d i e s o f the i s s u e (e.g., M i e n and Ebbesen, 1981; Locke and Pennington, 1982; N i s b e t t and Wilson, 1977; Smith and M i l l e r , 1978). Vi e w i n g the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s as b e i n g types o f reasons u n d e r l y i n g t h e s e l e c t i o n o f stereotype t r a i t s and, consequently, as be i n g c a t e g o r i c a l l y d i s t i n c t from judgements about the content o f st e r e o t y p e d e s c r i p t i o n s (e.g., favourableness, t r a i t s t a b i l i t y ) suggests t h a t a m u l t i - p r o c e s s model o f s t e r e o t y p i n g might be o f t h e o r e t i c a l v a l u e . An attempt t o sketch a p r e l i m i n a r y v e r s i o n o f such a model i s presented i n Appendix I . In i t s embryonic fcrm, the model attempts t o account f o r the v a r i o u s s o c i a l f a c t o r s t h a t may i n f l u e n c e t h e content and s t r u c t u r e o f s t e r e o t y p e s . I t a l s o f a c i l i t a t e s an examination o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s t e r e o t y p i n g and more g e n e r a l processes on s o c i a l c o g n i t i o n . Thus, the framework o f the model a l l o w s one t o draw t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p i r i c a l connec-t i o n s between the rec e n t work on schemas (e.g., Bern, 1981; H a s t i e , 1980; Marcus, e t a l , 1982), prototypes (e.g., Hoffman, M i s c h e l , & - 175 -Mazze, 1981), and stereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s . I t a l l o w s one t o attend t o the n a t u r e o f the s o c i a l s e t t i n g i n which s t e r e o t y p e s are being s t u d i e d ( c f . Cohen, 1981; Feldman, 1981), and i t a l l o w s one t o e v a l u a t e the r e l e v a n c e o f general debates i n the s o c i a l c o g n i t i o n area t o the s t e r e o t y p i n g f i e l d i n p a r t i c u l a r (e.g., F i s k e ' s (1981) d i s c u s s i o n o f Zajonc's (1980) a s s e r t i o n t h a t a f f e c t and c o g n i t i o n a r e processed d i f f e r e n t l y ) . In broad terms, the model i s an a i d i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n o f the growing and d i s p a r a t e body o f f i n d i n g s concerning s t e r e o t y p i n g , and i t serves the h y p o t h e s i s -g e n e r a t i n g , r e s e a r c h - m o t i v a t i n g f u n c t i o n argued f o r i n the i n t r o d u c -t o r y chapter t o t h i s study. Some l i n e s o f f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h are suggested i n the f o l l o w i n g paragraphs. .Any c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the contents of the s t e r e o t y p e s generated i n the present r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t draws a t t e n t i o n t o the f a c t t h a t the r e s u l t s d i f f e r somewhat across the two types o f t a r g e t s . T h i s h i g h -l i g h t s the need f o r workers t o attend s y s t e m a t i c a l l y t o the nature o f the t a r g e t s used i n stereotype r e s e a r c h . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t a g r e a t d e a l o f the work concerned w i t h p r e j u d i c i a l s t e r e o t y p e s has been founded on c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n s o f m i n o r i t y , disadvantaged, and h o s t i l e t a r g e t groups. Research e x p l o r i n g the f u n c t i o n a l v a l u e o f s t e r e o t y p e s more f r e q u e n t l y i n c o r p o r a t e s n e t u r a l t a r g e t s l i k e nurses, l i b r a r i a n s , and accountants. I t has been d i f f i c u l t , i f not i m p o s s i b l e , consequently, t o determine the range o f c o n d i t i o n s under which v a r i o u s r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s apply. - 176 -I n an e f f o r t t o e s t a b l i s h the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f stereotype processes i t i s important t o use t a r g e t s and t a r g e t types as independent v a r i a b l e s , b u i l d i n g , f o r i n s t a n c e , on the work of Jones and Ashmore (1973). One means of doing t h i s would be t o develop t h e o r e t i c a l l y meaningful taxonomies o f stereotype t a r g e t s , and, i n doing so, t o c o n s i d e r the s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s o f the groups (such as t h e i r s i z e , p e r m e a b i l i t y , and degree o f d i s p e r s i o n ) as w e l l as t h e i r " s o c i a l p r o f i l e " f e a t u r e s (such as t h e i r e t h n i c i t y , o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s , and d r e s s code). A l r e a d y , the task appears enormous i n t h a t we have a b e w i l d e r i n g assortment o f l a b e l s t o work w i t h , from d i u r n a l s and n o c t u r n a l s ( L o c k s l e y , Hepburn, & O r t i z , 1982), through neoPentecostals ( B a l l , 1981) and e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s t s (Chaiken and Baldwin, 1981), t o Republicans and Democrats ( F i s k e , i n p r e s s ) . The l i s t i s growing r a p i d l y . The r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n v a r i a b l e s employed i n t h i s study d e f i n e c l e a r l y many o f the key dimensions o f the s o c i a l environment along which s t e r e o t y p i c a l t r a i t s are "hung". Rather l i k e the stage d i r e c t i o n s i n a p l a y , stereotypes seem t o p r e s c r i b e what i s expected o f i n d i v i d u a l t a r g e t members, what i s expected o f t h e i r b e h a v i o u r a l r e p e r t o i r e , and what i s expected o f the s o c i a l performances i n s i t u a t i o n s i n which t a r g e t members f i n d themselves. The i m p l i c a -t i o n s o f these types o f e x p e c t a t i o n s i n c o n t e x t s such as job performance a p p r a i s a l s , s t a f f r e c r u i t m e n t , i n t e r c u l t u r a l i n t e r -a c t i o n s , and l e g a l cases i s a l r e a d y being explored (e.g., Feldman, - 177 -1981; Thornton, Robbins, & Johnson, 1981). However, much work needs t o be done t o b r i d g e the gap between the study o f r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i -b u t i o n s i n r e s t r i c t e d , q u asi-experimental, and' somewhat a r t i f i c i a l s i t u a t i o n s and the study o f r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s i n more n a t u r a l i s t i c s e t t i n g s . The r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n measures s e l e c t e d f o r the present study were co n s i d e r e d t o be a sample o f a p o t e n t i a l l y l a r g e r s e t of such v a r i a b l e s . S i n c e our data were c o l l e c t e d , two o t h e r measures have been r e p o r t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Both o f these may prove rewarding i n the study o f s t e r e o t y p e s . Goldberg (1981) and Magnusson and S t a t t i n (1981) d i s c u s s b e h a v i o u r a l ( t r a i t ) frequency and b e h a v i o u r a l ( t r a i t ) i n t e n s i t y as dimensions along which people's c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s can v a r y . Both of these indexes can be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n terms and combined w i t h the p r e s e n t s e t o f v a r i a b l e s t o p r o v i d e a r i c h e r p e r s p e c t i v e on the manner i n which s t e r e o t y p i c a l t r a i t s are g e n e r a l i z e d and g i v e n s o c i a l meaning. The r e l a t i v e l y s t r o n g emphasis which the respondents p l a c e d on l e a r n i n g i n c o n t r a s t t o i n h e r i t a n c e as a p e r c e i v e d cause of s t e r e o -t y p i c a l t r a i t s i s an i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g . However, i t i s one t h a t must be t r e a t e d w i t h c a u t i o n , given the r e s t r i c t e d range o f t a r g e t s used i n t h i s study and g i v e n the evidence t h a t t h e r e are i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n r a t i n g s . I t would appear worth-w h i l e t o extend the examination o f c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s t o i n c l u d e - 178 -e t h n i c t a r g e t groups and t o take a more comprehensive account of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i s c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s t y l e s . Birnbaum and Stegner (1981) have r e p o r t e d a recent study which confirms t h e v a l u e o f t h i s r e s e a r c h approach. They i d e n t i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l s who adopted e s s e n t i a l l y e i t h e r an h e r e d i t a r y , an environmental, o r an "extreme environmental" p o s i t i o n about the important deterrrunants o f IQ. They then determined t h a t the judges who d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r emphasis ' on h e r e d i t y and environment as determinants o f IQ a l s o d i f f e r e d i n the weight they a t t r i b u t e d t o h e r e d i t a r y and environmental informa-t i o n i n p r e d i c t i n g t he IQ o f h y p o t h e t i c a l adopted c h i l d r e n . Such d i f f e r e n c e s i n b e l i e f s about the causes o f t r a i t s can a f f e c t performance e x p e c t a t i o n s , job recruitment and t r a i r i i n g d e c i s i o n s , the treatment o f the u n d e r p r i v i l e g e d , and the treatment o f v i c t i m s (e.g., the v i c t i m s o f rape, c f . Thornton, e t a l , 1981). More g e n e r a l l y , our r e l i a n c e on separate measures o f the importance of l e a r n i n g and i n h e r i t a n c e i n the development of s t e r e o -t y p i c a l t r a i t s appears a s t u t e when one attends t o the c r i t i c i s m of u n i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l e s v o i c e d i n r e c e n t methodological d i s c u s s i o n s o f c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s (e.g., M i l l e r , Smith, & Uleman, 1981). Employing d i f f e r e n t procedures and a wider range o f v a r i a b l e s , t h i s study confirmed the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f McCauley and S t i t t ' s r e c e n t work (McCauley and S t i t t , 1978). In t h e i r most a b s t r a c t , the McCauley and S t i t t f i n d i n g s underscored the importance o f c o n t e x t i n - 179 -s t e r e o t y p i n g s o c i a l groups. I t appears t h a t people f r e q u e n t l y d e s c r i b e groups r e l a t i v e t o some i m p l i c i t norm, f o r i n s t a n c e , the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f "people i n g e n e r a l " . T h i s i s an important f i n d i n g i n i t s own r i g h t . The f i n d i n g i s important i n a d d i t i o n , however, because i t i s an i n d i c a t i o n o f the manner i n which i n d i v i d u a l s may use d e c i s i o n r u l e s when s e l e c t i n g the content o f t h e i r s t e r e o t y p e d e s c r i p t i o n s . The present r e s e a r c h e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the respondents used both a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n and a d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n when c h a r a c t e r i z i n g the t a r g e t groups. I t does not e s t a b l i s h t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s and d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s d i f f e r e n t i a t e between those t r a i t s t h a t a r e and are not i n c l u d e d i n s t e r e o t y p e s . F u r t h e r data on the i s s u e a r e needed. One way i n which t h i s work co u l d be pursued i s t o determine which t r a i t s respondents c o n s i d e r t o be s t e r e o t y p i c a l and a t y p i c a l o f t a r g e t groups and t o examine the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s and d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s r a t i n g s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h these d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . L o c k s l e y , Hepburn, and O r t i z (1982) p r o v i d e i n t r i g u i n g summary data r e l a t e d t o t h i s i s s u e . Using "base r a t e " judgements t h a t a r e extremely s i m i l a r t o those generated by McCauley and S t i t t (1978), they found t h a t s t e r e o t y p i c a l l y n o c t u r n a l t r a i t s were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f over 50% o f n o c t u r n a l s and were pres e n t i n n o c t u r n a l s t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t than i n people i n g e n e r a l . Moreover, a t y p i c a l n o c t u r n a l t r a i t s were not r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f n o c t u r n a l s (<50% possessed the t r a i t s ) and were judged t o be - 180 -underrepresented i n n o c t u r n a l s r e l a t i v e t o people i n g e n e r a l . The same p a t t e r n h e l d f o r stereotypes o f d i u r n a l s . While the L o c k s l e y e t a l f i n d i n g s are q u i t e weak, they r e i n f o r c e the argument t h a t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s and d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s r u l e s might be used t o s e l e c t i v e l y screen t r a i t s f o r i n c l u s i o n i n stereotype d e s c r i p t i o n s . The r o l e t h a t these and other d e c i s i o n r u l e s c o u l d have i n s t e r e o -type formation i s o u t l i n e d i n the s t e r e o t y p i n g model i n Appendix I . A v a r i e t y o f methodological procedures have been developed t o measure st e r e o t y p e content, t o d e f i n e the assumptions u n d e r l y i n g stereotype concepts, t o determine the i n f l u e n c e o f stereotypes on person p e r c e p t i o n and memory f o r p e r s o n a l data, and t o explore the e f f e c t s o f i n f o r m a t i o n about p a r t i c u l a r t a r g e t members on o v e r a l l group s t e r e o t y p e s . A l l o f these techniques, w i t h a l l o f t h e i r d i f f e r e n t t h e o r e t i c a l foundations, have one c a r d i n a l f e a t u r e i n common w i t h the measurement format used i n the present study. The procedures p r o v i d e the research respondents w i t h a problem s o l v i n g  t a s k . The i n d i v i d u a l s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the v a r i o u s s t u d i e s are provided w i t h a s e t o f p r e s c r i p t i o n s i n a v e r y c i r c u m s c r i b e d context. On the b a s i s o f l i m i t e d i n f o r m a t i o n they are asked t o make a s e r i e s o f judgements about one o r more t a r g e t groups. In respond-i n g t o t h e i r t a s k , the p a r t i c i p a n t s can draw on t h e i r p e r s o n a l experiences and the c u l t u r a l i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o them. In some - 181 -i n s t a n c e s t h e i r responses w i l l r e f l e c t long standing b e l i e f s and assumptions about the s o c i a l world. In o t h e r s , t h e i r judgements w i l l be a b e s t e f f o r t "to s o l v e the s t e r e o t y p i n g problem s e n s i b l y " . A t i t s worst, t h i s s i t u a t i o n leads t o the s o r t o f impasse addressed by the S i g a l l and Page (1971) res e a r c h on whether or not respondents "fake good". A t b e s t , i t r e s u l t s i n an account o f the stereotypes p r o v i d e d by i n d i v i d u a l s who are s t u d i e d i n r e l a t i v e s o c i a l i s o l a -t i o n , o u t s i d e o f any s o c i a l context. T h i s g e n e r a l approach t o stereotype r e s e a r c h has provided many i n s i g h t s , and t h e r e i s every i n d i c a t i o n t h a t i t w i l l continue t o add t o our understanding o f stereotype s t r u c t u r e . However, the study of stereotypes has developed t o the stage where s t r u c t u r a l i s s u e d can and must be c o n s i d e r e d i n r e l a t i o n t o questions about stereotype f u n c t i o n . The i n t r o d u c t i o n o f more n a t u r a l i s t i c procedures and a broader conceptual framework, exainining people's use of stereotypes i n s o c i a l encounters, w i l l h e l p t o acccmplish t h i s ( c f . Cohen, 1981). A number o f q u e s t i o n s a r i s e immediately when s p e c u l a t i n g on the ways i n which s t e r e o t y p e s can a f f e c t c o n v e r s a t i o n s and d i s c u s s i o n s . Stereotypes may serve t o p r o v i d e surmiary background i n f o r m a t i o n t o s u s t a i n d i a l o g u e on c e r t a i n t o p i c s , much l i k e c h a r a c t e r d e s c r i p t i o n s a t the b e g i n n i n g o f the t e x t s o f p l a y s . I n a d d i t i o n , they may f r e q u e n t l y be employed as j u s t i f i e r s f o r p a r t i c u l a r v i e w p o i n t s and - 182 -f o r past o r p r o j e c t e d a c t i o n s ( c f . Feldman, 1981; Sherman, Skov, H e r v i t z , & Stock, 1981) . On o c c a s i o n they may be v o i c e d i n combina-t i o n as i m p l i c i t a s s e r t i o n s about a person's c e n t r a l b e l i e f s and worldview, as when an i n d i v i d u a l d e n i g r a t e s c i v i l s e rvants, academics, and environmental lobby groups, and i s e f f u s i v e i n h i s p r a i s e o f i n d u s t r i a l developers, business entrepreneurs, and resource s p e c u l a t o r s . Indeed, t h e r e are many ways i n which ste r e o t y p e s may p r o v i d e g u i d e l i n e s and d e f i n e some l i m i t s t o s o c i a l encounters, even though they may not be s t r o n g l y enough h e l d , nor s t a b l e enough i n a l l cases, t o r a d i c a l l y a f f e c t s p e c i f i c a t t i t u d e s or behaviours. By e x p l o r i n g i s s u e s such as these, one can, i n a sense, add a dynamic, i n t e r a c t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e t o what has e s s e n t i a l l y been a s t a t i c r e s e a r c h model o f the nature of s t e r e o t y p e s . Such an o r i e n -t a t i o n c o u l d be b u i l t on u n o b t r u s i v e and p a r t i c i p a n t o b s e r v a t i o n s o f s o c i a l episodes and encounters. I t c o u l d draw on l o n g i t u d i n a l research designs i n v o l v i n g n a t u r a l i s t i c and e x p e r i m e n t a l l y con-s t r u c t e d i n t e r a c t i o n s . . In t h i s manner, i t c o u l d a l s o be wedded t o h y p o t h e s i s t e s t i n g work based on manipulated i n t r u s i o n s ( v e r b a l o r v i s u a l ) i n s o c i a l s e t t i n g s . The end r e s u l t would be not o n l y a r i c h e r body o f t h e o r y on the nature o f s t e r e o t y p e s , but a l s o a b e t t e r understanding o f the - 183 -s e t t i n g s i n which s t e r e o t y p e s do not a f f e c t performance o r judgement ( c f . C l a r k and W o l l , 1981; Hoffman, M i s c h e l , & Mazze, 1981), a c l e a r e r sense o f the types of s o c i a l encounters and s i t u a t i o n s i n which comfortable and e q u i t a b l e i n t e r a c t i o n may be impeded by stereotype-based e x p e c t a n c i e s , and, perhaps e q u a l l y v a l u a b l e i n i t s own r i g h t , a rrore d i v e r s e s e t of data t o complement the q u e s t i o n -n a i r e responses o f i n t r o d u c t o r y psychology students f u l f i l l i n g course requirements. - 184 -Chapter One 1. Where his, he, and other masculine pronouns appear in the text please read "his or her", "he/she", and so forth. 2. Although he did not state so explicitly, Lippmann seemed to hold a theory of the self as a system of hierarchical stages of awareness. The core self is that unit in the system which can monitor the cognitive activities of the lower order "stages". This perspective, of course, is entirely consistent with a neo-Platonic theoretical orientation. 3. The work of Asch (1946) provides another example of the manner in which the meaning of a l i s t of trait terms can be affected by the presence or absence of particular, "central", context-defining personality descriptors (e.g., warm-cold). 4. A basic assumption guiding the present work is that descrip-tions of target groups that are generated by the respondents, rather than given to them ad hoc by an experimenter, will be accompanied by stronger and more salient associations. Thus the attributions associated with self-generated stereotypes are considered to more closely approximate "everyday" cognitive processes than the - 185 -a t t r i b u t i o n s e l i c i t e d by experimental s t i m u l u s m a t e r i a l s provided ,by a s t r a n g e r / r e s e a r c h e r . Chapter Two 5. Two p o i n t s about the dis c a r d e d d a ta are worth mentioning. Somewhat more than h a l f of the r e j e c t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s came from people who, when v o l u n t e e r i n g to take p a r t i n the study, i n i t i a l l y d e s c r i b e d themselves as being development-minded, but l a t e r q u a l i -f i e d t h e i r s e l f - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n to such an ex t e n t t h a t t h e i r t a r g e t group membership was qu e s t i o n a b l e . Broadly speaking, however, n e i t h e r t a r g e t membership s t a t u s (own group/other group) nor the type of t a r g e t being described (demographic groups o r a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d groups) were r e l a t e d to the r e j e c t i o n r a t e of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e t u r n s . 