Diversity Awareness – Annotated Bibliography & Media Representation – DUE Sun 10/17

NATIVE AMERICAN STEREOTYPES,

TV PORTRAYALS, AND PERSONAL CONTACT

By Alexis Tan, Yuki Fujioka, and Nancy Lucht

This study tests hifpothcses derived from extremity-complexity and stage theories of stereotyping which predict that frecjueticy of contact with a minority group leads to knowledge which then leads to positive group evaluations. We also test hypotheses from learning theories of behavior which predict that evaluations of contact zcith minority groups determine group evaluations. The hypotheses are tested for direct personal contact and vicarious contact via television.

We administered questionnaires to white college students to measure the contact variables and stereotypes of Native Americans. Results show strong support for the learning hypotheses, hut not for extremity-com- plexity theories of stereotyping. Evaluations of first contact as pleasant or unpleasant, frequency of contact, and evaluations of TV portrayals as negative or positive predict stereotyping. Implications for stereotyping theories arc discussed.

The "contact hypothesis," first proposed by AUport, states that dose contact between members of different races fosters positive racial attitudes.' Conversely, lack of contact leads to prejudice and negative stereotypes. In its original formulation and subsequent revisions, the contact hypothesis assumes that the participants are interacting in "face-to-face" situations, providing for the direct observation of each others' behaviors.^

The present study extends the contact hypothesis by investigating the effects of vicarious contact via television and affective evaluations of direct and vicarious contact on stereotypes. The general expectation is that affective evaluations of vicarious and direct contact are more powerful predictors of stereotypes than is frequency of contact. Specifically, we predict that positive evaluations of contact will lead to positive stereotypes, and negative evalu- ations will lead to negative stereotypes. We investigate stereotyping of Native Americans by white college students.

The dependent variable in our study is "stereotypes." Stereotypes are overgeneralizations that constitute a denial of individual differences among racial and other "out" groups.-^ When a person is categorized as a member of a racial group, attributes or traits of the group are assigned fo him/her.* Stereotypes, then, are beliefs about group characteristics and attributes.^ Racial stereotypes are often negative. A nationwide survey of American

Alex Tan i^ professor and director, Murrau^ School of Commiinkation.Washiiighm State University, ivht're Yuki fiiiiokii is a doctoral student. Nancy Lucht is a •graduate sttidcnl in education at Wasfimgton btate.

\t-MC Quarterly

Summer 1997

NATIVE AMERICAN STERIOTYPES, TV PonrnAYAis, AND PERSONAL ComAcr 2 65

Stereotypes of Native Americans

adults found that Blacks, A.sians and Hispanics in comparison to whites were perceived to be poorer, lazier, more violence prone, less intelligent, less patriotic, and less willing to be self supporting.'' Native Americans were not included as a target group.

Native Americans were the focus of this study for several reasons. First, most national studies of stereotyping, while including other major racial groups in the United States, have not included Native Americans.^ Second, although there has been some recent improvement in the portrayals of Native Americans in movies and television, stereotypical portrayals persist." And third, little is known about how Native American stereotypes are formed. In particular, we are interested in the possible influence of direct and vicarious contact on stereotypes.

Native Americans are descendants of the first inhabitants of the tjnited States. They are the only racial group that is specifically recognized in the Constitution, and they continue to have a separate legal status. Native Americans number about 2.0 million according to the 1990 U.S. Census.*^ The current native American population is made up of American Indians, Eski- mos, and Aleuts (Alaska Natives).'" The majority of native nations accept a person as Native American if he/she has at least one-fourth tribal heritage (blood quantum)." There are 517 federally recognized Native American tribal units and 36 state-recognized tribal units, numerous nation.s, and about 252 languages.'- More than half of the Native American population lives on or near the 278 federally operated reservations throughout thirty-one states.'^ The remaining population lives in cities and rural areas.

A popular stereotype is that Native Americans are alcoholic, a stereo- type most likely perpetrated by press coverage of drinking in Native Ameri- can cultures. Even Native Americans will admit abu.se of alcohol is a serious problem in many Indian communities, but drinking patterns vary from tribe to tribe, as well as from individual to individual.'''

A second stereotype of Native Americans is that they have "superci tizen status" and "cradle to grave" benefits, and they receive government "per capita" checks just for being Native American. The fact is that Native Americans do not have "special" rights. They have fishing, hunting, and other rights because they are recognized political bodies tbat have signed treaties with the U.S. government. Members of certain tribes receive divi- dends from the sale of their resources and from stocks. Some families also have land that they lease and from which they receive money. Any per capita dividends or lease payments originate in legal ownership, not race.'^

Another prevailing "negative" stereotype of Native Americans is that Indians are lazy, don't work hard, and can't keep a steady job. This stereotype is grounded in different values between Anglo and Native Americans. For a Native American, accumulation of wealth is not as important as family or spiritual needs. Jobs may be left tobelpfamily or takecareof a spiritual need or situation. Seasonal jobs are preferred by some Native Americans to allow tfiem time to pursue other interests. A related stereotype is that most Native Americans are out of work and on welfare. Recent census data puts the rate of Native American employment at 87 percent. A 13 percent rate of unem- ployment does not indicate "most" Native Americans. Many Native Ameri- cans are starting their own businesses. Between 1982 and 19H7, Indian- owned businesses increased by 64 percent, whereas U.S. firms only increased by 14 percent.""

266 & MASS CoMMUNiCAnoN QUMOIBLY

A fourth stereotype concerns reservations: Indians live on reserva- tions because they can't "make it" on the outside (mainstream America), they are uneducated, and they have no other choice. Most Native Americans enjoy being with their own people on their own land and want to maintain their way of life and culture. Native Americans also don't enjoy being alone and are fearful of prejudice. Being on the reservation protects them from outside prejudice and negative stereotypes. Many feel it is important to maintain their tribal community, and for them, the reservation is home.'-'

The stereotypes mentioned above are not entirely accurate. They have persisted for decades and still affect the images and perceptions of Native Americans by other groups.

Media images of Native Americans tend to be negative. From the beginning, Indians have been treated with suspicion and were the first obvious victims of media bias.'^ Much of the open hostility toward Native Americans by the American press had decreased by the early twentieth century. At this time, however, motion pictures continued to convey stereo- types and negative images of American Indians. Bataille and Silet found that many basic film stereotypes began during the period of silent movies, as