6. The d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e r a t i o of females to males i n the study r a i s e d some concerns t h a t the r e s u l t s may have been confounded by u n c o n t r o l l e d sex d i f f e r e n c e s . Two f a c t o r s are r e a s s u r i n g i n t h i s respect. The ERI s c a l e scores were analyzed i n a 2(Sex) x 2(Demo-graphic group membership) x 2(Value group membership) m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . While there was a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t f o r . sex, t h a t v a r i a b l e d i d not i n t e r a c t w i t h any of the other indepen-dent v a r i a b l e s . Thus, there i s no a p o s t e r i o r i reason (on these grounds) t o assume t h a t the sex of the respondents may have been a - 186 -confounding v a r i a b l e . More s e t t l i n g s t i l l i s the f i n d i n g of Locksley e t a l . (1980) t h a t the sex of respondents d i d not a f f e c t r a t i n g s on a s t e r e o t y p e t a s k concerning sex r o l e s tereotypes. Chapter Three 7. The o t h e r v a r i a b l e s i n cluded i n the a n a l y s i s were estimates of the degree of s i m i l a r i t y between the members of the v a r i o u s t a r g e t groups, and judgements regarding the p e r c e i v e d s t a t u s o f the t a r g e t s , the c l a r i t y of the respondents' own concepts of the groups, and the i n d i v i d u a l s ' own understanding of the aims and goals of conservation-minded and development-minded people. The f i n d i n g s regarding some of these measures w i l l be d i s c u s s e d i n l a t e r s e c t i o n s of the chapter. 8. When the a n a l y s i s of the ERI d a t a was repeated using age as a c o v a r i a t e , the d i f f e r e n c e s between the demographic groups on the Environmental T r u s t dimension became much more c l e a r l y d e f i n e d (£(1,235) = 6.78, p<.01). 9. F u r t h e r data on the age and sex v a r i a b l e s are noted b r i e f l y i n Appendix B. 10. Given t h a t the study was based l o o s e l y around environmental i s s u e s and c o n s e r v a t i o n concerns, i t i s t o be hoped t h a t those - 187 -missing questionnaires i n the cabins and houses around northern B.C. and Yukon were put to some good, and perhaps more f u n c t i o n a l , use. 11. As was mentioned i n the method chapter, the favourableness and confidence scores were analyzed i n a m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of variance together with the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n v a r i a b l e s . A more complete d e s c r i p t i o n of the outcome of the manova w i l l be provided i n the s e c t i o n of the r e s u l t s dealing with the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . 12. The Scheffe t e s t was performed according to the procedure outlined by Winer (1971, pgs. 198-199). The small town target means f o r both groups of respondents (M = 6.45) were contrasted with the big c i t y t a r g e t means (M = 4.78). The c r i t i c a l value f o r the differences between the means was 1.25. The observed value was 1.67 (p<.01). 13. The measures of c l a r i t y f o r the respondents' concepts of small town and big c i t y people were treated as separate v a r i a b l e s i n the 2(Demogroups) x 2(Value-groups) m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of variance performed on the t a r g e t evaluation r a t i n g s (see previous s e c t i o n ) . In order to compare the responses regarding i n d i v i d u a l s ' concepts of each of the t a r g e t groups, t - t e s t s were performed on the big c i t y concept and small town concept c l a r i t y r a t i n g s f o r each of the four subsamples of respondents. The formula employed was the one - 188 -suggested by G l a s s and Stanley (1970, pgs. 297-300) f o r use w i t h dependent samples. Because of the r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e number of t e s t s performed under t h i s procedure (not only w i t h the c l a r i t y measures but a l s o w i t h some of the other repeated measures) a c o n s e r v a t i v e approach was adopted i n e v a l u a t i n g and i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s . 14. As w i t h the c l a r i t y of concept e s t i m a t e s , subsample by sub-sample repeated measures t - t e s t s were conducted w i t h a sense of c a u t i o n r e g a r d i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y of type-1 e r r o r . 15. The i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s between the v a r i a b l e s d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n were examined t o determine whether or not there were s t a b l e p a t t e r n s of r e l a t i o n s h i p s which c a r r i e d across the d i f f e r e n t sample groups. Thus the favourableness, confidence, c l a r i t y of concept, and t a r g e t s t a t u s s c o r e s provided by s m a l l town respondents d e s c r i b -ing s mall town people were c o r r e l a t e d . The same analyses were performed on the e q u i v a l e n t r a t i n g s y i e l d e d by b i g c i t y people when they c h a r a c t e r i z e d s m a l l town people. So, too, the analyses were conducted f o r the s m a l l town and b i g c i t y samples t h a t stereotyped b i g c i t y people. In g e n e r a l the r e l a t i o n s h i p s tended t o be weak and n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t . However, w i t h i n each of the f o u r groups, there was a tendency f o r those who claimed to have r e l a t i v e l y c l e a r concepts o f the t a r g e t t o d e s c r i b e the group w i t h g r e a t e r confidence (with ns = 30, the r s ranged from -0.488 t o -0.303, r" = -0.37, p<.05). - 189 -16. A l l o f the m u l t i v a r i a t e analyses i n the pre s e n t study were performed w i t h a component a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (canova) programme developed by David Poor of Ohio S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , and based on 'manova' d i s t r i b u t e d by Clyde Computing S e r v i c e . E. Cramer, J . F i n n , D. Poor, L. Meyer, and L. Rosenblood c o n t r i b u t e d t o the programming and t h e o r e t i c a l d e r i v a t i o n s . Malcolm G r e i g adapted the package f o r use on the U.B.C. system. The m u l t i v a r i a t e t e s t s of s i g n i f i c a n c e were based on the W i l k s 1 y V ( l i k e l i h o o d - r a t i o ) c r i t e r i o n . 17. Dependent sample t - t e s t s were performed on the r a t i n g s of the importance o f l e a r n i n g and i n h e r i t a n c e i n s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t develop-ment. Both s m a l l town and b i g c i t y respondents considered l e a r n i n g t o have a g r e a t e r impact than i n h e r i t a n c e i n the emergence of the t r a i t s a t t r i b u t e d t o sm a l l town people ( t s = 3.38 and 8.33, re s p e c t -i v e l y , ps<.005). The same p a t t e r n emerged when s m a l l town and b i g c i t y p a r t i c i p a n t s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b i g c i t y people (tS(29) = 6.50 and 8.91, r e s p e c t i v e l y , ps<.005). 18. The a n a l y s e s of these v a r i a b l e s were conducted i n the same manner as the an a l y s e s of the measures f o r the stere o t y p e s of the demographic t a r g e t s . The s t a t u s and c l a r i t y v a r i a b l e s were included i n the same . 2(Demographic group) x 2 (Value group) manova as the s t a t u s and c l a r i t y of concept estimates f o r the demographic t a r g e t s . The favourableness and confidence r a t i n g s were analyzed together w i t h the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s f o r the st e r e o t y p e s of the - 190 -attitudinally defined target groups. Repeating the procedures used in the analyses of the small town and big city stereotype data one step further, dependent sample t-tests were performed on each of the four subsamples' estimates of the clarity of their concepts of conservation-minded and develop-ment-minded people. Neither the small town nor the big city conser-vation-minded respondents felt that their concepts of conservation-minded people were any clearer than their concepts of development-minded people (tS(59) = 0.89 and 0.81, respectively). Like-wise, neither the small town nor the big city development-minded participants thought that their own concepts of development-minded people were any clearer than their own concepts of conservation-minded individuals (t-S^o,) = -0.59 and 1.26, respectively). 19. The values for the dependent sample t-tests supporting this observation are as follows: 4.94, 5.97, 5.84, and 5.51 (all ps<.005) for small town conservation-minded, small town development-minded, big city conservation-minded, and big city development-minded people, respectively. 20. In the other measure of within-group variability the respon-dents judged the extent to which conservation-minded people were similar to each other in personality and outlook. They made the same judgements for development-minded people. The conservation-minded and development-minded respondents did - 191 -not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s f o r conserva-tion-minded people (M = 3.96 versus 3.70; F(l,236) = 1.75, ns). The judgements o f s i m i l a r i t y between development-minded people d i d r e f l e c t a weak ingroup - outgroup e f f e c t , however. The develop-ment-minded respondents rated development-minded people as being more heterogeneous than d i d the conservation-minded respondents (M = 4.42 versus 3.98; F(l,236) = 3.84, p<.051). Yet, i n the context o f a m u l t i v a r i a t e , m u l t i f a c t o r i a l a n a l y s i s o f variance with a l a r g e number of dependent v a r i a b l e s , t h i s r e s u l t i s not a strong one. Thus, as with the estimates f o r the demographic targets, the data i n d i c a t e t h a t there was no strong tendency among the respondents t o see t h e i r own membership groups as being any more o r l e s s homogeneous than non-membership groups. Looking a t these s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s more c l o s e l y , an i n t e r e s t -ing pattern emerges t h a t d i r e c t s a t t e n t i o n much more to the nature o f the t a r g e t s than t o group membership status as a source of variance. Dependent sample t - t e s t s determined th a t the respondents i n each of the four subsamples c o n s i s t e n t l y rated b i g c i t y people as being more diverse i n t h e i r outlooks and p e r s o n a l i t i e s than small town people. (M = 5.08 versus 4.03, t(59) = 3.39, p<.01; M 5.3 7 versus 4.37, t(5g) = 3.03, p<.01; M = 5.36 versus 3.61, t(59) = 6.48, p<.001; and M = 5.25 versus 3.95, t(59) = 5.00, p<.001; f o r the small town conservation-minded, small town development-minded, b i g c i t y aonservation-minded, and b i g c i t y develcpment-minded respondents, r e s p e c t i v e l y . ) - 192 -I n an e q u a l l y c o n s i s t e n t , but s t a t i s t i c a l l y l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t f a s h i o n , the f o u r s e t s o f respondents f e l t t h a t development-rninded people were a l i t t l e more heterogeneous than conservation-minded people. (M = 3.95 versus 3.55, t ( 5 9 ) = 2.22, p<.05; "M = 4.17 versus 3.98, t ( 5 9 ) = 0.68, ns; M = 4.02 versus 3.84, t ( 5 9 ) = 0.82, ns; and M = 4.67 versus 3.95, t ( 5 9 ) = 2.48, p<.02; f o r the s m a l l town conservation-minded, small town development-minded, b i g c i t y conservation-minded, and b i g c i t y development-minded respondents, r e s p e c t i v e l y . ) The o v e r a l l -trend i n these r e s u l t s i s r e a d i l y understandable. Indeed, i t makes i n t u i t i v e sense t o r a t e c i t y people (e.g., Torontonians) as b e i n g more d i v e r s e than s m a l l town people (e.g., Newfoundland O u t p o r t e r s ) , s i n c e they tend t o represent a more mobile and more c u l t u r a l l y v a r i e d p o r t i o n o f the p o p u l a t i o n . l i k e w i s e , i t i s not unreasonable t o c o n s i d e r an i n t e r e s t group such as develop-ment-minded people t o h o l d a, wider range o f p e r s p e c t i v e s than a c o n t r a s t i n g i n t e r e s t group such as conservation-minded people. ( S o c i a l p r o t e s t e r s , a f t e r a l l , t r a d i t i o n a l l y tend t o be construed along narrowly d e f i n e d dimensions.) There i s some danger i n p l a c i n g too much emphasis on f i n d i n g s based on the demographic t a r g e t groups used i n the study, and t h a t are weak, a t b e s t , i n r e l a t i o n t o the a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d t a r g e t s . N evertheless, i t would be o f i n t e r e s t t o e x p l o r e the d i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n o f w i t h i n - g r o u p v a r i a b i l i t y a c r o s s a wider range o f t a r g e t s t i m u l i , r e p r e s e n t i n g a number o f d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s o f - 193 -s o c i a l groups. Some c o n s i d e r a t i o n has to be gi v e n t o the f a c t t h a t the two measures o f w i t h i n - g r o u p i n t e r p e r s o n a l v a r i a b i l i t y employed i n the study y i e l d e d somewhat d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s . The r a t i n g s of the s i m i l a r i t y between t a r g e t group members i n d i c a t e d , f o r i n s t a n c e , t h a t b i g c i t y people were seen t o be l e s s s i m i l a r t o each other than s m a l l town people. Qn the other hand, t o continue the comparison between the demographic t a r g e t s , there was no d i f f e r e n c e between the estimates o f the p r o p o r t i o n of b i g c i t y people considered to possess the a s c r i b e d s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t s and the estimates of the p r o p o r t i o n of small town people deemed to have "sm a l l town" stereotype t r a i t s . One can account f o r the apparent di s c r e p a n c y i n f i n d i n g s by c o n s i d e r i n g the d i f f e r e n t task requirements i n v o l v e d i n p r o v i d i n g the s i m i l a r i t y and p r o p o r t i o n judgements. The c o g n i t i v e o p e r a t i o n s e n t a i l e d i n r a t i n g the s i m i l a r i t y between the members of a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l group are q u i t e a b s t r a c t i n t h a t they c e n t r e on a p r e l i m i n a r y , n o n - s p e c i f i c (memory/recogni-t i o n ) survey o f s a l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s about the t a r g e t . An analogy would be a case where a f o r e s t ranger f l i e s over a stand of timber t o see whether i t c o n s i s t s of one k i n d of t r e e o r i s made up o f a number of d i f f e r e n t s p e c i e s . A g e n e r a l s i m i l a r i t y judgement of t h i s type precedes any d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n o r d e f i n i t i o n of the t a r g e t - and, as such, i s a co n t e n t - f r e e estimate of t a r g e t homogen-e i t y . Judging the p r o p o r t i o n of group members having stereotype - 194 -t r a i t s i n v o l v e s a t t e n d i n g to the st i m u l u s group i n q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t way. These judgements, by t h e i r nature, are made a f t e r the t a r g e t (or t a r g e t s ) have been described. Because of t h i s they are governed by a s e t of c o n d i t i o n s separate from those a f f e c t i n g the p r e - d e f i n i -t i o n a l , w i t h i n - g r o u p s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s . As McCauley and S t i t t (1978) have argued, when people are asked t o d e s c r i b e s o c i a l groups they are primed to employ d e s c r i p t i v e terms t h a t are r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f "the group p o p u l a t i o n . Such a s t r a t e g y operates t o r e s t r i c t the range of p o s s i b l e r a t i n g s regarding the p r o p o r t i o n of t a r g e t members possessing the a s c r i b e d t r a i t s . From a p s y c h o l o g i c a l p o i n t of view, then, the p r o p o r t i o n a t t r i b u t i o n s cannot be equated w i t h the s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s . In p r a c t i c a l terms, the l i k e l i h o o d of d e t e c t i n g between-target d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r o p o r t i o n judgements, whether as a f u n c t i o n o f group membership s t a t u s o r some o t h e r v a r i a b l e , i s reduced s u b s t a n t i a l l y . The p o i n t being made t h a t the p r o p o r t i o n a t t r i b u t i o n s and the within-group s i m i l a r i t y r a t i n g s measure d i f f e r e n t c o g n i t i v e opera-t i o n s i s supported by the f i n d i n g t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n s between these v a r i a b l e s were n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t , r e g a r d l e s s of the t a r g e t being d e s c r i b e d and r e g a r d l e s s of the p a r t i c u l a r group of respondents doing the d e s c r i b i n g . 21. As was the case f o r the stere o t y p e s o f the demographic t a r g e t s , dependent sample t - t e s t s were performed on the r a t i n g s of the impor-tance of l e a r n i n g and i n h e r i t a n c e i n st e r e o t y p e t r a i t development. - 195 ~ Both conservation-minded respondents (t^29) = 3.31, p<.01) and development-minded respondents (t(29) = 5.49, p<.005) f e l t that learning contributed more than inheritance to the development of the t r a i t s ascribed to conservation-minded people. Likewise, both of these respondent groups f e l t that learning was the most important component i n the emergence of "development-minded" personality t r a i t s (tS(29) = 9 , 9 1 a n d 10-82, respectively, ps<.005). 22. The simple main ef f e c t s analyses that support t h i s interpreta-t i o n are as follows: Conservation-minded respondents f e l t that inheritance was more important to the t r a i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e i r own group than to the t r a i t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of development-minded people (F(1,112) = 5.10, p<.05). Conservation-minded respondents' ratings of the inheritance component of "conservation-minded" t r a i t s were higher than develop-ment-minded respondents' ratings of the inheritance component of "development-minded" t r a i t s (F(l,112) = 3.82, p<.10). (The degrees of freedom for the error terms, and the error terms used, were those employed i n the o v e r a l l analysis.) Conservation-minded respondents f e l t that learning was more important f o r "development-minded" t r a i t s than for t r a i t s character-i s t i c of t h e i r own group (F(l,112) = 11.83, p<.01). Development-minded respondents shared t h i s perspective (F(l,112) = 8.21, JK.01). - 196 -In t h i s .vein, lower l e a r n i n g scores were a t t r i b u t e d to conser-vation-minded s t e r e o t y p e s by conservation-minded respondents, than were a t t r i b u t e d t o development-minded stereotypes by development-minded respondents (F(l,112) = 6.00, p<.05). Higher l e a r n i n g scores were a t t r i b u t e d t o development-minded stereotypes by conservation-minded respondents than were a t t r i b u t e d t o conservation-minded s t e r e o t y p e s by development-minded respondents (F(l,112) = 14.86, JX.01). 23. The r e s u l t s of- the H o t e l l i n g ' s T 2 analyses are summarized i n Appendix F. 24. In a review of the raw dat a , however, i t was n o t i c e a b l e t h a t on some occasions some respondents a t t r i b u t e d a p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t to 100% of the t a r g e t group members. For i n s t a n c e , two small town conservation-minded respondents thought t h a t 100% of develop-ment-minded people are power and money o r i e n t e d . L i k e w i s e , 100% of s m a l l town people were considered f r i e n d l y by one respondent, and 100% of b i g c i t y people were considered m a n i p u l a t i v e by another. These types of a b s o l u t e judgements were not ev i d e n t i n o t h e r s t u d i e s reported by Brigham (1973) and McCauley, S t i t t , and Segal (1980). Attempting t o r e c o n c i l e the discrepancy between the present and the p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g s one i s s t r u c k again by the importance of the t a r g e t l a b e l s used i n the v a r i o u s s t u d i e s . When one attends to s o c i a l groups as w e l l as to e t h n i c groups - 197 -as t a r g e t s f o r s t e r e o t y p e r e s e a r c h i t becomes p o s s i b l e t o s e l e c t p a r t i c u l a r l a b e l s t h a t i n c r e a s e o r decrease the p r o b a b i l i t y o f o b t a i n i n g a b s o l u t e a t t r i b u t i o n s about the p r o p o r t i o n o f t a r g e t members po s s e s s i n g s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t s . I t would be hard t o conceive o f r e v o l u t i o n a r y g u e r i l l a s , f o r example, t h a t were not "detenrvined", t o imagine e x t r o v e r t s t h a t were not " s o c i a b l e " , o r t o t h i n k o f vol u n t e e r c h a r i t y workers t h a t were not i n some sense " a l t r u i s t i c " . E q u a l l y so, i t would be d i f f i c u l t t o argue t h a t a l l Northern Canadians a r e "adventurous", t h a t a l l teachers are "dedicated", o r t h a t a l l gay men are " s e n s i t i v e " . In sh o r t , any statement t o the e f f e c t t h a t people do o r do not make abso l u t e judgements when r a t i n g the p r o p o r t i o n o f t a r g e t group members having a stereotype t r a i t must be s t r o n g l y q u a l i f i e d by an acknowledgement o f the range and types o f t a r g e t l a b e l s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . 25. McCauley and h i s c o l l e a g u e s acknowledge t h a t the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o can be a u s e f u l index o f the p e r c e i v e d absence o f a t r a i t i n a t a r g e t group. For example, a person who b e l i e v e d t h a t the I n u i t were not as a g g r e s s i v e as people i n gene r a l would respond i n a manner such t h a t h i s o r h e r d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o f o r aggressiveness among the I n u i t was s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower than u n i t y , say 0.46. However, s i n c e " n e g a t i v e l y d i s t i n c t i v e t r a i t s " , by d e f i n i t i o n , are not l i s t e d among t h e content o f a s e l f - g e n e r a t e d , p e r s o n a l stereotype summarizing t he c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s c r i b e d t o a group t h i s h e u r i s t i c f a c e t o f the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o index w i l l not be d i s c u s s e d '• - 198 -f u r t h e r w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o the stereotype dimension measures nor the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . As w i l l be noted i n subsequent paragraphs i n the t e x t , however, the p o t e n t i a l f o r low as w e l l as hig h diagnos-t i c r a t i o scores has rel e v a n c e when c o n s i d e r i n g the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i -b u tions o f i n h e r i t a n c e and l e a r n i n g t o t r a i t development. Low scores would i n d i c a t e the r e l a t i v e absence of one' o r the other c a u s a t i v e f a c t o r i n the case of t r a i t s h e l d by t a r g e t group members. High scores would i n d i c a t e the s t r e n g t h of a c a u s a t i v e f a c t o r i n the emergence of t r a i t s among t a r g e t group members. To use a crude analogy, "while most of us l e a r n t o be b o i s t e r o u s and are shy by nature the I t a l i a n s (no s l u r intended) are b o i s t e r o u s by nature (high d-r score f o r i n h e r i t a n c e ) and shy o n l y by f o r c e of circum-stance (low d-r score f o r i n h e r i t a n c e ) . " 26. Canadian I n d i a n s are used i n t h i s example not out of any perverse sense of p r e j u d i c e o r "digging the k n i f e i n " , but because the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n concept has important i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the s t e r e o t y p i n g o f m i n o r i t y group members. 27. Conservative procedures f o r making a p o s t e r i o r i comparisons between the means, such as S c h e f f e 1 s method o r Tukey's HSD t e s t , d i d not y i e l d a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the s m a l l town t a r g e t means and the b i g c i t y means. The f i n d i n g s , then, must be viewed as being more t e n t a t i v e than c o n c l u s i v e . - 199 -28. Up u n t i l t h i s p o i n t i n the paper s t a b i l i t y has been t r e a t e d as a r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n . However, a p o s t hoc e v a l u a t i o n o f the v a r i a b l e suggests t h a t i t does not f i t w e l l w i t h t h i s grouping. The "other"- r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s were concerned w i t h the s o c i a l performances o f the t a r g e t group members w h i l e t h e s t a b i l i t y judgements, l i k e the favourableness judgements, r e f e r r e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t o the p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s i n q u e s t i o n . The s t a b i l i t y r a t i n g s d i d not c o r r e l a t e c o n s i s t e n t l y w i t h the "other" r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n s , and, l a s t l y , i n t h i s i n s t a n c e the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o v a l u e s f o r the s t a b i l i t y v a r i a b l e d i d not "behave" i n the same manner as the "other" r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n r a t i o s . Consequently, w i t h the dubious i n s i g h t o f h i n d s i g h t , s t a b i l i t y , as a v a r i a b l e , i s now b e i n g t r e a t e d ( i n f o r m a l l y ) more as an index o f the nature o f stereotype c o n t e n t than as a r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n . Hence i t s r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n the present paragraph. (Although the r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s , a d m i t t e d l y , an a f t e r t h o u g h t , i t does not appear t o be made on the b a s i s o f a c i r c u l a r argument.) - 200 -BIBLIOGRAPHY A l l e n , R.B., & Ebbesen, E.B. C o g n i t i v e processes i n person percep-t i o n : R e t r i e v a l o f p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t and b e h a v i o u r a l informa-t i o n . J o u r n a l o f Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1981, 17, 119-141. Asch, S.E. Forming impressions o f p e r s o n a l i t y . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal  and S o c i a l Psychology, 1946, 41, 258-290. A r g y l e , M., & L i t t l e , B.R. Do p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s a p p l y t o s o c i a l behaviour? J o u r n a l f o r the Theory o f S o c i a l Behaviour, 1972, 2, 1-35. B a l l , P. Dimensions o f neoPentecostal i d e n t i t y i n the Church of England. European J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l Psychology, 1981, 11, 349-363. Bayton, J.A. The r a c i a l stereotypes o f Negro c o l l e g e students. J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1941, 36, 97-102. Bayton, J.A. , & Byoune, E. R a c i o - n a t i o n a l s t e r e o t y p e s h e l d by Negroes. J o u r n a l o f Negro Education, 1947, 1_6, 49-56. Bayton, J.A., M c A l i s t e r , L.B., & Hamer, J . Race-class s t e r e o t y p e s . J o u r n a l o f Negro Education, 1956, 25, 75-78. Bern, D.J. , 6c A l l e n , A. On p r e d i c t i n g some o f the people some of the time: The sear c h f o r c r o s s - s i t u a t i o n a l c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n beha v i o r . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1974, 81, 506-520. Bern, S.L. Gender schema theory: A c o g n i t i v e account o f sex t y p i n g . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1981, 88, 354-364. Berenson, B. The c e n t r a l I t a l i a n p a i n t e r s o f the Renaissance. 1897. R e p r i n t e d i n B. Berenson The I t a l i a n p a i n t e r s o f the  Renaissance• Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r ess, 1932. Birnbaum, M.H. , & Stegner, S.E. Measuring the importance o f cues i n judgement f o r i n d i v i d u a l s : Theories o f IQ as a f u n c t i o n o f h e r e d i t y and environment. J o u r n a l o f Experimental S o c i a l  Psychology, 1981, 17, 159-182. Bowers, K.S. S i t u a t i o n i s m i n psychology: An a n a l y s i s and c r i t i q u e . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1973, 80, 307-335. Brewer, M.B. In-group b i a s i n the minimal i n t e r g r o u p s i t u a t i o n : A c o g n i t i v e - m o t i v a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1979, 86, 307-323. - 201 -Brigham, J.C. E t h n i c . ster e o t y p e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1971, 76, 15-38. Brigham, J.C. E t h n i c stereotypes and a t t i t u d e s : A d i f f e r e n t mode o f a n a l y s i s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y , 1973, 4JL 206-223. Bronfenbrenner, U. The m i r r o r image i n Soviet-American r e l a t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l I s s u e s , 1961, 17, 45-56. Brown, R. S o c i a l psychology. New York: The Free P r e s s , 1965. Bu t t , D.S. The p s y c h o l o g i c a l environment o f the v i l l a g e : Obsolete o r e s s e n t i a l ? I n C i t i z e n and c i t y i n the yea r 2000. (Kluwer, Deventer) The Netherlands, 1971. Campbell, D.T. Stereotypes and the p e r c e p t i o n o f group d i f f e r e n c e s . American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1967, 22_, 817-829. Campbell, D.T., & LeVine, R.A. Ethnocentrism and i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s . I n R.P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W.J. McGuire, T.M. Newcomb, M.J. Rosenberg, & P.H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories o f c o g n i t i v e c o n s i s t e n c y : A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1968. Cantor, N. , & M i s c h e l , W. Prototypes i n person p e r c e p t i o n . In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n experimental s o c i a l psychology,  V o l . 12. New York: Academic P r e s s , 1979. Chaiken, S., & Baldwin, M.W. M f e c t i v e - c o g n i t i v e c o n s i s t e n c y and the e f f e c t o f s a l i e n t b e h a v i o u r a l i n f o r m a t i o n on the s e l f -p e r c e p t i o n o f a t t i t u d e s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology, 1981, 41, 1-12. C h a i k i n , A.L., & D a r l e y , J.M. J r . V i c t i m o r p e r p e t r a t o r : Defensive a t t r i b u t i o n o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and the need f o r or d e r and j u s t i c e . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1973, 25, 268-275. C l a r k , L.F., & W o l l , S.B. Stereotype b i a s e s : A r e c o n s t r u c t i v e a n a l y s i s o f t h e i r r o l e i n r e c o n s t r u c t i v e memory. J o u r n a l o f  P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1981, 41, 1064-1072. Clyde, D.J. M u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on l a r g e computers. Coconut Grove, F l o r i d a : Clyde Computing S e r v i c e , 1969. Cohen, C E . Person c a t e g o r i e s and s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n : T e s t i n g some boundaries o f the p r o c e s s i n g e f f e c t s o f p r i o r knowledge. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1981, 40, 441-452 — - 202 -Deaux, K.K. D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f s t e r e o t y p e s : The i n f l u e n c e o f knowledge, a f f e c t , and n a t i o n a l grouping. R e v i s t a I n t e r -americana de P s i c o l o g i a , 1968, 2, 69-78. Deaux, K., & E m s w i l l e r , TV E x p l a n a t i o n s o f s u c c e s s f u l performance on s e x - l i n k e d t a s k s : What i s s k i l l f o r the male i s l u c k f o r the female. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1974, 29, 80-85. Diab, L.N. N a t i o n a l stereotypes and the "reference group" concept. J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l Psychology, 1962, 5J7, 339-351. Diab, L.N. F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g s t u d i e s o f n a t i o n a l s t e r e o t y p e s . J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l Psychology, 1963, 59_, 29-40. Dion, K.L. Cohesiveness as a determinant o f ingroup - outgroup b i a s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1973, 28, 163-171. Dudycha, G.L. The a t t i t u d e s o f c o l l e g e students toward war and the Gentians b e f o r e and during the Second World War. J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l Psychology, 1942, 15, 317-324. Duncan, B.L. D i f f e r e n t i a l s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n and a t t r i b u t i o n o f i n t e r g r o u p v i o l e n c e : T e s t i n g the lower l i m i t s o f s t e r e o t y p i n g o f b l a c k s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1976, 34, 590-598. Feldman, J.M. Beyond a t t r i b u t i o n theory: C o g n i t i v e processes i n performance a p p r a i s a l . J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d Psychology, 1981, 66, 127-148. Ferguson, C.K., & K e l l e y , H.H. S i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r s i n overevalua-t i o n o f own group's product. J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l  Psychology, 1964, 69, 223-228. F i s k e , S.T. Schema-triggered a f f e c t : A p p l i c a t i o n s t o s o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n . I n M.S. C l a r k and S.T. F i s k e (Eds.), A f f e c t and  c o g n i t i o n : The 17th. Annual Carnegie Symposium on C o g n i t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, i n p r e s s . F i s k e , S.T. S o c i a l c o g n i t i o n and e f f e c t . I n J . Harvey (Ed.), C o g n i t i o n , s o c i a l behaviour, and the environment. H i l l s d a l e , N . j . : Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , 1981. Funder, D.C. The " t r a i t " o f a s c r i b i n g t r a i t s : I n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r -ences i n the tendency t o t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n . J o u r n a l o f Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 1980, 14, 376-385. G i f f o r d , R. Environmental d i s p o s i t i o n s and the e v a l u a t i o n o f - 203 -a r c h i t e c t u r a l i n t e r i o r s . J o u r n a l o f Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 1980, 14, 386-399. G l a s s , G.V. , & S t a n l e y , J.C. S t a t i s t i c a l methods i n education and  psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1970. Goldberg, L.R. Unconfounding s i t u a t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s from u n c e r t a i n , n e t u r a l , and ambiguous ones: A psychometric a n a l y s i s o f d e s c r i p t i o n s o f o n e s e l f and v a r i o u s types o f o t h e r s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1981, 41, 517-552. Gough, H.G. The a d j e c t i v a l check l i s t . P a l o A l t o , Ca.: C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s P r e s s , 1952. Grant, P.R. D e s c r i p t i v e and a f f e c t i v e d i s t a n c i n g o f an outgroup:  The f o r m a t i o n and use o f group images under t h r e a t . Unpub-l i s h e d d o c t o r a l t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f Waterloo, O n t a r i o , 1980. H a m i l l , R., W i l s o n , T. DeCamp, & N i s b e t t , R.E. I n s e n s i t i v i t y t o sample b i a s : G e n e r a l i z i n g from a t y p i c a l cases. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1980, 39, 578-589. Hamilton, D.L. A c o g n i t i v e - a t t r i b u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s o f s t e r e o t y p i n g . I n L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n experimental s o c i a l psycho- logy. V o l . 12. New York: Academic P r e s s , 1979. Hamilton, D.L., & Rose, T.L. I l l u s o r y c o r r e l a t i o n and the mainten-ance o f s t e r e o t y p i c b e l i e f s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology, 1980, 39, 832-845. H a s t i e , R. Schematic p r i n c i p l e s i n human memory. I n E.T. Higg i n s , C P . Herman, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), S o c i a l c o g n i t i o n : The  O n t a r i o symposium. H i l l s d a l e , N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc-i a t e s , 1980. Has t o r f , A.H. , & C a n t r i l , H. They saw a game: A case study. J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1954, 49, 129-234. Hayakawa, S.I. Recognizing s t e r e o t y p e s as s u b s t i t u t e s f o r thought. E t c . : A Review o f General Semantics, 1950, 1_, 208-210. Hoffman, C , M i s c h e l , W., & Mazze, K. The r o l e o f purpose i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n about behaviour: T r a i t - b a s e d versus goal-based c a t e g o r i e s i n person c o g n i t i o n . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1981, 41, 211-225. Howard, J.W., & Rothbart, M. S o c i a l c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and memory f o r in-group and out-group behaviour. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and - 204 -S o c i a l Psychology, 1980, 301-310. H i c k s , J.M., Goldman, M. , & Kang, J . A t t i t u d e s toward Negroes and st e r e o t y p e s about Americans among Chinese students i n Taiwan and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l Psychology, 1968, 76, 139-141. Jones, E.E., & D a v i s , K.E. From a c t s t o d i s p o s i t i o n s : The a t t r i b u -t i o n p rocess i n person p e r c e p t i o n . I n L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances i n exp e r i m e n t a l s o c i a l psychology. V o l . 2. New York: Academic P r e s s , 1965. Jones, R.A. , & Ashmore, R.D. The s t r u c t u r e o f i n t e r g r o u p percep-t i o n : C a t e g o r i e s and dimensions i n views o f e t h n i c groups and a d j e c t i v e s used i n stereotype r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y  and S o c i a l Psychology, 1973, 25, 428-438. K a r l i n s , M. , Coffman, T.L., & W a l t e r s , G. On the f a d i n g o f s o c i a l s t e r e o t y p e s : S t u d i e s i n t h r e e generations o f c o l l e g e students. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1969, 13, 1-16. Katz , D., & B r a l y , K.W. R a c i a l stereotypes i n one hundred c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology, 1933, 28, 280-290. K e l l e y , H.H. A t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r y i n s o c i a l psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on m o t i v a t i o n , 1967. V o l . 15. L i n c o l n , Neb.: U n i v e r s i t y o f Nebraska Press, 1967. K i r b y , D.M., & Garner, R.C. E t h n i c s t e r e o t y p e s : Determinants i n c h i l d r e n and t h e i r p a r e n t s . Canadian J o u r n a l o f Psychology, 1973, 27, 127-143. K l i n e b e r g , O. The human dimension i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s . New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1964. K r u g l a n s k i , A.W. The endogenous - exogenous p a r t i t i o n i n a t t r i b u -t i o n t h e o r y . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1975, 82, 387-406. L i n v i l l e , P.W. The ccmplexity-extrarLLty e f f e c t and age-based s t e r e o t y p i n g . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1982, 42, 193-211. L i n v i l l e , P.W., & Jones, E.E. P o l a r i z e d a p p r a i s a l s o f out-group members. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1980, 38, 689-70j: Lippmann, W. P u b l i c o p i n i o n . New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1922. Seventeenth p r i n t i n g , 1961. - 205 -Locke, D., & Pennington, D. Reasons and other causes: T h e i r r o l e i n a t t r i b u t i o n processes. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology, 1982, 42, 212-222L Lo c k s l e y , A., B o r g i d a , E. , Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C. Sex s t e r e o -types and s o c i a l judgement. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l  Psychology, 1980, 39, 821-831. Lo c k s l e y , A., Hepburn, C., & O r t i z , V. S o c i a l s t e r e o t y p e s and judgements o f i n d i v i d u a l s : An i n s t a n c e o f the b a s e - r a t e f a l l a c y . J o u r n a l o f Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1982, 18, 23-42. McArthur, L. Z. , & Friedman, S.A. I l l u s o r y c o r r e l a t i o n i n i m p r e s s i o n formation: V a r i a t i o n s i n the shared d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s e f f e c t as a f u n c t i o n o f the d i s t i n c t i v e person's age, r a c e , and sex. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1980, 39, 615-624. McCauley, C., & S t i t t , C L . An i n d i v i d u a l and q u a n t i t a t i v e measure o f s t e r e o t y p e s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1978, 36, 929-940. McCauley, C , S t i t t , C.L., & S e g a l , M. S t e r e o t y p i n g : From p r e j u -d i c e t o p r e d i c t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 1980, 87, 195-208. McGuire, W.J. , & McGuire, C V . S a l i e n c e o f handedness i n the spontaneous s e l f - c o n c e p t . P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 1980, 50, 3-7. McGuire, W.J., McGuire, CV., C h i l d , P., & F u j i o k a , T. S a l i e n c e o f e t h n i c i t y i n the spontaneous s e l f - c o n c e p t as a f u n c t i o n o f one's e t h n i c d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s i n the s o c i a l environment. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1978, 36_, 511-520. McGuire, W.J. , McGuire, C V . , & Winton, W. E f f e c t s o f household sex composition on the s a l i e n c e o f gender i n the spontaneous s e l f -concept. J o u r n a l o f Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1979, 15, 77-90. McKechnie, G.E. ERI Manual. P a l o A l t o , Ca.: C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o -g i s t s P r e s s , 1974. McKechnie, G.E. The Environmental Response Inventory i n a p p l i c a -t i o n . Environment and Behaviour, 1977, 9, 255-276. McMillan, D.L. Confidence i n stereotypes concerning e t h n i c groups. J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l Psychology, 1974, 93, 203-210. - 206 -McTiernan, T.J. A conceptual and e m p i r i c a l study o f i s s u e s i n  ste r e o t y p e r e s e a r c h : Some r e f l e c t i o n s on the d e f i n i t i o n and  measurement o f st e r e o t y p e s , and an experiment on r e c i p r o c i t y  and s t e r e o t y p e formation. U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, May, 1977. Unpublished M.A. t h e s i s . McTiernan, T.J., & Knox, R.E. I r i s h students' s t e r e o t y p e s about seme n a t i o n a l and su b n a t i o n a l groups i n I r e l a n d and Great B r i t a i n . S o c i a l Behaviour and P e r s o n a l i t y , 1979, 7_, 49-54. Magnusson, D., & S t a t t i n , H. S t a b i l i t y o f c r o s s - s i t u a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s o f behaviour. J o u r n a l o f Research i n P e r s o n a l i t y , 1981, 15, 488-496. Manis, M., D o v a l i n a , I . , A v i s , N.E., & Cardoze, S. Base r a t e s can a f f e c t i n d i v i d u a l p r e d i c t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and  S o c i a l Psychology, 1980, 38, 231-248. Marcus, H., Crane, M., B e r n s t e i n , S., & S i l a d i , M. Self-schemas and gender. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1982, 42, 38-50. Milgram, S. The experience o f l i v i n g i n c i t i e s . S c i e n c e , 1970, 167, 1461-1468. M i l l e r , F.D., Smith, E.R., & Uleman, J . Measurement and i n t e r p r e t a -t i o n o f s i t u a t i o n a l and d i s p o s i t i o n a l a t t r i b u t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f  Experimental S o c i a l Psychology, 1981, 17_, 80-95. M i s c h e l , W. P e r s o n a l i t y and assessment. New York: W i l e y , 1968. Newman, J . , & McCauley, C. Eye co n t a c t w i t h s t r a n g e r s i n c i t y , suburb, and s m a l l town. Environment and Behaviour, 1977, 9, 547-558. N i s b e t t , R., & Wi l s o n , T. T e l l i n g more than we can know: V e r b a l r e p o r t s on mental processes. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1977, 84, 231-259. O'Donnell, E.E. Northern I r i s h s t e r e o t y p e s . D u b l i n , I r e l a n d : Research Branch, C o l l e g e o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s , 1977. Osgood, C.E. Graduated r e c i p r o c a t i o n i n t e n s i o n r e d u c t i o n . Urbana, 111. : U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , I n s t i t u t e o f Communications Research, 1960. Passer, M.W., K e l l e y , H.H., & Mic h e l a , J.L. M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s c a l i n g o f the causes f o r negative i n t e r p e r s o n a l behaviour. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1978, 36, 951-962. - 207 -P r o t h r o , E.T., & M e l i k i a n , L.H. St u d i e s i n stereotypes. I l l : Arab students i n the Near East. J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l Psychology, 1954, 40, 237-243. Quattrone, G.A., &.Jones, E.E. The p e r c e p t i o n o f v a r i a b i l i t y w i t h i n in-groups and cut-groups: I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the law o f small numbers. J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1980, 38, 141-152. Rabbie, J.M., & Hor w i t z , M. A r o u s a l o f ingroup - outgroup b i a s by chance win o r l o s s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psycho- lo g y , 1969, 13, 269-277. Ross, M., McFarland, C., & F l e t c h e r , G.J.O. The e f f e c t o f a t t i t u d e on the r e c a l l o f p e r s o n a l h i s t o r i e s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y  and S o c i a l Psychology, 1981, 40, 627-634^ Rothbart, M., F u l e r o , S., Jensen, C., Howard, J . , & B i r r e l l , P. From i n d i v i d u a l t o group impressions: A v a i l a b i l i t y h e u r i s t i c s i n s t e r e o t y p e formation. J o u r n a l o f Experimental S o c i a l  Psychology, 1978, 14, 237-255. Sherman, S.J., Skov, R.B., H e r v i t z , E.F., & Stock, C.B. The e f f e c t s o f e x p l a i n i n g h y p o t h e t i c a l f u t u r e events: From p o s s i b i l i t y t o p r o b a b i l i t y t o a c t u a l i t y and beyond. J o u r n a l o f Experimental  S o c i a l Psychology, 1981, 1/7, 142-158. S i g a l l , M. , & Page, R. Current s t e r e o t y p e s : A l i t t l e f a d i n g , a l i t t l e f a k i n g . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1971, 18, 247-255. Sirrrrons, O.G. Stereotypes: E x p l a i n i n g people who are d i f f e r e n t . I n Spradley, J.P., & McCurdy, D.W. (Eds.), Conformity and c o n f l i c t : Readings i n c u l t u r a l anthropology. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown, 1971. Smith, E.R., & M i l l e r , F.D. L i m i t s on p e r c e p t i o n o f c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s : A r e p l y t o N i s b e t t & Wilson. P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 1978, 85, 355-362. S t a n l e y , G. A u s t r a l i a n students' a t t i t u d e s t o Negroes and A b o r i -g i n e s on the M u l t i f a c t o r R a c i a l A t t i t u d e Inventory (MRAI). J o u r n a l o f S o c i a l Psychology, 1969, 77, 281-282. Stephan, W.G. C o g n i t i v e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n i n t e r g r o u p p e r c e p t i o n . Sociometry, 1977, 40, 50-58. T a j f e l , H. Experiments i n i n t e r g r o u p d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . S c i e n t i f i c American, 1970, 223, 96-102. - 208 -T a y l o r , D.M., & J a g g i , .V. Ethnocentrism and c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n i n a South I n d i a n c o n t e x t . J o u r n a l o f Cross C u l t u r a l Psychology, 1974, 5, 162-171. T a y l o r , S.E., F i s k e , S.T., E t c o f f , N.L., & Ruderman, A.J. Categor-i c a l and c o n t e x t u a l bases o f person rnernory and s t e r e o t y p i n g . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1978, 36, 778-793. . Thornton, B., Robbins, M.A. , & Johnson, J.A. S o c i a l p e r c e p t i o n o f the rape v i c t i m ' s c u l p a b i l i t y : The i n f l u e n c e o f respondents' personal-environmental c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n tendencies. Human R e l a t i o n s , 1981, 34, 225-237. Tsujimoto, R.N. Memory b i a s toward normative and novel t r a i t p r o t o t y p e s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1978, 36, 1391-1401. Tonnies, F. Community and a s s o c i a t i o n . London: Routledge and Keegan P a u l 1955. F i r s t p u b l i s h e d i n German i n 1887. Wallace, A.F.C. C u l t u r e and p e r s o n a l i t y . 2nd, ed. New York: Random House, 1970. Weiner, B. , F r i e z e , J . , K u k l a , A., Reed, L., Rest, S., & Rosenbaum, R.M. P e r c e i v i n g the causes of success and f a i l u r e . I n E.E. Jones, D.E. Kanouse, H.H. K e l l e y , R.E. N i s b e t t , S. V a l i n s , & B. Weiner (Eds.), A t t r i b u t i o n : P e r c e i v i n g the causes o f beha-v i o u r . Morristown, N.J.: General Learning P r e s s , 1972. White, R.K. Misconceptions i n S o v i e t and American images. Paper read a t meeting o f the American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , New York, September, 1961. Wiggins, J.S. In defense o f t r a i t s . I n v i t e d address t o the N i n t h Annual Symposium on Recent Developments i n the use o f the MMPI, Los Angeles, February 28, 1974. W i l d e r , D.A. P e r c e i v i n g persons as a group: C a t e g o r i z a t i o n and i n t e r g r o u p r e l a t i o n s . In D.L. Hamilton (Ed.), C o g n i t i v e  processes i n s t e r e o t y p i n g and i n t e r g r o u p behaviour. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980. W i l d e r , D.A., & Thompson, J.E. Intergroup c o n t a c t w i t h independent ma n i p u l a t i o n s o f in-group and out-group i n t e r a c t i o n . J o u r n a l  o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1980, 38, 589-603. Winer, B.J. S t a t i s t i c a l p r i n c i p l e s i n experimental d e s i g n , 2nd, ed. New York! McGraw-Hill, 1971. - 209 -W o l l , S.B., Weeks, D.G.., Fraps, C.L., Pendergrass, J . , & Vanderplas, M.A. Role o f sentence context i n the encoding o f t r a i t d e s c r i p t o r s . J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o c i a l Psychology, 1980, 39, 59-68. Zajonc, R.B. F e e l i n g and t h i n k i n g : Preferences need no i n f e r e n c e s . American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1980, 35, 151-175. - 210 -APPENDICES - 211 -A p p e n d i x A C o n t e n t and S t r u c t u r e o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e - 212 -S t r u c t u r e C o v e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n and s t a t e m e n t of r i g h t s as a v o l u n t e e r r e s p o n d e n t 1 page I n t r o d u c t o r y o r i e n t a t i o n t o q u e s t i o n n a i r e .. 2 pages D e f i n i t i o n s o f t a r g e t g roups 1 page P e r s o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n 13 q u e s t i o n s G e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s about t h e t a r g e t g r o u p s . 40 q u e s t i o n s S t e r e o t y p e t a s k a 6 i t e m q u e s t i o n Preamble t o a t t r i b u t i o n t a s k s 1 page A t t r i b u t i o n t a s k s 18 x 6 q u e s t i o n s Preamble t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l a t t i t u d e q u e s t i o n s . 1 page E n v i r o n m e n t a l a t t i t u d e q u e s t i o n s .... 11 x 5 q u e s t i o n s Preamble t o E n v i r o n m e n t a l Response I n v e n t o r y . 1 page E.R.I. * 184 q u e s t i o n s a. In g e n e r a l , p e o p l e t a k e between an hour and two h o u r s t o c o m p l e t e t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I t i s b e t t e r t o do i t a l l a t once r a t h e r t h a n a t d i f f e r e n t t i m e s . BECAUSE OF THE TYPES OF ANALYSES TO BE PERFORMED ON THE DATA IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THAT YOU ANSWER EVERY-QUESTION. QUESTIONNAIRES WITH UNANSWERED QUESTIONS CANNOT BE ANALYZED. HOWEVER, REMEMBER THAT THERE IS ALWAYS AN OPTION FOR A NEUTRAL RESPONSE. A l l c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w i l l be a n a l y z e d t o compare t h e s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e r e s p o n s e s o f t h e d i f f e r e n t g roups who a r e p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e s t u d y . I t i s w o r t h w h i l e k e e p i n g i n mind t h a t we a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n your f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n s , so t h e r e i s no need t o spend a l o n g t i m e t h i n k i n g a b o u t any o f t h e q u e s t i o n s . P l e a s e w r i t e y o u r name i n t h e f o l l o w i n g space when r e -t u r n i n g t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h i s w i l l a l l o w us t o keep t r a c k of the p e o p l e who have handed i n t h e i r r e s p o n s e s . Once o u r r e c o r d of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n s e s ( r e t u r n s ) i s i n o r d e r we w i l l d i s c a r d t h i s s h e e t o f paper b e f o r e l o o k i n g a t your answers and o p i n i o n s . Your name w i l l n o t be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h your r e s p o n s e s . - 214 -A l l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w i l l be t r e a t e d a n o n y m o u s l y and con* : i d e n t i a l l y . NAME: -As a v o l u n t a r y p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e s t u d y y o u h a v e t h e r i g h t t o s t o p r e s p o n d i n g a t a n y p o i n t . I f , f o r a n y r e a s o n , y o u c a n n o t f i n i s h t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e we w o u l d s t i l l l i k e t o h a v e i t r e t u r n e d . I t i s n e c e s s a r y t o r e -u s e a number o f s e c t i o n s o f t h e f o r m . T h a n k y o u v e r y much f o r y o u r h e l p . T i m M c T i e r n a n - 215 _ b. PEOPLE'S CONCEPTS OF SOCIAL GROUPS M o s t p e o p l e h o l d a number o f d i f f e r e n t i d e a s and o p i n i o n s a b o u t t h e v a r i o u s g r o u p s t h a t e x i s t i n o u r s o c i e t y a nd i n t h e w o r l d a t l a r g e . I n b r o a d t e r m s i t i s r e a s o n a b l y e a s y t o f i n d o u t w h a t t h e s e i d e a s a r e . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e G a l l u p P o l l s r e g u l a r l y p r o -v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t c h a n g e s i n p e o p l e ' s g e n e r a l a t t i t u d e s a nd o p i n i o n s . H o w e v e r , v e r y l i t t l e i s known a b o u t t h e f i n e r ' d e t a i l s o f p e o p l e ' s b e l i e f s a nd o p i n i o n s , a n d a b o u t w h a t i n d i v i d u a l s r e a l l y mean when t h e y d e s c r i b e a g r o u p o r g r o u p s i n a p a r t i c u l a r way. A s p s y c h o l o g i s t s , i t i s o f i n t e r e s t t o u s t o f i n d t h e r i g h t p r o c e d u r e s t o m e a s u r e a c c u r a t e l y t h e s e d e t a i l s a n d m e a n i n g s s o t h a t we c a n g e t a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e manner i n w h i c h p e o p l e s e e t h e w o r l d . One a p p r o a c h we c a n t a k e i s t o a s k p e o p l e a w i d e v a r i e t y o f q u e s t i o n s a b o u t a t o p i c o f i n t e r e s t a n d t o e x a m i n e t h e i r r e -s p o n s e s w i t h a v i e w t o u n c o v e r i n g p a t t e r n s a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s among t h e i r a n s w e r s . A t t h e moment we a r e b e g i n n i n g t o d e v e l o p t h i s a p p r o a c h i n o u r s t u d y o f s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s . We a r e a s k i n g a number o f d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e t o d e s c r i b e - 216 -one o r t w o s o c i a l g r o u p s a s b e s t t h e y c a n , u s i n g w o r d s t h a t t h e y t h i n k a r e m o s t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e g r o u p s i n q u e s t i o n . As ,a p a r t o f t h i s p r o c e d u r e we a r e a l s o a s k i n g p e o p l e t o a n s w e r a num-b e r o f q u e s t i o n s a b o u t e a c h o f t h e w o r d s u s e d i n t h e i r d e s c r i p -t i o n s . I n t h i s r e s p e c t , we w o u l d l i k e y o u t o c o m p l e t e t h e a c c o m -p a n y i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e , d e s c r i b i n g t h e g r o u p m e n t i o n e d on i t , a n d a n s w e r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d t o y o u r d e s c r i p t i o n . IMPORTANT NOTE T h e r e a r e no r i g h t o r w r o n g a n s w e r s t o a n y o f t h e q u e s t -i o n s . We a r e i n t e r e s t e d i n y o u r own o p i n i o n s a n d y o u r j u d g e m e n t s , a n d we w o u l d a p p r e c i a t e i t i f y o u c o u l d a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n s a s c a r e f u l l y a n d a s o p e n l y a s p o s s i b l e . W r i t e a n y comments y o u may w i s h t o make o n t h e b a c k o f t h e f o r m s - we a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y i n -t e r e s t e d i n ways i n w h i c h we c o u l d i m p r o v e t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Y o u r r e s p o n s e s w i l l b e t r e a t e d a n o n y m o u s l y . T h a n k y o u v e r y much f o r y o u r g e n e r o u s c o o p e r a t i o n . - 217 -c. We are intere s t e d i n your attitudes about the environ-ment, and i n your judgements and opinions about four d i f f e r e n t groups of people. These groups are: v , PEOPLE WHO HAVE GROWN UP IN BIG CITIES PEOPLE WHO HAVE GROWN UP IN SMALL TOWNS CONSERVATION-MINDED PEOPLE DEVELOPMENT-MINDED PEOPLE. -Some d e f i n i t i o n s : - People who have grown up i n small towns (or big c i t i e s ) can be thought of as people who have spent the greater part of t h e i r e a r l y l i v e s , up u n t i l the teenage years, in one or more small towns (or large c i t i e s ) . We would l i k e you to r e l y on your own impressions of what are "small towns" and "big c i t i e s " when answering the r e -lated questions. By development-minded people we mean people who are i n -terested i n questions of economic expansion and i n d u s t r i a l , bus-iness and resource growth. For develop-minded people these issues would be consid-e r e d more important than, for example, conservation and environ-mental issues. - 218 -D e v e l o p m e n t - m i n d e d p e o p l e c a n w o r k i n b u s i n e s s a n d i n d u s t r y , b u t t h e y n e e d n ' t n e c e s s a r i l y do s o . By c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d p e o p l e we mean p e o p l e who t h i n k t h a t q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t and n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s a r e more i m p o r t a n t t h a n , s a y , d e v e l o p m e n t i s s u e s . A s w i t h d e v e l o p m e n t - m i n d e d p e o p l e , t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s c a n be i n v o l v e d i n many d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f j o b s a n d l i f e s t y l e s . F u r t h e r n o t e : - d e v e l o p m e n t - m i n d e d p e o p l e c a n f e e l t h a t c o n s e r v a t i o n i s s u e s a r e i m p o r t a n t i n many s e n s e s . Y e t , t h e y t h i n k t h a t s u c h i s s u e s a r e n o t a s i m p o r t a n t a s d e v e l o p m e n t - r e -l a t e d i s s u e s . L i k e w i s e , c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d p e o p l e c a n t h i n k t h a t d e -v e l o p m e n t - r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n s a r e i m p o r t a n t , b u t t h e y d o n ' t f e e l t h a t t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e a s v i t a l a n d i m p o r t a n t a s l o n g t e r m e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d c o n s e r v a t i o n i s s u e s . - 219 -d. B e f o r e s t a r t i n g w o r k on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e we w o u l d l i k e y o u t o g i v e u s some b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t y o u r s e l f . A s we h a v e s a i d , y o u r a n s w e r s t o t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s , a n d y o u r r e s p o n s e s o n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , w i l l be k e p t c o n f i d e n t t i a l a t a l l t i m e s . PERSONAL INFORMATION A r e y o u MALE o r FEMALE? ( c i r c l e one) How o l d a r e you?-What do y o u w o r k a t ? " '  What n a t i o n a l i t y a r e y o u ? .__ [ '  Where do y o u l i v e (most o f t h e t i m e ) ? • How b i g was t h e f a m i l y i n w h i c h y o u g r e w u p ? Where d i d y o u s p e n d m o s t o f y o u r c h i l d h o o d a n d t e e n a g e y e a r s ? What was t h e p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e p l a c e ? ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y ) MARITAL STATUS NUMBER OF CHILDREN What i s y o u r m a j o r h o b b y , i n t e r e s t , o r l e i s u r e a c t i v i t y ? I t i s c e r t a i n l y t h e c a s e t h a t p e o p l e c a n , a t t h e same t i m e , a d o p t b o t h a c o n s e r v a t i o n - o r i e n t e d p e r s p e c t i v e a n d a b u s -i n e s s / d e v e l o p m e n t p e r s p e c t i v e when c o n s i d e r i n g a p a r t i c u l a r s o -c i a l o r e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s s u e . I t i s a l s o t h e c a s e , h o w e v e r , t h a t m o s t p e o p l e t e n d t o - 220 -p u t more e m p h a s i s on o n e o r t h e o t h e r v i e w p o i n t i n a g r e a t many i n s t a n c e s . A r e y o u a p e r s o n who: (a) more o f t e n t a k e s a c o n s c r v a t i o n - o r i e n t e d - p o s i t i o n on v a r i o u s s o c i a l , e n e r g y , e c o n o m i c , a n d r e s o u r c e i s s u e s . (b) m ore o f t e n t a k e s a b u s i n e s s / d e v e l o p m e n t p o s i t i o n on v a r i o u s s o c i a l , e n e r g y , e c o n o m i c , a n d r e s o u r c e i s s u e s . F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f d a t a a n a l y s i s , c h o o s e ( a n d c i r c l e ) t h e c a t e -g o r y w h i c h b e s t d e s c r i b e s y o u o u t o f t h e f o l l o w i n g f o u r : -A. A p e r s o n who g r e w up l a r g e l y i n a s m a l l t o w n s e t t i n g a n d who, g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g i s c o n s e r v a t i o n -- m i n d e d . B. A p e r s o n who g r e w up l a r g e l y i n a s m a l l t o w n s e t t i n g a n d who, g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , i s d e v e l o p m e n t -- minded. C. A p e r s o n who g r e w up l a r g e l y i n a l a r g e c i t y s e t t i n g a n d w h o , g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , i s c o n s e r v a t i o n -- m i nded. D. A p e r s o n who g r e w up l a r g e l y i n a l a r g e c i t y s e t t i n g and who, g e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , i s d e v e l o p m e n t --minded. - 221 -e.1 Examples o f t h e q u e s t i o n s about b i g c i t y and s m a l l town p e o p l e . G i v e an e s t i m a t e o f t h e p r o p o r t i o n of t h e Canadian p o p u l a t i o n t h a t has grown up i n l a r g e c i t i e s ( W r i t e i n a v a l u e be-tween 0% and 100%) How s i m i l a r t o each o t h e r i n p e r s o n a l i t y and o u t l o o k a r e p e o p l e who have grown up i n l a r g e c i t i e s ? c o m p l e t e l y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 c o m p l e t e l y s i m i l a r ' - -' ' " - d i s s i m i l a r How s i m i l a r a r e you i n p e r s o n a l i t y and o u t l o o k t o p e o p l e who have grown up i n l a r g e c i t i e s ? c o m p l e t e l y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 c o m p l e t e l y s i m i l a r d i s s i m i l a r I s your c o n c e p t of p e o p l e who have grown up i n l a r g e c i t i e s vague o r c l e a r ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v e r y v e r y vague y c l e a r From t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f C a n a d i a n s o c i e t y i n g e n e r a l , what s t a -t u s do p e o p l e who have grown up i n l a r g e c i t i e s have as a group? v e r y h i g h 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v e r y low s t a t u s s t a t u s To what e x t e n t a r e p e o p l e who have grown up i n l a r g e c i t i e s l i k e -l y t o l e a v e such c i t i e s i n o r d e r t o l i v e e l s e w h e r e ? n o t a t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t o a v e r y a l l g r e a t ex-t e n t - 222 -To what e x t e n t a r e p e o p l e who have grown up i n l a r g e c i t i e s f r e e t o choose whether o r n o t t h e y l e a v e such c i t i e s i n o r d e r t o l i v e e l s e w h e r e ? c o m p l e t e l y have no f r e e t o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 . 9 c h o i c e choose v -.  \ \ w hatsoever G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , f o r what p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e i r e n t i r e l i v e s * do p e o p l e who have grown up i n l a r g e c i t i e s a c t u a l l y l i v e i n l a r g e c i t i e s ? (Choose a v a l u e between 10% and 100%) * " e n t i r e l i v e s " means from b i r t h u n t i l d e a t h . e. 2 E x a m p l e s o f t h e q u e s t i o n s a b o u t c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d a n d d e v e l o p m e n t - m i n d e d p e o p l e . G i v e an e s t i m a t e o f t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e C a n a d i a n p o p u l a t i o n t h a t i s d e v e l o p m e n t m i n d e d . " ' ( W r i t e i n a v a l u e b e t w e e n 0% and 100%) . How s i m i l a r t o e a c h . o t h e r i n p e r s o n a l i t y a n d o u t l o o k a r e p e o p l e v,7ho a r e d e v e l o p m e n t m i n d e d ? .' . c o m p l e t e l y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 c o m p l e t e l y s i m i l a r •. • ' d i s s i m i l a r How s i m i l a r a r e y o u i n p e r s o n a l i t y a n d o u t l o o k t o p e o p l e who a r e d e v e l o p m e n t m i n d e d ? c o m p l e t e l y 1 2 3 . 4 5 6 7 8 9 c o m p l e t e l y s i m i l a r d i s s i m i l a r How v a g u e o r c l e a r i s y o u r c o n c e p t o f p e o p l e who a r e d e v e l o p m e n t m i n e ed? v e r y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v e r y v a q u e c l e a r F r o m t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f C a n a d i a n s o c i e t y i n g e n e r a l , w h a i t u s a s a g r o u p h a v e p e o p l e who a r e d e v e l o p m e n t m i n d e d ? v e r y h i g h 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v e r y l o w s t a t u s s t a t u s To w h a t e x t e n t a r e p e o p l e who a r e d e v e l o p m e n t m i n d e d l i k e l y t o c h a n g e t h e i r o p i n i o n s on t h e i s s u e ? n o t a t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t o a v e r y a l l g r e a t e x -t e n t ~ 224 ~ A t w h a t a g e , a p p r o x i m a t e l y . , do p e o p l e who a r e d e v e l o p m e n t m i n c e d b e g i n t o h o l d t h i s v i e w ? G e n e r a l l y s p e a k i n g , f o r w h a t p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e i r e n t i r e / l i v e s ( f r o m b i r t h u n t i l d e a t h ) do p e o p l e who a r e d e v e l o p m e n t m i n d e d r e m a i n c o m i n i t t e d t o t h e i r o p i n i o n s o n t h e i s s u e ? ( C h o o s e a v a l u e b e t w e e n 1 0 % a n d 100%) j . To w h a t e x t e n t d o y o u a g r e e w i t h t h e a i m s a n d o p i n i o n s o f t h e p e o p l e who a r e d e v e l o p m e n t m i n d e d ? c o m p l e t e l y 1 2 3 4 5 - 6 7 8 9 c o m p l e t e l y a g r e e ~ d i s a g r e e How c l e a r t o y o u a r e t h e a i m s a n d g o a l s o f p e o p l e who a r e d e v e l -o pment m i n d e d ? v e r y c l e a r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v e r y u n -— c l e a r To w h a t e x t e n t a r e p e o p l e f r e e t o c h o o s e w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e y b e -come d e v e l o p m e n t m i n d e d ? c o m p l e t e l y h a v e no f r e e t o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 c h o i c e c h o o s e w h a t s o e v e r To w h a t e x t e n t a r e p e o p l e f r e e t o c h o o s e w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e y s t o p b e i n g d e v e l o p m e n t m i n d e d ? c o m p l e t e l y h a v e no f r e e t o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 c h o i c e c h o o s e w h a t s o e v e r - 225 -f . We would l i k e you t o read through the f o l l o w i n g l i s t of t r a i t terms. Then c i r c l e the- S I X (6) words which- seem to you to d e s c r i b e development minded p e o p l e : AFFECTIONATE ALOOF APATHETIC APPRECIATIVE ARROGANT AWKWARD CALM CAPABLE CHANGEABLE COLD COMPLICATED CONSERVATIVE CmSCIENTIOUS roNVENTIONAL COOPERATIVE CRITICAL CURIOUS DEPENDABLE DEPENDENT DISSATISFIED DISTOTSTFUL EFFICIENT. EMOTIONAL FOTERPRISING F^TROVERTED FORMAL FRIENDLY GENEROUS HARD-HEADED HELPFUL HIGHBROW HONEST IDEALISTIC BfPULSrVE INDEPENDENT-MINDED INFLEXIBLE INrRCSPECTIVE IlTIT^jVERrED LACK CONFIDENCE HAVE MANAGERIAL INTERESTS MANIPULATIVE NCf^CONFORMING OPPORTUNISTIC OUTSPOKEN PATIENT POLISHED POWER & MONEY ORIENTED PRACTICAL PREJUDICED PROGRESSIVE RESENTFUL RESOURCEFUL RESPONSIBLE RIGID RUIE-FOLLCWING SEEK ACCEPTANCE SEEK REASSURANCE SEIF-CCNTROLLED SFTJT-SEEKTNG SELFISH SENSITIVE SIMPLE SOCIABLE STABLE STUBBORN SULKY SYMPATHETIC TACTFUL TOLERANT TRUSTING UlvfCONVENTIONAL UM3EPENDABLE UNDERSTANDING UNEMOTIONAL UNKIND. UNPREDICTABLE UNSELFISH VALUE INTELL-ECTUAL ACTI-VITIES WARM WELL-ADJUSTED WORRYING - 226 -EASY-GOING MOODY SINCERE MORALISTIC SKEPTICAL - 227 -g. P l e a s e make s u r e t h a t you have c i r c l e d ^ S I X (6) t r a i t t e r m s , no more and no l e s s . I n t h e f o l l o w i n g p a r t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e y o u w i l l be a s k e d t o answer a s e t o f q u e s t i o n s d i r e c t e d a t e a c h one o f t h e s i x c i r c l e d t r a i t s . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t o c h e c k t o make s u r e t h a t y o u have a n -swered a q u e s t i o n s e t f o r e v e r y one o f t h e s i x t e r m s , and t h a t none o f t h e t r a i t s - . u s e d b y you i n y o u r d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e g r o u p i s o v e r l o o k e d . - 228 -h. Example of the s i x s e t s of a t t r i b u t i o n q u e s t i o n s . N.B. "group" as i t appears i n the q u e s t i o n s on t h i s and the next page (pages 1 and 2, not pages 3 and 4) r e f e r s t o develop-ment minded p e o p l e . - the group t h a t you have j u s t d e s c r i b e d w i t h s i x t r a i t words. W r i t e the f i r s t o f the words t h a t you have l i s t e d - i n the followT-i n g space and answer each of the q u e s t i o n s t h a t r e l a t e t o i t . Answer the q u e s t i o n s as c a r e f u l l y as p o s s i b l e but do n o t spend too much time over any one of them. In g e n e r a l i t i s b e t t e r t o work f a i r l y q u i c k l y . The f i r s t word used t o d e s c r i b e the group i s : (Write i n word) T h i s term i s the 1 s t . , 2nd., 3rd., 4th., 5th., 6th., most im^-p o r t a n t i t e m i n my d e s c r i p t i o n of the group. ( C i r c l e the appro-p r i a t e number.) Think about the many d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s i n which members of the group can f i n d themselves, and the many d i f f e r e n t types o f en-co u n t e r s they can have w i t h people i n g e n e r a l . In how many of these s i t u a t i o n s and encounters are the group members l i k e l y t o d i s p l a y the above t r a i t ? v e r y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very few _ • • many - 229 -T h i n k a b o u t t h e number o f d i f f e r e n t b e h a v i o u r s a n d d i f f e r e n t a c -t i o n s t h r o u g h w h i c h members o f t h e g r o u p c a n r e v e a l t h e t r a i t . T h r o u g h how many d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f b e h a v i o u r d o t h e y show t h e t r a i t ? v e r y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v e r y f e w ' many I n y o u r j u d g e m e n t , w h a t p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e g r o u p members p o s s e s s t h e a b o v e t r a i t ? %. When d e s c r i b i n g members o f t h e g r o u p w i t h t h e a b o v e t r a i t , t o w h a t e x t e n t do y o u t h i n k t h a t t h e t r a i t i s i n h e r i t e d a n d u n l e a r n e d , a n d a p a r t o f t h e g r o u p members' b a s i c human n a t u r e ? n o t c o m p l e t e l y i n h e r i t e d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i n h e r i t e d a t a l l ' ' ' " ' ' '  When d e s c r i b i n g members o f t h e g r o u p w i t h t h e t r a i t , t o w h a t e x -t e n t do y o u t h i n k t h a t t h e t r a i t i s l e a r n e d a n d a r e s u l t o f c o n -d i t i o n s l i k e g r o u p e x p e c t a t i o n s , g r o u p s t a n d a r d s , a n d s o c i a l p r e s s u r e s t o b e h a v e i n c e r t a i n w a y s ? not l e a r n e d completely a t a l l , i . e . , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l e a r n e d , i e , not caused by ; ' e n t i r e l y s o c i a l c o n d i - caused by t i o n s s o c i a l con-d i t i o n s I n u s i n g t h e a b o v e t r a i t t o d e s c r i b e t h e g r o u p members, how s t a b l e a n d u n c h a n g i n g do y o u t h i n k i t i s a s a p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r -a c t e r i s t i c ? v e r y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v e r y u n -s t a b l e s t a b l e - 230 -How c o n f i d e n t are you i n u s i n g the t r a i t t o d e s c r i b e the group members? extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 not c o n f i -c o n f i d e n t ' ' dent a t a l l What i s the chance t h a t any p a r t i c u l a r group member you might meet possesses the t r a i t ? % - s e l e c t a v a l u e from 0% (no chance a t a l l ) to 100% ( a b s o l u t e l y c e r t a i n ) In u s i n g the t r a i t to d e s c r i b e members of the group, how f a v o u r -a b l e do you t h i n k i t i s as a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ? v e r y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 very unfavourable favourable Once a g a i n , p l e a s e w r i t e the f i r s t o f the words t h a t you have l i s t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g space and answer the q u e s t i o n s r e l a t e d t o i t . In your judgement, what percentage of people i n g e n e r a l possess the above t r a i t ? ? Think about the many d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s i n which people i n gen-e r a l can f i n d themselves, and t h i n k o f the many d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f encounters they can be i n v o l v e d i n . In how many of these s i t -u a t i o n s and encounters a r e people i n g e n e r a l l i k e l y t o d i s p l a y the above t r a i t ? v e r y few 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v e r y many - 231-Think about th e number o f d i f f e r e n t b e h a v i o u r s and d i f f e r e n t a c -t i o n s t h r o u g h w h i c h p e o p l e i n g e n e r a l can r e v e a l t h e t r a i t . Through how many d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f b e h a v i o u r do t h e y show t h e t r a i t ? v e r y few 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v e r y many When used t o d e s c r i b e p e o p l e i n g e n e r a l , how f a v o u r a b l e do you t h i n k t h e t r a i t i s as a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ? v e r y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v e r y unfavourable favourable How s t a b l e and u n c h a n g i n g i s the t r a i t as a p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c -t e r i s t i c ? v e r y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 v e r y s t a b l e u n s t a b l e What i s t h e chance t h a t any p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n you might meet p o s s e s s e s t h e above t r a i t ? % r- s e l e c t a v a l u e from 0% (no chance a t a l l ) t o 100% ( a b s o l u t e l y c e r t a i n ) When u s i n g t h e above t r a i t t o d e s c r i b e p e o p l e i n g e n e r a l , t o what e x t e n t do you t h i n k t h a t t h e t r a i t i s i n h e r i t e d and un-l e a r n e d , and a p a r t o f p e o p l e ' s b a s i c human n a t u r e ? not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 completely inherited inherited at a l l When u s i n g t h e t r a i t t o d e s c r i b e p e o p l e i n g e n e r a l , t o what ex-t e n t do you t h i n k t h a t t h e t r a i t i s l e a r n e d and a r e s u l t of c o n d i t i o n s l i k e g r o u p e x p e c t a t i o n s , group s t a n d a r d s , and s o c i a l - 232 -p r e s s u r e s t o b e h a v e i n c e r t a i n w a y s ? not l e a r n e d completely a t a l l , i . e . , 1 2 3 4 5 6 . 7 8 9 l e a r n e d , i e , not caused - • ' • • ' - ' • . e n t i r e l y . by s o c i a l caused by c o n d i t i o n s s o c i a l con-d i t i o n s - 233 -i . The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n i n v o l v e s r a t i n g your own a t t i t u d e s toward a number o f i s s u e s t o do w i t h g e n e r a l v a l u e s and l i f e -s t y l e s . You w i l l a l s o be asked t o e s t i m a t e t h e v i e w p o i n t s o f o t h e r s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e s e i s s u e s . We would l i k e you t o work t h r o u g h t h e q u e s t i o n s c a r e f u l l y b u t r e a s o n a b l y q u i c k l y . Your f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n s a r e of most i n -t e r e s t t o u s . In a l l , t h e t a s k s h o u l d t a k e o n l y a few m i n u t e s . s e n t s Remember, when the m i d - p o i n t o r u s i n g t h e a t t i t u d e s c a l e s , t h a t n e u t r a l p o s i t i o n on e a c h s c a l e . 5 r e p r e -- 2 3 4 -j . 1 Example o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l • a t t i t u d e q u e s t i o n s . To what e x t e n t do the l i s t e d p e o p l e o r grou p s a g r e e w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g p o s i t i o n : OPPOSITION TO LAND DEVELOPMENT SELF strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 strongly agree - ' ' - • • d i s a g r e e CONSERVATION MINDED PEOPLE strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 strongly agree _____________________ disagree PEOPLE WHO HAVE GROWN UP IN LARGE CITIES strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 strongly agree - disagree PEOPLE WHO HAVE GROWN UP IN SMALL TOWNS strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 strongly agree disagree DFA _LDPMENT MINDED PEOPLE strcmgly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 strongly agree ' disagree - 235 -j . 2 Rerraining items: To w h a t e x t e n t do t h e l i s t e d p e o p l e o r g r o u p s a g r e e w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g p o s i t i o n : A CONCERN WITH THE PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RFJSCORCES / INCLUDING THE COUNTRYSIDE AND OPEN SPACE? To w h a t e x t e n t d o e s THE ENJOYMENT OF CROWDS AND HIGH DENSITY L I V I N G r e p r e s e n t t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f t h e l i s t e d p e o p l e a n d g r o u p s ? To w h a t e x t e n t d o e s AN INTEREST I N CULTURAL L I F E r e p r e s e n t t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f t h e l i s t e d p e o p l e a n d g r o u p s ? To w h a t e x t e n t d o e s OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER PRIVATE LAND USE r e p r e s e n t t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f t h e l i s t e d p e o p l e a n d g r o u p s ? To w h a t e x t e n t d o e s FAVOURING THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY TO SOLVE EN-VIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS r e p r e s e n t t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f t h e l i s t e d p e o p l e and g r o u p s ? To w h a t e x t e n t i s AN INTEREST I N TRAVEL AND HAVING A WIDE NUMBER OF GENERAL INTERESTS c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e l i s t e d p e o p l e a nd g r o u p s ? To w h a t e x t e n t i s AN OPENNESS, RESPONSIVENESS, AND TRUST OF THE GENERAL ENVIRONMENT (AND A COMPETENCE ( A B I L I T Y ) I N FINDING ONE'S WAY ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT VERSUS A FEAR OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENTS) c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e l i s t e d p e o p l e and g r o u p s ? - 236 -To w h a t e x t e n t i s AN ENJOYMENT OF ANTIQUES AND HISTORICAL PLACES AND A PREFERENCE FOR TRADITIONAL VERSUS MODERN DESIGN c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c o f t h e l i s t e d p e o p l e a nd g r o u p s ? To w h a t e x t e n t i s A NEED FOR PRIVACY c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e l i s t e d p e o p l e a n d g r o u p s ? To w h a t e x t e n t i s AN INTEREST I N MECHANICS I N I T S VARIOUS FORMS c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e l i s t e d p e o p l e a n d g r o u p s ? - 237 -k. YOU HAVE NOW COMPLETED A F U L L SECTION OF THE SURVEY .QUES-TIONNAIRE. THE NEXT (AND F I N A L ) SECTION I S SELF-CONTAINED AND SHOULD TAKE ROUGHLY 2 5 TO 3 0 MINUTES. I T INVOLVES WORKING THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE INVENTORY WHICH I S DESIGNED TO STUDY ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ENVIRONMENT. WORK QUICKLY BUT ACCURATELY. TRY NOT TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON ANY ONE ITEM. MAKE SURE THAT, FOR EACH RESPONSE, THE NUMBER ON THE ANSWER SHEET CORRESPONDS TO THE NUMBER OF THE QUESTION ON THE TEST BOOKLET. DO NOT WRITE ON THE REUSEABLE TEST BOOKLET. TRY TO RESPOND TO EVERY ITEM. WE WOULD L I K E TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK YOU MOST SINCERELY FOR YOUR P A R T I C I P A T I O N I N OUR PROJECT. YOUR HELP I S VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. Yours t r u l y , T i m M c T i e r n a n , D e p t . o f P s y c h o l o g y , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r , B.C. V6T 1W5. - 238 ~ 1. E . R . I . b o o k l e t (184 i t e m s ) . - 239 -A p p e n d i x B Some Age a n d S e x - R e l a t e d F i n d i n g s - 240 -The a n a l y s e s -of t h e r e s p o n d e n t - r e l a t e d d a t a i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e w e r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t age d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e s a m p l e g r o u p s . The t a b u l a t i o n o f p e r s o n a l d a t a a l s o r e -v e a l e d t h a t t h e r e was a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y l a r g e r a t i o o f fem-a l e s t o m a l e s among t h e r e s p o n d e n t s . The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e s e v a r i a b l e s m i g h t h a v e c o n f o u n d e d t h e p e r s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e s u b g r o u p s was c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e f i r s t s e c t i o n o f c h a p t e r t h r e e . I t was c o n c l u d e d o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e l i m i t e d a n a l y s e s a v a i l a b l e t h a t n e i t h e r a g e n o r s e x , a s v a r i a b l e s , d i s -t o r t e d t h e e s s e n t i a l p e r s o n a l i t y and v a l u e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e b i g c i t y a n d s m a l l t o w n r e s p o n d e n t s , n o r b e t w e e n t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n m i n d e d and d e v e l o p m e n t - m i n d e d p e o p l e . T h i s a p p e n d i x l i s t s t h e r e s u l t s on w h i c h t h i s c o n c l u s i o n was b a s e d . A g e - R e l a t e d F i n d i n g s : Age was c o r r e l a t e d w i t h e a c h o f t h e E R I s u b s c a l e v a r i a b l e s f o r e a c h o f t h e f o u r s u b s a m p l e s o f r e s p o n d -e n t s . I t c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y w i t h E n v i r o n m e n t a l ' T r u s t ( 0 .287) i n t h e c a s e o f t h e s m a l l t o w n c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d r e s -p o n d e n t s . I t c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y w i t h t h e S t i m u l u s S e e k i n g v a r i a b l e (-0.476) i n t h e c a s e o f t h e s m a l l t o w n d e v e l o p m e n t -m i n d e d r e s p o n d e n t s . T h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h any o f t h e o t h e r v a r i a b l e s f o r any o f t h e s u b s a m p l e s o f r e s p o n -d e n t s . (The c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n age a n d S t i m u l u s S e e k i n g a p p -r o a c h e d s i g n i f i c a n c e (r_ - 0 . 2 6 9 , p<.10) f o r t h e s m a l l t o wn c o n -s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d s a m p l e ) . - 241 -The 2 (Demogroup) X 2 (Val u e g r o u p ) m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f t h e ERI d a t a was r e p e a t e d u s i n g age as a c o v a r i a t e . As w i t h the o r i g i n a l a n a l y s i s , t h e t e s t o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t (F (9,227) = 1.31, p<.23), t h e main e f f e c t o f the demographic p a r t i t i o n o f r e s p o n d e n t s was s i g n i f i c a n t (F (9,227) = 5.92, p<.001), and t h e main e f f e c t o f t h e a t t i t u d i -n a l o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t (F(9 ,227) =20.78, p<\001). -The s m a l l town r e s p o n d e n t s had h i g h e r p a s t o r a l i s m s c o r e s (F (1,235) = 7.52, p <.007) and l o w e r u r b a n i s m (F (1,235) = 40.44, p < .001) and e n v i r o n m e n t a l t r u s t s c o r e s (F (1,235) = 6.78, p<.01) t h a n t h e b i g c i t y r e s p o n d e n t s . The c o n s e r v a t i o n - m i n d e d r e s p o n d e n t s d i f f e r e d from t h e development-minded r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h a t t h e y had h i g h e r p a s t o r a l -i s m (F (1,235) = 72.12, p < .001), l o w e r u r b a n i s m (F (1,235) = 22.35, p <.001, l o w e r e n v i r o n m e n t a l a d a p t a t i o n (F (1,235) = 91.25, p < .001), l o w e r e n v i r o n m e n t a l t r u s t (F (1,235) = 25.37, p < . 0 0 1 ) , h i g h e r a n t i q u a r i a n i s m (F (1,235) = 43.96, p < .001), l o w e r m e c h a n i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n (F (1,235) = 20.30, p < .001), and h i g h e r communality s c o r e s (F (1,235) = 12.27, p < .001). I n e s s e n c e , t h e c o v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s " c l e a n e d " the f i n d i n g s o f t h e o r i g i n a l m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e , removing - .242 -t h e " n o i s e " v a r i a n c e g e n e r a t e d b y t h e age d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e s a m p l e g r o u p s . S e x - r e l a t e d f i n d i n g s : The l a s t i t e r a t i o n o f t h e d a t a a n a l y s e s o n t h e E R I s c o r e s i n v o l v e d a 2 (Sex) X 2 (Demogroup) X 2 ( V a l u e g r o u p ) m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e . None o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t -i n c l u d i n g s e x a s a n i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t . Thus t h e s e x c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e v a r i o u s s a m p l e s d i d n o t m o d e r a t e t h e m a i n e f f e c t s o f t h e d e m o g r a p h i c g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s n o r t h e a t t i t u d i n a l g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s . The m a i n e f f e c t o f s e x was i t s e l f s i g n i f i c a n t , h o w e v e r (F ( 1 0 , 223) = 1 0 . 8 1 , p < . 0 0 1 ; age was i n c l u d e d a s a d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r a n a l y s i s ) . The women who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e s t u d y h a d h i g h e r u r b a n i s m (M = 61.18 v s . 5 6 . 7 2 ; F (1,232) = 7.98, p < . 0 0 5 ) , l o w e r s t i m u l u s s e e k i n g (M = 65.72 v s . 7 0 . 4 6 ; F ( l , 2 3 2 ) = 1 2 . 1 7 , p < . 0 0 1 ) , l o w e r e n v i r o n m e n t a l t r u s t (M = 62.75 v s . 6 7 . 4 6 ; F ( 1 , 2 3 2 ) 1 9 . 4 0 , p < . 0 0 1 ) , h i g h e r a n t i q u a r i a n -i s m (M = 69 .43 v s . 6 4 . 2 8 ; F (1,232) = 16 .65, p < .001) , l o w e r m e c h a n i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n (M = 63.08 v s . 7 2 . 4 4 ; F (1,232) = 4 1 . 9 6 , p < . 0 0 1 ) , a n d h i g h e r c o m m u n a l i t y s c o r e s (M = 81.34 v s . 7 9 . 0 5 ; F (1,232) = 5.03, p <.026) t h a n t h e i r m a l e c o u n t e r p a r t s . - 243 -A p p e n d i x C S u b s a m p l e I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s , M e a n s , a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s f o r t h e E R I S c a l e s Table A ERI subscale i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s , means, and, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s -Small town conservation-minded respondents S c a l e s PA UR EA SS ET AN NP MO CO UR -0.267 E A -0.277 0.412 0.312 0.374 0.360 SS ET AN NP MO CO -0.012 0.241 -0.031 0.220 0.561 -0.046 -0.141 ' 0.334 0.162 0.004 -0.300 -0.166 -0.274 -0.293 -0.033 0.097 0.005 0.248 0.321 0.313 0.034 -0.226 0.284 -0.009 0.134 0.210 0.346 0.344 -0.239 -0.039 M 82.52 51.85 62.05 66.22 62.00 71.75 56.48 '63.97 82.07 — 8.42 10.30 9.97 10.35 8.54 7.79 7.40 10.60 5.67 N=60 / Table B ERI s u b s c a l e i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s , means, and, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s -Small town development-minded respondents S c a l e s PA UR EA SS ET AN NP MO CO •UR -0.301 EA -0.049 0.392 SS 0.492 0.035 0.290 • • ET -0.041 0.049 0.256 0.209 AN 0.509 0.221 0.006 0.145 -0.060 NP 0. 150 -0.148 •• -0.175 -0.073 -0.208 0.074 MO 0.412 -0.132 0.233 0.515 0.247 0.025 -0.103 CO 0.379 0.073 0.072 0.021: 0.253 0.318 -0.130 0.079 M 73.28 58. 45 74.25 67.22 64 . 78 64 . 53 56. 60 68-.88 80.05 sd 9 . 6 6 13.12 7.93 13.36 6.75 10.63 7.69 11.27 6.68 N=60 T a b l e C ERI s u b s c a l e i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s , means, and, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s -B i g c i t y conservation-minded respondents S c a l e s PA UR EA SS ET AN . NP MO ' CO UR -0.225 EA -0.292 0.292 SS 0.309 -0.134 -0.119 ET -0.063 0.085 -0.191 0.264 AN 0.620 -0.030 -0.167 0.062 -0.118 NP 0.159 -0.239 -0.114 0.126 -0.261 -0.086 MO 0.259 -0.438 0.007 0.191 -0.007 -0.017 0.216 CO 0.213 0.213 0.170 0.148 0.062 0.406 -0.291 -0.040 M 80.33 60.57 64.93 67.87 61.43 71.25 56.47 62.08 81.98 sd 8^ 20 10.34 9.46 9.66 7.33 8.80 8.16 11.07 5.27 N=60 T a b l e D • ERI s u b s c a l e i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s , means, and, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s -Big- c i t y development-minded respondents S c a l e s PA UR EA SS ET AN . NP MO CO UR -•• -0.25.3 ' EA -0.246 0.355 ^ SS 0.345 0.037 0.216 ET -0.074 0.116 -0.001 0.291 AN 0.240 0.085 -0.120 0.232 0.098 NP -0.035 -0.130 -0.012 0.059 -0.209 -0.042 MO 0.128 -0.142 -0.009 0.322 0.259 0.112 -0.054 CO 0.289 0.049 0.051 -0.050 0.195 0.321 -0.331 -0.036 M 70.33 67.78 73.87 69.78 69.20 62.58 56.08 69.98 78.87 sd 7.57 9.80 7.26 9.72 7.75 10.10 7.90 9.88 6.96 N=60 ~ 248 ~ A p p e n d i x D M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s e s o f t h e R e f e r e n t i a l A t t r i b u t i o n a n d S t e r e o t y p e D i m e n s i o n V a r i a b l e s : D e m o g r a p h i c T a r g e t G r o u p s a n d A t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d T a r g e t G r o u p s Table A Manovas f o r the demographic and a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d targets Multivariate Tests of Significance using Wilks' Lambda Criterion 1. Scores for the Demographic Target Group Stereotypes Factor Test of Roots F i df(hyp.) df(error) . ] P R Demogroups (A) 1 thru 1 0. 669 7 106 < .698 0. .206 Valuegroups (B) 1 thru 1 0. 811 7 106 < .580 0. .226 Target Membership Status (C) 1 thru 1 1. 772 7 106 < .100 0, .324 A X B 1 thru 1 0. 988 7 106 < .444 0. .247 A X C- 1 thru 1 6. 957 7 106 < .001 0. .561 B X C 1 thru 1 0. 816 7 106 < .576 0. ,226 A X B X C 1 thru 1 0. 163 7 ' 106 < .992 0. i.103 Table A cont.) 2. Scores for the Attitudinally-defined Target Group Stereotypes Factor Test of Roots F df (hyp.) df(error) P R Dernogroups (A) 1 thru 1 1. 667 7 106 < .125 0, .315 Valuegroups (B) 1 thru 1 1. 083 7 106 < .380 0, .258 Target Membership Status (C) 1 thru 1 3. 727 7 106 < .001 0, .444 A X B 1 thru 1 0. 860 1 106 <. .541 0. .232 A X C 1 thru 1 1. 121 1 106 <• .356 0. ,263 B X C 1 thru 1 0. 426 1 106 <. ,884 0. ,165 A X B X C 1 thru 1 1. 420 1 106 <. ,205 0. .293 Abbreviations for variable names and s t a t i s t i c a l terms -Propgp/tr - Proportion of group members judged to have stereotype t r a i t s Chancemb/tr - Judged chance that any particular group member possesses stereotype t r a i t s Situation - Range of situations in which t r a i t s judged to be manifested Behaviour - Range of behaviours through which t r a i t s judged to be expressed St a b i l i t y - Judged s t a b i l i t y of stereotype t r a i t s Table A cont.) Abbreviations for variable names and s t a t i s t i c a l terms -Favourable - Favourableness ratings f o r the stereotype t r a i t s Confidence - Ratings of confidence with which t r a i t s ascribed to target group i n question SDFC - STANT1__ DISCRIMINANT FUNCTION ODEFFICIFJOTS Univariate Analyses of Variance on the Dependent Variables H I Univariate error terms Variable Demographic Target A t t i t u d i n a l Target df Data Data MS MS Propgp/tr 112 126.901 138.309 Chancemb/tr 112 156.308 188.432 Situation 112 0.793 0.867 Behaviour 112 0.691 0.856 S t a b i l i t y 112 1.308 1.389 Favourable 112 1.899 2.252 Confidence 112 1.137 1.811 Table A cont.) Univariate Analyses of Variance on tine Dependent Variables Test of Derrogroups (A) Demographic Target Data A t t i t u d i n a l Target Data Variable df F P SDFC F P SDFC Propgp/tr 1 0 . 3 2 3 . 5 7 1 0 . 775 1 . 5 0 1 . 2 2 3 • 1 . 972 Chancemb/tr 1 0 . 1 0 5 . 7 4 6 0 . 046 0 . 015 . 9 0 4 - 1 . 575 Situation 1 0 . 2 8 0 . 5 9 8 - 0 . 383 0 . 130 . 7 1 9 - 0 . 144 Behaviour 1 0 . 0 9 2 . 7 6 2 a . 022 0 . 015 . 9 0 1 0 . 063 S t a b i l i t y 1 0 . 2 2 5 . 6 3 6 - 0 . 306 0 . 002 . 9 6 9 - 0 . 178 Favourable 1 0 . 2 0 3 . 6 5 3 - 0 . 243 4 . 037 • . 0 4 7 - 0 . 509 Confidence 1 2 . 4 3 9 . 1 2 1 1 . 030 0 . 758 . 3 8 6 0 . 3 6 1 Test of Valuegroups (B) Propgp/tr 1 0 . , 6 3 3 . 4 2 8 0, .044 0 . . 0 7 3 . 7 8 7 1 . 982 Chancemb/tr 1 0 , , 5 0 5 . . . 4 7 9 0. . 3 7 5 0. . 0 8 0 . 7 7 8 - 1 . 968 S i t u a t i o n 1 0 . . 3 1 5 - . 5 7 5 . - o . , 0 9 1 0 . .306 . 5 8 2 - 1 . 003 Behaviour 1 2 . .126 . . . 1 4 8 0 , ,802 0 . , 0 0 5 . 9 4 4 0 . 226 S t a b i l i t y 1 ' 0 . ,676 . 4 1 3 0 . , 1 6 1 0 . .622 . 4 3 2 - 0 . 182 Favourable 1 0 . , 0 4 1 . 8 4 0 - 0 , ,148 0 . ,114 . 7 3 6 . - 0 - . 033 Confidence 1 1 . ,274 . 2 6 2 0 . ,768 1 . ,437 . 2 3 3 - 0 . 872 Table A cont.) Paragraphic Target Data Variable df F £ SDFC Test of Target Membership Status (C) Propgp/tr 1 1, ,887 .172 -0, .124 Chancemb/tr 1 5. ,044 .027 1, .158 S i t u a t i o n 1 0. ,441 .508 -0, .702 Behaviour 1 0. ,007 .935 0. ,216 S t a b i l i t y 1 0. 851 .358 0. ,216 Favourable 1 . 1. 571 • .213 . 0. ,280 Confidence 1 0. 462 .498 0. ,228 Test of A X C Propgp/tr 1 2. 640 .107 0. 306 Qiancemb/tr 1 . 2. 407 .124 -0. 058 S i t u a t i o n 1 0. 597 .441 0. 033 Behaviour 1 0. 002 .967 -0. 193 S t a b i l i t y 1 1. 816 . .181 -0. 243 Favourable 1 43. 924 .001 0. 957 Confidence 1 1. 559 .214 -0. 064 Test of B X C Propgp/tr 1 0. 019' .892 • • -o. 164 Chancemb/tr 1 0. 135 ' .714 0. 152 S i t u a t i o n 1 0. 064 .801 0. 323 Behaviour 1 1. 848 .177 -0. 883 S t a b i l i t y 1 • 0. 000 .995 0. 281 Favourable 1 1. 006 .318 -0. 370 Confidence 1 1. 142 .288 -0. 723 A t t i t u d i n a l Target Data F P , SDFC 0.006 .939 0.217 0.070 .791 -0.198 0., 737 .392 0.044 1.541 .217 -0.509 5.101 .026 ' -0.578 18.786 .001 0.781 0.000 .992 0.047 5.660 .019 0.801 4.467 .037 -0.037 3.127 ' .080 0.519 1.123 .292 , -0.298 0.838 .362 -0.165 1.400 .239 0.372 0.109 .742 0.435 0.208 .649 ' 2.233 0.004 .949 -2.399 0.157 .693 -0.107 0.072 .789 . 0.015 0.203 .653 . -0.220 , 0.468 .495 0.497 0.226 .635 -0.428 Table A cont.) Demographic Target Data Attitudinal Target Data Variable df F £ SDFC F P SDFC Test of A X B Propgp/tr 1 0. .502 .480 -0, .076 3, .524 .063 0, .043 Chancemb/tr 1 1. .459 .230 0, .934 4, .715 .032 0, .923 Situation 1 0. .050 .824 -0, .162 0, .671 .414 -0, .842 Behaviour 1 0. .106 .746 -0, .068 2, .320 .131 0, .700 Sta b i l i t y 1 0. .019 .890 -0. .510 1. .279 .261 0. .045 Favourable 1 0. .199 .656 -0. .200 0. .001 .979 -0. .071 Confidence 1 1, .844 .177 1, .038 1. .493 .224 -0. .093 Test of A X B X c -Propgp/tr 1 0. .227 .635 0. ,697 0, ,431 .513 -0. .267 Chancemb/tr 1 0, .010 .920 -0. ,865 0. .210 .648 0, .281 Situation 1 0, .699 .405 0. ,869 2, .472 .119 0, .426 Behaviour 1 0. .349 .556 0. .171 2, .907 .091 0. .673 St a b i l i t y 1 0. .004 .952 -0. .198 0. .586 .446 0. ,293 Favourable 1 0. ,001 .969 0. .078 2. ,519 .115 -0. ,476 Confidence 1 0. .000 .984 0. .461 0. .522 .472 0. ,678 - 2 5 5 -A p p e n d i x E M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s e s o f t h e C a u s a l A t t r i b u t i o n V a r i a b l e s : D e m o g r a p h i c T a r g e t G r o u p s a n d A t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d T a r g e t G r o u p s Table A Manovas f o r the demographic and a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d t a r g e t s Multivariate Tests of Significance using Wilks 1 Lambda Criterion 1. Scores for the Demographic Target Group Stereotypes Factor Test of Roots F df(hyp.) df(error) P R Demogroups (A) 1 thru 1 3. 322 2 111 ' <. 040 0, .238 Valuegroups (B) 1 thru 1 0. 017 2 111 <. 983 0. .017 Target membership Status (C) 1 thru 1 ' 0. 532 2 111 . <. 589 0. .097 A X B 1 thru 1 0. 125 2 I l l <. 883 0. ,047 A X C 1 thru 1 1. 259 2 111 <. 288 0. ,149 B X C 1 thru 1 1. 266 2 111 <. 286 0. .149 A X B X C 1 thru 1 0. 367 2 111 <. 693 0. ,081 2. Scores for the Attitu idinal Target Group Stereotypes Demogroups (A) • 1 thru 1 5. 119 2 111 <. 007 0. ,291 Valuegroups (B) 1 thru 1 0. 187 2 111 <. 829 0. ,058 Target Membership Status (C) 1 thru 1 0. 919 2 111 <. 402 0. ,128 A X B 1 thru 1 0. 675 2 111 <. 511 0. ,110 A X C 1 thru 1 0. 563 2 111 <r. 571 0. ,100 B X C 1 thru 1 6. 241 2 111 <. 003 0. ,318 A X B X C 1 thru 1 1. 084 2 111 <. 342 0. ,138 Table A cont.) Univariate Analyses of Variance on the Dependent Variables Univariate error terms Variable Inherited Learned df 112 112 Demographic Target Data MS 2.528 1.836 Attitudinal Target Data MS 2.766 2.211 Demographic Target Data TEST OF: Variable df F P SDFCa F P SDFCa Derrogroups (A) Inherited 1 6.420 .013 1.141 9.549 .003 0.776 Learned 1 1.324 .252 0.262 6.049 .015 -0.332 Valuegroups (B) Inherited 1 0.034 .854 . 1.060 0.222 .639 1.199 Learned 1 0.010 .919 0.102 0.004 .948 0.776 Target Membership Status (C) Inherited 1 1.074 .302' 1.016 0.777 .380 0.134 Learned 1 0.391 .533 . 0.026 1.831 .179 -0.919 A X B Inherited 1 0.208 .649 1.237 0.512 .476 1.145 Learned 1 0.014 .906. 0.530 0.133 .716 0.952 a x e inherited 1 2.480 .118 0.865 0.318 . .574 1.101 Learned 1 1.368 .245 -0.198 0.189 .665 1.023 B X C Inherited 1 2.491 .117 0.863 5.294 .023 -0.136 Learned 1 1.380 .243 -0.201 12.436 .001 0.918 A X B X C Inherited 1- 0.717 .399 1.126 2.186 .142 0.990 Learned 1 0.161 .689 . 0.231 0.714 .400 -0.018 Standard Discriminant Function Coefficients - 258 -A p p e n d i x F 2 Summary o f H o t e l l m g ' s T A n a l y s e s f o r t h e S t e r e o t y p e M e a s u r e s a n d S i g n i f i c a n t C o e f f i c i e n t s o f C o r r e l a t i o n among t h e V a r i a b l e s Table A 2 Surmiary of single sample Hotelling's T analyses for eight experimental conditions 1. Respondents: Small town people Stereotyped Target: Small Town People Hotelling's T value for data = 336.9; associated F-value = 27.11; computed probability = .0001 Confidence ir Sample n: 30 intervals for stereotype variable means: probability - .05; df - 9,21; F-value used i n determination Observed - 2.366 Limits Mean Meana Left - Right Prop group / t r a i t s 69.9 50 62.3 77.4 Chance mbr / t r a i t s 69.7 50 60.1 79.2 Situations / t r a i t s 6.66 5 5.68 7.65 Behaviours / t r a i t s 6.69 5 5.90 7.49 Inheritance compon. 4.46 5 2.78 6.14 Learning component 6.43 5 4.72 8.15 Stabi l i t y of t r a i t s 3.92 5 2.88 4.95 Favourableness / t r 6.67 5 5.56 7.78 Confidence attribut 3.35 5 2.33 4.37 Table A cont.) 2. Respondents: Big c i t y people Stereotyped Target: Big City People Hotelling's T value for data = 382.4; associated F-value = 30.77; computed probability = .0001 Confidence intervals for stereotype variable means: probability - .05; df - 9,21; F-value used i n determination - 2.366 Sample n: 30 Stereotype Variables Observed Hypothetical Limits Mean Mean Left Right Prop group / t r a i t s 67.7 50 56.9 78.5 Chance mbr / t r a i t s 66.9 50 55.6 78.1 Situations / t r a i t s 6.45 5 5.61 7.29 Behaviours / t r a i t s 6.64 5 5.86 • 7.42 Inheritance cornpon. 3.27 5 1.72 4.81 Learning component 7.01 5 5.87 ' 8.15 Sta b i l i t y of t r a i t s 4.30 5 3.32 5.28 Favourableness / t r 4.89 5 3.56 6.22 Confidence attribut 3.90 5 2.90 4.90 M as o Table A cont.) 3. Respondents: Conservation-minded People Stereotyped Target: Conservation-minded People 2 Hotelling's T value f o r data = 188.2; associated F-value = 15.14; computed p r o b a b i l i t y = .0001 Confidence i n t e r v a l s f o r stereotype variable means: p r o b a b i l i t y - .05; df - 9,21; F-value used i n , ' n • determination Sample n: 30 „ - 2.366 Stereotype Variables Observed Mean Hypothetical Mean Limits Left Right Prop group / t r a i t s 70. .8 50 58. 3 83. .4 Chance rribr / t r a i t s 69, .0 50 55. 5 82. .5 Situations / t r a i t s 6. .64 5 5. 75 . 7. 54 Behaviours / t r a i t s 6. .46 5 5. 62 7. .31 Inheritance compon. 4. ,37 5 2. 46 6. .28 Learning component 5. ,76 5 4. 00 7, ,51 S t a b i l i t y of t r a i t s 3. ,44 5 2. 32 4. ,55 Favourableness / t r 6. ,52 5 5. 05 7. ,99 Confidence a t t r i b u t 3. ,61 5 2. 55 4. ,66 as Table A cont.) 4. Respondents: Developrnent-minded people Stereotyped Target: Developrrent-minded People 2 Hotelling's T value for data = 258.1; associated F-value = 20.77; computed probability = .0001 Confidence intervals for stereotype variable means: probability - .05; df - 9,21; F-value used i n _ , determination Sample n: 30 • _ 2 355 Stereotype Variables Observed Mean Hypothetical Mean Limits Left Right Prop group / t r a i t s Chance mbr / t r a i t s Situations / t r a i t s Behaviours / t r a i t s Inheritance compon. Learning.component Sta b i l i t y of t r a i t s Favourableness / t r Confidence attribut 70.4 68.4 6.48 6.41 3.53 6.69 3.37 6.24 3.43 50 50 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 60.5 56.9 5.55 5.50 1.91 5.52 2.22 4.70 2.15 80.4 79.9 7.41 7.31 5.15 7.87 4.51 7.77 4.72 Table A cont.) 5. Respondents: Big cit y people 2 Stereotyped Target: Small Town People Hotelling's T value for data = 310.7; associated F-value = 25.00; computed probability = .0001 Confidence intervals for stereotype variable means: probability - .05; df - 9,21; F-value used'in <-..,„—-l,-, -.n deteriT_riation Sample n: 30 - 2.JOO Stereotype Variables Observed Mean Hypothetical Mean Limits Left ' Right Prop group / t r a i t s 68. 2 50 58. .1 78. 4 • Chance mbr / t r a i t s 65. 3 50 53. .1 77. 5 Situations / t r a i t s 6. 68 5 5. .91 • 7. 46 Behaviours / t r a i t s 6. 63 5 5. .87 7. 40 Inheritance compon. 3. 42 5 2. ,03 4. 82 Learning component 6. 87 5 5. .83 7. 92 St a b i l i t y of t r a i t s 3. 82 5 2. ,58 5. 06 Favourableness / t r 6. 24 5 4. .80 7. 68 Confidence attribut 3. 52 5 2. ,38 4. 66 Table A cont.) 6. Respondents: Small town people Stereotyped Target: Big City People Hotelling's T 2 value for data = 270.3; associated F-value = 21.75; computed probability = .0001 Confidence intervals for stereotype variable means: probability - .05; df - 9,21; F-value used in determination Sample n: 30 _ 2 # 3 6 6 Stereotype Variables Observed Mean Hypothetical Mean Limits Left Right Prop group / t r a i t s 63.7 50 49.3 78.1 Chance mbr / t r a i t s 61.0 50 45.6 76.4 Situations / t r a i t s 6.64 5 5.77 7.52 Behaviours / t r a i t s 6.67 5 5.72 7.62 Inheritance compon. 3.70 5 2.05 5.35 Learning component 6.88 5 5.57 8.18 St a b i l i t y of t r a i t s 4.01 5 2.82 5.19 Favourableness / t r 4.68 5 3.20 6.16 Confidence attribut 3.46 5 2.40 4.52 Table A cont.) 7. Respondents: Developrent-minded people Stereotyped Target: Conservation-mLnded People Hotelling's T value for data = 236.4; associated F-value = 19.02; computed probability = .0001 Confidence intervals for stereotype variable means: probability - .05; d f - 9,21; F-value used i n determination Sample n: 30 _ 2 366 Observed Hypothetical Limits Stereotype Variables ^ Mean a_ _Left Right Prop group / t r a i t s 71.3 Chance mbr / t r a i t s 67.6 Situations / t r a i t s 6.70 Behaviours / t r a i t s 6.66 Inheritance compon. 3.96 Learning component 6.10 St a b i l i t y of t r a i t s 3.76 Favourableness / t r 5.24 Confidence attribut 3. 32 50 57.8 84.7 50 50.4 84.8 5 5.76 ' 7.64 5 5.73 7.59 5 2.38 5.54 5 4.38 7.83 5 2.62 4.89 5 3.56 6.92 5 2.07 4.56 Table A cont.) 8. Respondents: Conservation-minded people Stereotyped Target; Developirent-irurided People Hotelling's T value for data = 168.3; associated F-value = 13.54; computed probability = .0001 Confidence intervals for stereotype variable means: probability - .05; df - 9,21; F-value used i determination Sample n: 30 _ 2 355 Stereotype Variables Observed Mean Hypothetical Mean Limits Left Right Prop group / t r a i t s 69.7 50 58.0 81.4 Chance mbr / t r a i t s 68.5 50 55.7 81.3 Situations / t r a i t s 6.72 5 5.77 7.68 Behaviours / t r a i t s 6.63 5 5.62 7.64 Inheritance compon. 3.41 5 1.71 5.10 Learning component 7.08 5 5.87 8.29 Sta b i l i t y of t r a i t s 4.02 5 2.78 5.26 Favourableness / t r 5.14 5 3.81 6.48 Confidence attribut 3.73 5 2.08 5.38 Table A cont.) hypothetical means represent the mid-points of the r a t i n g scales. Scores above the mid-point value suggest that (on each of the variables) the stereotypical t r a i t s were seen to be present i n a large proportion of the target population, were judged to be l i k e l y to e x i s t i n any p a r t i c u l a r group member encountered, were seen to be re f l e c t e d i n a wide range of behaviours, over many s i t u a t i o n s , were judged to be due largely t o inheritance and/ or learning, were seen to be unstable, were rated favourably, and were ascribed to the target group without much confidence. Low scores on the s t a b i l i t y • and confidence scales, on the other hand, suggest that the t r a i t s used i n the stereotypes were seen to be very stable and were selected with a great degree of confidence. Table B St a t i s t i c a l l y noteworthy coefficients of correlation among the stereotype-related variables for each of the eight experimental conditions VARIABLE PROPGP Exper Cond a CHANCE 1. .897 2. .755 3. .931 4. .949 5. .780 6. .889 7. .915 8. .913 SITUAT 1. . .447 2. .557 3. .561 4. .752 • 5. .695 6. .775 7. .634 8. .762 BEHAV 1. .549 2. .550 3. .479 4. .645 5. .608 6. 7. .500 8. .653 CHANCE SITUAT BEHAV INHER LEARN STABLE FAVOUR CONFID I (Ti OO I .398 .490 .533 .784 .497 .726 .523 .708 .390 .620 .418 .756 .516 .777 .701 .707 .358 .677 .472 .800 .657 .860 Table B cont.) VARIABLE PROPGP CHANCE SITUAT BEHAV INHER I_ARN STABLE FAVOUR CONFID Exper Cond a INHER . 1 . -LEARN 1 . .431 . - 0 . 7 3 2 2 . - 0 . 4 3 9 3 . - 0 . 5 5 0 4 > - 0 . 5 8 7 5 . — — ' - 0 . 6 9 8 6 . .401 .404 - 0 . 6 1 1 7. .472 - 0 . 6 0 4 8 . — — - 0 . 6 4 4 STABLE 1 . - 0 . 5 5 0 3 . - 0 . 5 7 0 - 0 . 6 9 7 4 . - 0 . 4 4 5 - 0 . 4 1 6 - 0 . 4 0 7 - 0 . 5 2 8 .369 5 . • - 0 . 4 0 0 6 . ' - 0 . 3 7 5 8 . - 0 . 3 5 7 - 0 . 4 2 2 - 0 . 4 4 0 - 0 . 5 4 0 .425 Table B cont.) VARIABLE FAVOUR PROPGP CHANCE SITUAT BEHAV INHER IFARN STABLE FAVOUR CONFID Exper Cond a 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. — - . 4 0 2 . 4 9 1 . - 0 . 4 3 6 - 0 . 4 2 0 .367 -0.512 .396 -0.388 -0.427 .402 -0.409 -0.392 CONFID 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. - 0 . 5 0 8 • - 0 . 4 4 3 - 0 . 4 6 9 - 0 . 6 0 0 - 0 . 7 6 2 - 0 . 5 4 0 - 0 . 6 2 2 - 0 . 4 3 8 - 0 . 8 6 1 - 0 . 6 1 7 - 0 . 4 1 3 - 0 . 5 0 7 - 0 . 4 8 7 - 0 . 6 2 7 - 0 . 5 1 7 - 0 . 4 9 2 - 0 . 6 1 9 - 0 . 3 5 6 - 0 . 3 9 0 - 0 . 6 3 8 - 0 . 4 2 5 - 0 . 5 7 5 - 0 . 4 2 4 - 0 . 4 4 5 - 0 . 5 8 1 - 0 . 4 6 6 . 6 2 3 . 4 1 7 . 7 5 8 . 6 3 6 . 6 6 4 . 4 5 9 . 4 6 6 -0.497 ,472 C r i t i c a l values f o r r , - O N - .361, p<C.05 . '. . (28) . ' - o n (for contrast - .306, p <.10) . 4b J , p ^  . Ul — ^ e experimental conditions were as follows: 1 - small town respondents describing small town-people; 2 - b i g c i t y respondents describing b i g c i t y people; 3 - conservation-minded respondents describing conservation-minded people; 4 - developrent-minded respondents describing developrrent-iriinded people'; 5 - b i g c i t y respondents describing small town people; 6 - small town respondents describing b i g c i t y people; 7 - developirent-minded respondents describing developri^t-minded people; and 8 - "conservation-minded respondents describing development-irdnded people. Thus i n reviewing the table i t i s worth noting that the demographic targets are represented by conditions 1,2,5, and 6. - 271 -A p p e n d i x G M e a n s , S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s , a n d M u l t i v a r i a t e A n a l y s e s o f t h e D i a g n o s t i c R a t i o V a r i a b l e s : D e m o g r a p h i c T a r g e t G r o u p s a n d A t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d T a r g e t G r o u p s Table A Mean diagnostic r a t i o scores for the stereotypes of the demographic target groups Respondent Characteristics Target Status Conservation-minded SMALL TOWN rJeveloprrent-iriinded own group other group cwn group other group Dependent Variables D-R D-R D-R D-R D-R D-R D-R D-R PROPGP CHANCE SITUAT BEHAV INHER LEARN STABLE FAVOUR 1.342 1.382 1.346 1 .333 1.255 0.984 0 .990 1.034 1.163 1.117 1 . 2 5 1 1.239 1 . 1 8 1 0 .987 1.052 1.069 1.540 1.559 1.542 1.315 1.127 1.039 0 .960 1 .081 1.353 1.402 1.404 1.298 1.148 0 . 9 8 1 1.148 0.997 Conservation-iriinded BIG CITY Development-minded own group other group own group other group 1.133 1.159 1.128 1 .113 1.112 1 . 1 0 1 1 .067 0 .999 1.449 1.546 1.356 1 .251 1 . 0 1 1 1.079 1.132 1 .041 1.216 1.292 1 .211 1.153 1.103 1 .071 1 .161 1.163 1 .451 1.605 1.462 1.382 1 . 0 0 1 1.239 0 .986 1.070 Table B Mean d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores f o r the stere o t y p e s o f the a t t i t u d i n a l l y - d e f i n e d t a r g e t groups Respondent C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Target Status Small town CONSERVATION-MINDED B i g c i t y own group other group own group other group Dependent V a r i a b l e s D-R D-R D-R D-R D-R D-R D-R D-R PROPGP CHANCE SITUAT BEHAV INKER LEARN STABLE FAVOUR 1.533 ' 1.527 . 1 .521 1.329 1.067 1.039 0 .848 1.123 1.332 1.425 1.335 1.212 1.123 1.092 1 . 1 6 1 1 . 0 2 1 1.793 1.924 1.735 1.489 1.007 1.032 0 . 9 9 3 1.078 1.505 1.489 1.497 1.197 1.085 1.066 1 .143 1.053 i M LO Small town DEVELOPMENT-MINDED B i g c i t y own group o t h e r group own group o t h e r group 1.593 1.699 1.442 1.299 1.029 1.075 1.006 1 .091 1.993 1.870 1.392 1 .313 1.267 1 . 0 7 1 1 .161 1.108 1.535 1.715 1.519 1 .348 0.999 1 .065 1 . 0 3 1 1.079 1.939 1.898 1.685 1.647 1.033 1.070 0 .887 0 .965 Table C Standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores f o r the stere o t y p e s o f the demographic t a r g e t groups Dependent V a r i a b l e s Respondent C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Target Status Conservation-minded SMALL TOWN Developrrent-minded own group other group-own group other group D-R D-R D-R • D-R PROPGP CHANCE SITUAT BEHAV D-R INHER D-R LEARN D-R D-R STABLE FAVOUR 0.276 0 . 4 2 1 0.363 0.300 0 .498 0 .198 0.209 0.169 0.188. • 0 .153 0.257 0.398 0 . 7 0 6 . 0 .082 0 .271 0.379 0.695 0.848 0.579 0.382 0.249 0 .143 0.198 0.158 0.383 0 . 6 5 1 0 .453 0.584 0 .389 0 .085 0 .333 0 .155. Conservation-rrdnded BIG CITY Development-minded own group other group own group other group 0.143 . 0 .170 0.116 0.186 0 .172 0 . 3 0 5 0 .165 0.166 0.340 0.437 0.307 0.247 0 .135 0 .090 0.505 0 .135 0.185 0 .363 0 .271 0 .233 0.297 0 .110 0.375 0 .673 0.318 0 .653 0.394 0.564 0 .145 0 . 6 6 1 0.318 0 .318 Table D Standard deviations for diagnostic ratio scores for the stereotypes of the attitudinally-defined target groups Respondent Characteristics Target Status Small town CONSERVATION-MINDED Big city own group other group own group Dependent Variables D-R D-R D-R D-R PROPGP '. ^ CHANCE . SITUAT BEHAV D-R INHER D-R LEARN D-R D-R STABLE FAVOUR 0.351 0.353 0.289 0.249 0.138 0.118 0.249 0.175 0.472 0.642 0.391 0.239 0.262 0.213 0.570 0.235 0.681 0.874 0.593 0.458 0.158 0.113 0.313 0.270 other group 0.549 0.542 0.408 0.221 .0.150 0.129 0.469 0.241 Small town DEvT-LOPMENT-MINDED Big city own group own group other group 0.445 0.537 0.400 0.429 0.276 0.200 0.524 0.255 other group 1.721a 1.872a 0.329 0.367 0.344 0.231 0.512 0.156 0.417 0.934 0.532 0.499 0.075 0.256 0.388 0.202 0.629 0.631 0.502 0.465 0.217 0.206 0.180 0.201 because of the magnitude of these standard deviations and their similarity to the respective c e l l means they appear l i k e typos. They are not. Table E . Manovas of the diagnostic ratio scores for the demographic and attitudinally-defined targets Multivariate Tests of Significance Using Wilks' Lambda Criterion ANALYSIS 1. Scores for Stereotypes of Demographic Targets 2. Scores for Stereotypes of Attitudinal Targets Factor Test of Roots F elf (hyp.) df(error) P R Demogroups (A) 1 thru 1 2. .568 8 105 .013 0 .405 Value groups (B) 1 thru 1 0. .851 8 105 < .560 0 .247 Target Membership Status (C) 1 thru 1 0. .330 8 105 < .953 0 .157 A X B 1 thru 1 0. .472 8 105 < .874 0 .186 A X C 1 thru 1 2. ,011 8 105 < .052 0 .364 B X C 1 thru 1 0. .454 8 105 < .886 0 .183 A X B X C 1 thru 1 0. .684 8'. 105 < .705 0 .223 Demogroups (A) 1 thru 1 1. .672 8 105 < .126 0 .332 Valuegroups (B) 1 thru 1 1. .003 8 105 .438 0 .266 Target Membership Status (C) 1 thru 1 1. .381 8 105 < .213 0 .309 A X B 1 thru 1 0. .735 8 105 < .660 0 .230 A X C 1 thru 1 0. .557 8 105 < .810 0 .202 B X C 1 thru 1 1. .271 8 105 < .266 0 .297 A X B X C 1 thru 1 1. .011 8 105 < .432 0 .267 Variable names are described more f u l l y in Appendix D. Table E cont.) Univariate Analyses of Variance on the Dependent Variables - Eight Diagnostic Ratio Measures Univariate error terms Variable df Demographic Target Data Attitudinal Target Data MS MS D-R PROPGP 112 0.127 0.605 D-R QiANCE 112 0.265 0.832 D-R SITUAT 112 0.134 0.195 D-R BEHAV 112 0.150 0.145 D-R INHER 112 0.139 0.048 D-R LEARN 112 0.078 0.036 D-R STABLE 112 0.099 0.178 D-R FAVOUR 112 0.103 0.048 Table E cont.) Univariate Analyses of Variance on the Dependent Variables Demographic Target Data TEST OF: Demogroups Valuegroups (A) (B) Target Membership Status(C) Variable df F P SDFC£ D-R PROPGP 1 0.333 .565 0.298 D-R CHANCE 1 0.143 .706 -0.900 D-R SITUAT 1 2.088 .151 0.574 D-R BEHAV 1 1.014 ,316 0.385 D-R INKER 1 3.157 . .078 0.287 D-R LEARN 1 5.994 .016 -0.980 D-R STABLE 1 0.729 .395 0.049 D-R FAVOUR 1 0.229 .633 -0.180 D-R PROPGP 1 3.327 .071 -0.102 D-R CHANCE 1 3.011 .085 0.442 D-R SITUAT 1 4.032 .047 0.802 D-R BEHAV 1 0.560 .456 -0.413 D-R INKER • 1 0.432 .512 -0.446 D-R LEARN 1 0.773 .381 0.373 D-R STABLE 1 0.003 .954 -0.066 D-R FAVOUR 1 0.400 .528 0.311 D-R PROPGP 1 0.512 .476 -0.143 D-R CHANCE 1 0.546 .461 0.155 D-R SITUAT 1 0.850 .359 0.495 D-R BEHAV 1 0.817 .368 0.345 D-R INKER 1 0.895 .346 -0.658 D-R LEARN 1 0.201 .655 -0.007 D-R STABLE 1 0.372 .543 0.340 D-R FAVOUR 1 0.263 .609 -0.141 aSDFC, on this and the following page, refers to STANDARD DISCRIMINANT FUN( Attitudinal Target Data SDFC3 F. p 0.320 0.577 5.357 3.603 5.112 0.100 0.158. 1.100 2.495 1.503 0.025 1.879 0.088 0.140 0.038 0.038 0.307 0.076 0.909 0.119 6.520 0.401 2.372 1.951 .573 0.236 .449 -0.325 .022 0.414 .060 0.342 .026 -0.776 .752 -0.217 .691 0.022 .297 -0.399 .117 0.525 .223 0.319 .874 -1.256 .173 1.106 .767 -0.138 .709 0.034 .846 0.072 .846 -0.164 .581 0.069 .784 0.137 .342 -0.520 .731 0.212 .012 0.673 .528 ..0.'095 .126 0.444 .165 -0.392 COEFFICIENTS. Table E cont.) TEST OF: A X B Derrographic Target Data A t t i t u d i n a l Target Data A X C B X C A X B X C Variable df F • P SDFC F P SDFC D-R PROPGP 1 1. 351 .248 0, .853 0, ,912 .342 0, .282 D-R CHANCE 1 0. 515 .474 -0, .211 0. .391 .533 0, ,295 D-R SITUAT 1 0. 357 .551 0 .215 0. ,001 .982 0, .425 D-R BEHAV 1 0. 213 .646 -0 .518 0, .728 .395 -0, .947 D-R INKER 1 0. 271 .604 -0 .131 1, .083 .300 0, .461 D-R LEARN 1 • 0. 151 .698 -0, .238 0, .024 .878 0. .019 D-R STABLE 1 -0. 267 .606 0 .278 1, .499 .223 0, .336 D-R FAVOUR 1 1. 017 .315 -0 .491 0, .780 .379 0, .393 D-R PROPGP 1 12. 444 .001 0 .494 0, .021 .885 -0, .225 D-R CHANCE 1 8. 878 .004 0 .483 • 0, .232 .631 0, .595 D-R SITUAT 1 7. 079' .009 -0 .009 ' 0, .257 .613 -0, .402 D-R BEHAV 1 2. 855 .094 -0 .088 0 .154 .695 -0. .039 D-R INKER 1 0. 302 .583 -0 .179 1 .302 .256 0 .609 D-R LEARN 1 0. 981 .324 0 .337 0 .005 .947 0. .083 D-R STABLE 1 2. 458 .120 -0 .446 2 .241 .137. 0 .634 D-R FAVOUR 1 0. 006 .937 -0 .009 0 .118 .731 0 .169 D-R PROPGP 1 0. 116 .734 0 .628 •5 .183 .025 0 .538 D-R CHANCE 1 0. 008 .928 -0 .793 1 .790 .184 -0 .067 D-R SITUAT 1 0. 006 .941 0 .397 2 .800 .097 -0 .284 D-R BEHAV 1 0. 352 .554 -0 .272 6 .748 .011 0 .764 D-R INKER 1 0. ,119 .731 -0 .375 0 .748 .389 0 .039 D-R LEARN 1 • 0. 406 .525 -0 .494 0 .389 .534 -0 .172 D-R STABLE 1 0. 244 .623 0 .419 2 .151 .145 -0 .348 D-R FAVOUR 1 1. ,364 .245 0 .719 0 .032 . 859 -0 .026 D-R PROPGP 1 0. ,078 .780 0 .606 0 .025 .873 0 .104 D-R CHANCE 1 0. ,234 .629 -0 .275 0 .266 .607 -0 .097 D-R SITUAT 1 0. ,062 .804 -0 .486 0 .695 .406 -0 .473 D-R BEHAV • 1 0. ,002 .966 0 .422 2 .750 .100 1 .039 D-R INKER 1 0. ,126 .724 0 .217 2 .031 .157 -0 .671 D-R LEARN 1 1. ,518 .220 -0 .737 0 .045 .833 -0 .087 D-R STABLE 1 2. ,531 .114 0 .811 0 .199 .657 0' .044 D-R FAVOUR 1 0. ,000 .986 -0 .052 1 .662 .200 -0 .562 - 280 -A note on the a n a l y s i s o f the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores In c a l c u l a t i n g d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s u s i n g e i t h e r percentage estimates o r r a t i n g s on an i n t e r v a l s c a l e , one generates scores t h a t have a lower l i m i t o f 0.0 and a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e although n ot completely open upper l i m i t . P o t e n t i a l l y , t h e ( d i s t r i b u t i o n o f such scores can be skewed and non-normal. More g e n e r a l l y , as McCauley has i n d i c a t e d i n a r e c e n t comment on 'diagnostic r a t i o data ( l e t t e r t o Dean P. l l a r k i n , U.B.C., 1982-02-22) , 'When averaging d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s t h a t a r e both g r e a t e r and l e s s than 1.0, a simple average [can] g i v e g r e a t e r weight t o r a t i o s g r e a t e r than 1.0". In order t o compensate f o r t h i s the d a t a can be t r a n s formed b e f o r e averaging and then r e trans formed t o the o r i g i n a l m e t r i c . A t r a n s f o r m a t i o n suggested by McCauley i n h i s cxamrrnunication i s : I f the r a t i o - 1.0, t r a n s f o r m t o ( r a t i o - 1) ; I f the r a t i o < 1.0, transform t o (-1/ratio + 1) . I n the r e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s , i f t h e average o f the iiransformed values (T) i s - 0, use the formula T + 1; I f the average < 0, use the formula -1/(T - 1 ) . A sample o f the pre s e n t data was s e l e c t e d t o determine the e f f e c t s o f t h i s c o r r e c t i o n formula on the magnitude o f the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s r e p o r t e d i n the p r e s e n t study. The scores from t h r e e o f the 16 e x p e r i i r e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s i n the study were chosen i n an ad hoc manner and comparisons were made between the unmodified and m o d i f i e d ( r e c a l c u l a t e d ) d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s . F i f t e e n - 281 -respondents were repres e n t e d i n each o f these data s e t s and t h e i r scores ,.on e i g h t dependent v a r i a b l e s were e__mined. The ccrnparative a n a l y s i s i n c o r p o r -ated scores f o r b i g c i t y , s m a l l town, and conservation-minded s t e r e o t y p e s . The procedure f o r comparing the o r i g i n a l and m o d i f i e d scores was two-stepped. F i r s t l y , "new" d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s were generated f o r each respondent (or stereotype) on each o f the e i g h t dependent measures. T h i s was done by u s i n g McCauley's c o r r e c t i o n procedure when averaging the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o r a t i n g s f o r each s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t f o r each o f the e i g h t v a r i a b l e s ( see Chapter Two f o r d e t a i l s o f the o r i g i n a l s c o r i n g procedure). The m o d i f i e d s c o r e s were then c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the o r i g i n a l scores f o r each of the dependent v a r i a b l e s i n each o f the three data s e t s . There were 24 such c o r r e l a t i o n s i n a l l . These c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were h i g h , o f t e n r e a c h i n g 1.00. They seldom f e l l below 0.955, and on o n l y two o f 24 occasions d i d they d i p below 0.900 (one o f these was anomalously low a t 0.564) . The average c o r r e l a t i o n s a c r o s s each o f the t h r e e s e t s of e i g h t v a r i a b l e s were 0.983, 0.986, and 0.986. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two types o f s c o r e s , i n s h o r t , was extremely s t r o n g . Using a simple averaging procedure t o compare the means i n each of the 24 p a i r s o f v e c t o r s , i t was found t h a t the mean d i f f e r e n c e s between the o r i g i n a l and m o d i f i e d s c o r e s ranged from a low o f 0.002 t o a h i g h o f 0.148 (ns = 15). The gra„$mean d i f f e r e n c e s (averaged across e i g h t v a r i a b l e s ) • between o r i g i n a l and m o d i f i e d s c o r e s f o r each o f the t h r e e data s e t s were 0.039, 0.037, and 0.029. E s s e n t i a l l y , t h e r e was very l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e i n magnitude between the u n r r o d i f i e d and the m o d i f i e d d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores i n t h i s sample o f d a t a . Indeed, c o n s i d e r i n g the data on a score by score b a s i s , somewhat over 50% o f the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s were i d e n t i c a l i n both s c o r i n g - 282 -formats. Few v a l u e s changed r a d i c a l l y with, the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n formula. Most a l t e r e d by a f a c t o r o f 0.01 t o 0.05, f o r i n s t a n c e , from 0.98 t o 0.97, o r from 0.84 t o 0.81. The f i r s t s t e p i n the comparison o f the s c o r i n g procedures, then, e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t the o r i g i n a l and m o d i f i e d d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s f o r the e i g h t s t e r e o t y p e - r e l a t e d dependent measures were o f c l o s e l y s i m i l a r magnitude. The second s t e p i n the p r e s e n t e x e r c i s e focused on the nature o f the means d e r i v e d from the o r i g i n a l and the m o d i f i e d r a t i o s c o r e s . The scores on each v a r i a b l e were averaged across the f i f t e e n respondents i n each o f the three data s e t s and f o r each o f the two types o f d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o v a l u e s (modified and unmodified) . Two types o f averaging procedure were used, the simple procedure and McCauley's t r a n s formation-based procedure. I n a l l t h e r e were 96 means f o r purposes o f comparison (3 data s e t s X 8 v a r i a b l e s X 2 types of scores X 2 averaging p r o c e d u r e s ) . The d i f f e r e n c e s between the simple means and the m o d i f i e d means f o r the o r i g i n a l d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s cores were v e r y s m a l l . Averaged across the e i g h t v a r i a b l e s , t h e mean d i f f e r e n c e s were 0.016, 0.008, and 0.002 f o r the t h r e e d i f f e r e n t d a t a s e t s . L i k e w i s e , the d i f f e r e n c e s between the simple means and the mod i f i e d means f o r the r e c a l c u l a t e d d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s were s m a l l ; 0.024, 0.028, and 0.014, on average, f o r the t h r e e d i f f e r e n t d a t a s e t s . With both the o r i g i n a l s c o r e s and the m o d i f i e d s c o r e s , the s m a l l e s t d i f f e r e n c e s between the simple and the transformation-based means occurred f o r the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o s . The most m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t o f a l l o f the p o s s i b l e comparisons between mean r a t i o s c o r e s was between the means f o r the o r i g i n a l d a t a - 283 -c±>t_ixied by simple a v e r a g i n g and the means f o r the m o d i f i e d d a t a obtained by the m o d i f i e d a v e r a g i n g procedure. Once ag a i n , the d i f f e r e n c e s between . these values were r e l a t i v e l y , s m a l l , e s p e c i a l l y f o r the r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t -i o n v a r i a b l e s . Averaged across the e i g h t dependent measures, these . d i f f e r e n c e s were 0.051, 0.065, and 0.043 f o r the three separate data s e t s . In sum, i t e r a t i v e rncx±Lfications i n s c o r i n g and summarizing the diagnos-t i c r a t i o d a t a d i d n o t produce r e s u l t s t h a t were s u b s t a n t i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from those o b t a i n e d u s i n g s i m p l e s c o r i n g and averaging procedures. The subset o f responses used i n t h i s comparison were t y p i c a l o f the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o r a t i n g s i n the f u l l data s e t . Thus, we can surmise t h a t the mo d i f i e d s c o r i n g procedure would have had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the magnitude o f the values l i s t e d i n Tables 21 and 22, and would have had no e f f e c t on the outcomes o f the a n a l y s e s r e p o r t e d i n t h i s appendix.. The trends e s t a b l i s h e d i n the comparison e x e r c i s e , f o r i n s t a n c e , suggest t h a t i n Table 21 the two hi g h values would have a l t e r e d a t most from 1.44 and 1.45 t o approximately 1.40 i f the c o r r e c t i v e s c o r i n g and averaging method had been used. The low values i n the t a b l e would have moved c l o s e r t o 1.10 and 1.20 from 1.17 and 1.26, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the d i f f e r e n c e s between the means would have remained u n a l t e r e d . S i m i l a r l y , the n o n - r e f e r e n t i a l a t t r i b u t i o n r a t i o s summarized i n Table 22 would have moved c l o s e r t o 1.0 i n most i n s t a n c e s . The d i f f e r e n c e s between the r e f e r e n t i a l d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o means and the n o n - r e f e r e n t i a l means would have remained marked, and would have been d i s c u s s e d much as they have been i n t h e i r p r e s e n t form i n Chapter Three. The m o d i f i e d s c o r i n g procedure d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s note had l i t t l e e f f e c t - 284 -on the data examined because there were few d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o values, among -the respondents' r a t i n g s t h a t were s u b s t a n t i a l l y lower than 1.0, and few r e l a t i v e t o the e n t i r e s e t t h a t were l a r g e r than 2.0. Indeed, the range o f measured scores i n the data s e t was c o n s i d e r a b l y s m a l l e r than the irexiirrum h y p o t h e t i c a l range o f r a t i o v a l u e s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , d e s p i t e the e m p i r i c a l good for t u n e over t h e n a t u r e o f the d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores i n t h i s study, McCauley's p o i n t s t i l l stands as b e i n g t h e o r e t i c a l l y v a l i d . One must be c a r e f u l when t r e a t i n g samples o f d i a g n o s t i c r a t i o scores t h a t have values both g r e a t e r than and l e s s than 1.0. By u s i n g an i n a p p r o p r i a t e measure o f c e n t r a l tendency i n pa r a m e t r i c a n a l y s e s , one can weigh extreme scores too h e a v i l y . Conforming w i t h the g e n e r a l recrarmendation i n s t a t i s t i c a l t e x t s , one s h o u l d examine the d a t a f o r any s i g n s o f d i s t r i b u t i o n a l abnormality. • McCauley's t^ansforrnation-based c o r r e c t i v e procedure i s one o f a p o t e n t i a l l y w i d e r s e t o f methods t h a t c o u l d be adopted t o d e a l w i t h a problem i n a d a t a s e t . The use o f medians r a t h e r than means as measures o f c e n t r a l tendency i s another. Indeed, one can a l s o t u r n t o non-parametric procedures t o a n a l y z e the frequency o f use o f the d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n among a sample o f respondents. U l t i m a t e l y , the type o f parametric o r non-paranetric a n a l y s i s chosen shoul d depend on the nature o f the q u e s t i o n being asked. So, t o o , sh o u l d the form o f any c o r r e c t i v e procedures used t o c u r t a i l the undue i n f l u e n c e o f anomalous and extreme scores i n the data. To r e t u r n t o the p r e s e n t study one l a s t time, however, t he r e s u l t s obtained u s i n g a si m p l e s c o r i n g procedure were e s s e n t i a l l y the same as those t h a t would have been produced u s i n g a m o d i f i e d s c o r i n g procedure t h a t c o r r e c t e d f o r t h e ' e f f e c t s o f extremely l a r g e s c o r e s . This a s s e r t i o n i s based on a comparison o f the two s c o r i n g procedures performed on a subset o f data. . - 285 -Appendix H 2 Summary of Hotellxng's T Analyses for the Diagnostic Ratio Measures and S i g n i f i c a n t C o e f f i c i e n t s of C o r r e l a t i o n among the Variables Table A Surnmary of single sample Hotelling's T analyses for eight experimental conditions 1. Respondents: Small town people Stereotyped Target: Small Town People 2 Hotelling's T value for data = 56.50; associated F-value = 5.358; computed probability = .0008 Confidence intervals for diagnostic ratio means: probability - .05; df - 8,22; F-value used i n determination - 2.397 Limits Diagnostic Ratios Observed Mean Hypothetical Mean D-R PROPGP / TRAIT 1.44 1 D-R CHANCE MB / TR 1.47 1 D-R SITUATION / TR 1.44 1 D-R BEHAVIOUR / TR . 1.32 1 D-R INHER. COMPONENT .1.19 1 D-R LEARN COMPONENT 1.01 1 D-R TRAIT STABILITY 0.98 1 D-R FAVOURABLENESS 1.06 1 Left Right 0.96 1.93 0.86 2.08 1.00 1.89 1.01 1.63 0.83 1.55 0.85 1.17 0.79 1.16 0.91 1.21 The abbreviated variable names for this and the following table represent the diagnostic ratio measures incorporating base rate data and judgements of the proportion of target members possessing the stereotype t r a i t s ; the chance that any particular target member has the stereotype t r a i t s ; the range of situations i n which the t r a i t s are l i k e l y to be expressed; the range of behaviours through which the t r a i t s are l i k e l y to be reflected; the inheritance component in the stereotype t r a i t s ; the complementary estimate of the importance of learning to t r a i t development; the s t a b i l i t y of the stereotype t r a i t s ; and the favourableness of the stereotype t r a i t s . Table A cont.) 2. Respondents: Big c i t y people Stereotyped Target: Big C i t y People 2 Hotelling's T value for the data = 55.84; associated F-value = 5.295; computed prob. = .0009 Confidence int e r v a l s for diagnostic r a t i o means: p r o b a b i l i t y - .05; df - 8,22; F-value used i n determination - 2.397 Diagnostic Ratios Observed Mean Hypothetical Mean Lj_nits Left Right D-R PROPGP / TRAIT 1. 17 1 1. ,02 1.33 D-R CHANCE MB / TR 1. 23 1 0. ,96 1.49 D-R SITUATION / TR 1. 17 1 0. ,98 1.36 D-R BEHAVIOUR / TR I. 13 1 0. ,94 1.32 D-R INHER. COMPONENT . 1. 11 1 0. .89 ' 1.33 D-R T.FARN COMPONENT 1. 09 1 0. .88 1.29 D-T TRAIT STABILITY 1. 11 1 0, .85 1.38 D-R FAVOURABLENESS 1. 08 1 0, .63 1.53 Table A cont.) 3. Respondents: Conservation-irdnded people Stereotyped Target: Conservation-rninded People 2 Hotelling's T value for the data = 94.35; associated F-value = 8.947; computed prob. = .0001 Confidence i n t e r v a l s for diagnostic r a t i o means: p r o b a b i l i t y - .05; df - 8,22; F-value used i n detenuination - 2.397 Diagnostic Ratios Observed Mean Hypothetical Mean Limits L e f t Right D-R PROPGP / TRAIT 1. 66 1 1. 16 2. 17 D-R CHANCE MB / TR 1. 73 1 1. 10 2. 35 D-R SIAUATION / TR 1. 63 1 1. 20 2. 06 D-R BEHAVIOUR / TR 1. 41 1 1. 07 1. 75 D-R INHER. COMPONENT 1. 04 1 0. 90 1. 17 D-R I_ARN COMPONENT 1. 04 1 0. 93 ' 1. 14 D-R TRAIT STABILITY 0. 92 1 0. 66 1. 18 D-R FAVOURABIJCNESS 1. 10 1 0. 89 1. 31 Table A cont.) 4. Respondents: Development-rriinded people Stereotyped Target: Development-minded People 2 Hotelling's T value for data = 65.59; associated F-Value = 6.219; computed prob. = .0003 Confidence intervals for diagnostic ratio means: probability - .05; df - 8,22; F-value used in deterrnination - 2.397 Diagnostic Ratios Observed Mean Hypothetical Mean Limits Left Right D-R PROPGP / TRAIT 1. 56 1 1. 17 1. 95 D-R CHANCE MB / TR 1. 71 1 1. 02 2. 39 D-R SITUATION / TR 1. 48 1 1. 05 1. 91 D-R BEHAVIOUR / TR 1. 32 1 0. 90 1. 74 D-R INHER. COMPONENT 1. 01 1 0. 83 1. 20 D-R LEARN COMPONENT 1. 07 1 0. 86 • 1. 28 D-R TRAIT STABILITY I. 02 1 0. 60 1. 43 D-R FAVOURABLENESS 1. 09 1 0. 88 1. 29 Table A cont.) 5. Respondents: Big c i t y people Stereotyped Target: Small Town People Hotelling's T value for data = 88.74; associated F-value = 8.415; computed probability = .0001 Confidence intervals for diagnostic ratio means: probability - .05; df - 8,22; F-value used i n deterrrdnation - 2.397 Diagnostic Ratios Observed Mean Hypothetical Mean Limits Left Right D-R PROPGP / TRAIT. 1. 45 1 1. 15 1.75 D-R CHANCE MB / TR 1. 58 1 1. 07 2.08 D-R SITUATION / TR 1. 41 1 1. 09 1.73 D-R BEHAVIOUR / TR 1. 32 1 0. 92 1.71 D-R INHER. COMPONENT 1. 01 1 0. 88 ' 1.13 D-R LEARN CQMPONFJSIT, 1. 16 1 0. 73 • 1.59 D-R TRAIT STABILITY 1. 06 1 0. 67 1.45 D-R FAVOUPABLENESS 1. 06 1 0. 84 1.28 Table A cont.) 6. Respondents: Small town people Stereotyped Target: Big City People 2 Hotelling's T value for data = 42.92; associated F-value = 4.07; computed probability = .0042 Confidence intervals for diagnostic ratio means: probability - .05; df - 8,22; F-value used in determination - 2.397 Diagnostic Ratios Observed Mean Hypothetical Mean Limits Left Right D-R PROPGP / TRAIT 1. 26 1 0. 97 1. 54 D-R CHANCE MB / TR 1. 26 1 0. 81 1. 71 D-R SITUATION / TR 1. 33 1 0. 99 1. 67 D-R BEHAVIOUR / TR 1. 27 1 0. 82 1. 72 D-R INHER. COMPONENT 1. 16 1 0. 65 1. 68 D-R LEARN COMPONENT 0. 98 1 0. 91 • 1. 06 D-R TRAIT STABILITY 1. 10 1 0. 82 1. 38 D-R FAVOURART ENESS 1. 02 1 0. 76 1. 29 Table A cont.) 7. Respondents: Development-minded people Stereotyped Target: Conservation-minded People 2 . • Hotelling's T value for data = 80.67; associated F-value = 7.65; computed probability = .0001 Confidence intervals for diagnostic ratio means: probability - .05; df - 8,22; F-value used i n determination - 2.397 Diagnostic Ratios Observed Mean Hypothetical Mean Limits Left Right D-R PROPGP / TRAIT 1. 97 1 0. 80 3. .13 D-R CHANCE MB / TR 1. 88 1 0. 62 3. .14 D-R SITUATION / TR 1. 54 1 1. 13 1. ,94 D-R BEHAVIOUR / TR 1. 48 1 1. 07 1. .89 D-R INHER. COMPONENT 1. 15 1 0. 87 1. .43 D-R lEPm COMPONENT 1. 07 . 1 0. 87 1. .27 D-R TRAIT STABILITY 1. 02 1 0. 66 1. .39 D-R FAVOURABLENESS 1. 04 1 0. 86 1. .21 Table A cont.) 8. Respondents: Conservation-ndnded people Stereotyped Target: Development-irri_nded People 2 Hotelling's T value for data = 79.59; associated F-value = 7.547; computed probability = .0001 Confidence intervals for diagnostic ratio means: probability - .05; df - 8,22; F-value used in determination - 2.397 Diagnostic Ratios Observed Mean Hypothetical Mean Limits Left Right D-R PROPGP / TRAIT 1.42 1 0. 95 1. 89 D-R CHANCE MB / TR 1.46 1 0. 92 1. 99 D-R SITUATION / TR 1.42- 1 I. 05 ' 1. 78 D-R BEHAVIOUR / TR 1.20 1 1. 00 1. 41 D-R INHER. COMPONENT 1.10 1 0. 91 1. 30 D-R LEARN COMPONENT 1.08 1 o. 92 1. 24 D-R TRAIT STABILITY 1.15 1 0. 68 1. 62 D-R FAVOURABLENESS 1.04 1 0. 82 1. 25 Note: A l l sample groups included 30 respondents. ^ e hypothetical means represent the.general case where the target label does not mGKlerate the size the attributions about stereotype content relative to a baseline condition. Table B St a t i s t i c a l l y noteworthy coefficients of correlation among the diagnostic ratio variables for each of the eight experimental conditions VARIABLE D-R CHANCE D-R SITUAT D-R BEHAV D-R D-R D-R Exper PROPGP Q-JANCE SITUAT Cond 1. .939 2. .719 3. .856 4. .731 5. .402 6. .712 7. - - — 8. .942 1. .863 .844 2. .707 .541 3. .860 .731 4. .580 5. .737 6. .522 .715 7. .372 8. .861 .873 1. .364 .635 2. .432 .676 3. .804 .729 .783 4. .581 .774 5. .487 .664 6. .483 .647 .704 7. .867 8. .369 .382 .538 D-R BEHAV D-R INHER D-R LEARN D-R STABLE D-R FAVOUR Table B cont. VARIABLE D-R INHER Exper Cond a 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. D-R PROPGP D-R CHANCE D-R SITUAT D-R BEHAV .498 -0.386 .466 D-R LEARN 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ,391 .648 .849 -0.427 D-R STABLE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. -0.364 .425 .551 ,510 D-R INHER D-R D-R D-R LEARN STABLE FAVOUR i Ul I .378 .537 Table B cont.) VARIABLE D-R FAVOUR Exper Cond 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. D-R D-R D-R D-R D-R D-R PROPGP CHANCE SITUAT BEHAV INHER LEARN D-R STABLE D-R FAVOUR ,457 .678 C r i t i c a l values for r (28) .361, p <. .05 .463, p i .01 (for added perspective, - .306, p<.10) ^The experimental conditions were as follows: 1 - small town people describing small town people; 2 - big c i t y people describing big c i t y people; 3 - conservation-irinded people describing conservation-minded people; 4 - develorjrent-minded people describing development-irunded people; 5 - big c i t y people describing small town people; 6 - small town people describing big c i t y people; 7 - development-minded people describing conservation-minded people; and 8 - conservation^rdnded people describing development-minded people. Thus i n reviewing the table i t i s worth noting that the demographic targets are represented in conditions 1,2,5, and 6; the attitudijnally-defined targets are represented i n conditions 3,4,6, and 8; the respondents'own groups are represented i n conditions 1,2,3, and 4'; and the outgroup stereotypes are represented i n conditions 5,6,7, and 8. (See also Appendix F, Table B. - 297 -Appendix I P r e l i m i n a r y Model of the S t e r e o t y p i n g P r o c e s s - 298-The present research was designed to t e s t the value of combining t r a d i t i o n a l measurement approaches to the study of stereotypes with contemporary methods directed at examining the cognitive processes associated with stereotyping. It was r e l a t i v e l y successful i n demonstrating that socio-psychologica factors such as group membership and the selected target can a f f e c t the favourableness of d e s c r i p t i v e stereotypes, but that such variables do not moderate the underlying assumptions regarding the proportion of group members and the range of situations and behaviours to which stereotype t r a i t s can be generalized. The findings suggest that i n d i v i d u a l s describe favourably and less favourably perceived target groups with terms that they f e e l to be broadly representative of the group in question. These d e s c r i p t i v e terms are also considered to be d i s t i n c t i v e i n some way. That i s , a higher proportion of targe members to people i n general possess the s t e r e o t y p i c a l t r a i t s , or the target members display the t r a i t s i n more si t u a t i o n s or through more behaviours than people i n general. The o v e r a l l pattern of r e s u l t s was q u a l i f i e d by the caveat that research outcomes using one p a r t i c u l a r type of target (e.g., groups defined i n demographic terms) do not necessarily generalize to other types of targets (e.g., groups defined i n a t t i t u d i n a l terms. Considering the hypothesis generating o r i e n t a t i o n of the present study, i t i s worthwhile to go beyond these immediate - 299 ~ f i n d i n g s and t o s p e c u l a t e more b r o a d l y on t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s t e r e o t y p i n g p r o c e s s . C e n t r a l t o t h i s b r i e f e x e r c i s e i s t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t s t e r e o t y p e s a r e c o n c e p t s o f s o c i a l g r o u p s t h a t h a v e f u n c t i o n a l v a l u e f o r p e o p l e i n t h e i r e v e r y d a y a p p r o a c h t o t h e s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t . When a t a r g e t becomes s a l i e n t i n a p e r s o n ' s s o c i a l f i e l d i t i s g i v e n a t t e n t i o n . T h i s i n i t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n r e s p o n s e r e s u l t s i n t h e r e c o l l e c t i o n a n d r e t r i e v a l f r o m memory o f t h e g r o u p c o n c e p t . I t may, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , l e a d t o t h e f o r m a t i o n o f a new s t e r e o t y p e when one d o e s n o t p r e - e x i s t . I n e i t h e r c a s e , t h e s t e r e o t y p i c a l c o n c e p t c o n s i s t s o f a s e t o f d e s c r i p t i v e t e r m s , many o f t h e m p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t t e r m s . a The f o r m a t i o n o f s t e r e o t y p e s a b o u t u n f a m i l i a r t a r g e t s c a n b e a c c o m p l i s h e d b y two means. C o n t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t c a n a s s i s t i n d i v i d u a l s i n t u n i n g i n t o r e l e v a n t f a c e t s o f t a r g e t members' b e h a v i o u r a l s t y l e s (new r e s i d e n t s i n a n e i g h b o u r h o o d may w a n t t o know i f t h e r e l a t i o n s b e t w e e n p e o p l e o n t h e same s t r e e t a r e f r i e n d l y o r n o t a n d w i l l l o o k f o r c u e s , f o r e x a m p l e ) . I f t a r g e t s r e c e i v e w i d e s p r e a d s o c i a l a t t e n t i o n , t h e c u l t u r a l s t e r e o t y p e s t o emerge w i l l become an i m p o r t a n t s o u r c e o f i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e t a r g e t members ( t h i s i s how many N o r t h A m e r i c a n s d e v e l o p e d t h e i r s t e r e o t y p e s o f I r a n i a n s i n t h e l a t e 1 9 7 0 s a n d e a r l y 1 9 8 0 s ) L a c k i n g c o n t e x t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n and c u l t u r a l p o r t r a i t s o f s o c i a l g r o u p s , t h e i n d i v i d u a l c a n d r a w u p o n h i s i m p l i c i t - 300 -t h e o r y o f p e r s o n a l i t y and h i s i m p l i c i t a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e s o c i a l s y s t e m t o g e n e r a t e reasonably v i a b l e s t e r e o t y p e s . B o t h p r o c e d u r e s , e i t h e r t h e r e l i a n c e on i n t e r n a l c u e s o r e x t e r n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , r e s u l t i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f s e t s o f d e s c r i p t i v e t e r m s t h a t c a n be a s c r i b e d e f f e c t i v e l y t o s a l i e n t t a r g e t g r o u p s . A number o f s e l e c t i o n r u l e s many be u s e d t o f i l t e r t h e s p e c i f i c t r a i t s t h a t a r e i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o s t e r e o t y p e s and s t e r e o t y p e d e s c r i p t i o n s . One o f t h e s e i s a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e r u l e p r e s c r i b i n g t h a t s t e r e o t y p e t r a i t s must i n some way be t y p i c a l o f t h e t a r g e t g r o u p members. A n o t h e r i s a d i s t i n c t i v e -n e s s r u l e s p e c i f y i n g t h a t t h e t r a i t s i n c l u d e d i n s t e r e o t y p e s must mark o u t t a r g e t g r o u p members as b e i n g d i f f e r e n t i n some way f r o m o t h e r p e o p l e i n t h e s o c i a l m i l i e u . The r e l a t i v e e m p h a s i s on t h e s e and s i m i l a r ( i f y e t u n d e f i n e d ) t r a i t s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a may d e p e n d on t h e d y n a m i c s o f t h e s o c i a l s e t t i n g i n w h i c h t h e s t e r e o t y p e s a r e u s e d a n d t h e r e l a t i v e v i s i b i l i t y o f c o n t r a s t i n g s o c i a l g r o u p s . R e g a r d l e s s o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r s e l e c t i o n r u l e s i n v o l v e d , t h e a s c r i p t i o n o f p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s t o s o c i a l g r o u p s c a n l e a d t o v e r y s p e c i f i c j u d g e m e n t s a b o u t t h e g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . S t e r e o t y p e r s , f o r i n s t a n c e , c a n h o l d t h a t t h e t r a i t s w i t h w h i c h t h e y d e s c r i b e g r o u p s a p p l y t o a s u b s t a n t i a l m a j o r i t y o f g r o u p members. T h e y c a n a r g u e t h a t t h e t r a i t s a r e e v i d e n t i n v e r y many s o c i a l s e t t i n g s a n d t h e y t h e y a r e e x p r e s s e d - 301 -t h r o u g h a w i d e v a r i e t y o f b e h a v i o u r s . The t r a i t s c a n be c o n s i d -e r e d a s b e i n g an i n h e r i t e d p a r t o f t h e t a r g e t g r o u p m embers 1 c h a r a c t e r s , b u t more o f t e n t h a n n o t t h e y a r e c o n s i d e r e d a s b e i n g due more t o l e a r n i n g t h a n t o i n h e r i t a n c e . T h e s e s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n t i a l a n d c a u s a l a t t r i b u t i o n s may b e i n f l u e n c e d by g e n e r a l b e l i e f s a b o u t t h e n a t u r e o f p e o p l e a n d a b o u t a s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t how p e r s o n a l i t y i s g e n e r a l l y e x p r e s s e d i n s o c i a l s e t t i n g s . W h e t h e r t h i s i s t h e c a s e o r n o t , s u c h a t t r i b u t i o n s a l l o w p r e d i c t i o n s a b o u t t a r g e t members' a c t i o n s i n v a r i o u s s e t t i n g s , a n d t h e y p e r m i t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a m b i g u o u s s o c i a l e v e n t s e i n s t e r e o t y p i c a l t e r m s . T h e s e p r e d i c t i o n s a n d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s c a n g u i d e b e h a v i o u r a n d p e r f o r m a n c e s t y l e i n s o c i a l s e t t i n g s . A s s u m p t i o n s a b o u t t h e c a u s e s o f s t e r e o t y p i c a l t r a i t s c a n d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r o r n o t r a d i c a l a t t e m p t s a r e made t o m o d i f y t a r g e t members' t r a i t - t y p e b e h a v i o u r s ( f o r e x a m p l e , t h e e x p r e s s e d h e l p l e s s n e s s o f t h e l o n g t e r m u n e m p l o y e d ) o r w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e t r a i t b e h a v i o u r s a r e t a k e n a s a c o n s t a n t g i v e n i n s o c i a l e n c o u n t e r s ( f o r e x a m p l e , t h e i n t r a n s i g e n c e o f Warsaw P a c t l e a d e r s as s e e n b y t h e i r N a t o c o u n t e r p a r t s ) . S o c i a l f e e d b a c k f r o m i n t e r a c t i o n s i n w h i c h s t e r e o t y p i c a l a s s u m p t i o n s g u i d e b e h a v i o u r c a n m o d e r a t e b e l i e f s a b o u t human n a t u r e a nd t h e s t r u c t u r e o f p e r s o n a l i t y a s w e l l a s e x p e c t a t i o n s a b o u t t h e p o t e n t i a l o u t c o m e s o f s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s . I t c a n a f f e c t memory s c h e m a t a r e l a t e d t o s t e r e o t y p e s , a nd i t c a n a f f e c t t h e c o n t e n t o f s t e r e o t y p e s t h e m s e l v e s . _ 302 _ The p r o c e s s o f s t e r e o t y p i n g i s a f f e c t e d p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y by g e n e r a l c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s and s o c i a l l y by f e e d b a c k from o t h e r p e o p l e and t h e b r o a d s o c i a l m i l i e u . Thus, u n l e s s t h e s o c i a l s e t t i n g s and c o g n i t i v e s t a t e s o f i n d i v i d u a l s r e m a i n i n v a r i a n t , s t e r e o t y p i n g can be c o n s i d e r e d u s e f u l l y as a dynamic p r o c e s s marked l e s s , p e r h a p s , by t h e r i g i d i n f l e x i b i l i t y so c o g e n t l y o u t l i n e d i n Lippmann's i n f l u e n t i a l examples, and more by t h e s e a r c h f o r meaning i n t h e complex w o r l d of i n t e r p e r s o n a l and i n t e r g r o u p i n t e r a c t i o n s . S k e l e t a l o u t l i n e s o f t h e s t e r e o t y p i n g p r o c e s s a r e s k e t c h e d i n F i g u r e A. The s c h e m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s e r v e s two u s e s . I t can a c t as a framework w i t h i n w h i c h t o c a t e g o r i z e and o r g a n i z e t h e v a r i o u s s t r a n d s o f r e s e a r c h on s t e r e o t y p i n g . I t can be used, t o o , as a rough p r o t o t y p e from w h i c h t o d e v e l o p a d e t a i l e d model of t h e form and f u n c t i o n o f s t e r e o t y p i n g . GENERAL COGNITIVE PROCESSES STEREOTYPING SOCIAL PROCESSES IMPLICIT n IEORY of PERSONALITY IMPLICIT THEORIES of SOCIAL STRUCTURE ATTENTION given to target group Target Group becomes SALIENT i n s o c i a l f i e l d MJ:>DRY SCHEMATA BELIEFS about the NATURE Of PEOPLE and about the GENERAL FORM Of SOCIAL INTERACTIONS FORMATION or RETRIEVAL Of target group STEREOTYPE includes p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t a s c r i p t i o n s Use OJ: TltfU'i' a iMCl ' ION JBJLES - d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s c r i t e r i o n , representat ive r u l e , e tc . SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTIONS about die GENE I 'ALIZABILTTY of STElttOlYPE TRAITS CONTEXTUAL INF0IW\TI0N CUI.TU PAL STEREOTYPES ATTRIBUTIONS a l X ) U t t ine CAUSES of STEREOTYPE TRAITS PREDICTIONS about target members' ACTIONS i n s o c i a l se t t ings / IWERPltf.'TATIONS of ajiibiyuous events i n s t e r e o t y p i c a l terms ASSUMPTIONS about the p o t e n t i a l for CHANGE i n stereo-t y p i c a l t r a i t s and/or ATTRIBUTIONS of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for character -i-s and -s Attempts to nrxliJiy the behaviours of s o c i a l ac tors , or the acceptance of behavioural s t y l e s as inmutable in s o c i a l set t ings [SOCIAL FEi;a3AO<|-1 z z to o Adoption of Bel iavioural S t y l e congruent w i t h expectations about target members' performances Figure A. Pre l iminary o u t l i n e of the stereotyping process - 304 -F o o t n o t e s ^ T r a d i t i o n a l check l i s t s and f r e e response formats are both a p p r o p r i a t e measures of s t e r e o t y p e c o n t e n t . Check l i s t s t e r e o t y p e r e s e a r c h has attended to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r s o n a l s t e r e o t y p e c o n t e n t and c u l t u r a l s t e r e o t y p e s , w h i l e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g approach to s t e r e o t y p e f o r m a t i o n examines respondents' use o f c o n t e x t u a l data i n s t e r e o t y p e f o r m a t i o n (e.g., Rothbart, e t a l . , 1978). c S c a l i n g procedures have been e f f e c t i v e i n i l l u s t r a t i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p between i m p l i c i t t h e o r i e s of p e r s o n a l i t y and s t e r e o t y p i n g (Jones and Ashmore, 1973) . ^The use of d e c i s i o n r u l e s i n the s e l e c t i o n of s t e r e o t y p e content i s h i g h l i g h t e d i n the work of McCauley and h i s c o l l a b o r a t o r s (e.g., McCauley and S t i t t , 1978), and, i n a g e n e r a l sense, i s one of the most important c o n t r i b u t i o n s of h i s r e s e a r c h . The work of Duncan (1976), Deaux and E m s w i l l e r (1974), and Hamilton and Rose (1980), among o t h e r s , addresses these i s s u e s . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0095606/manifest

Comment

Related Items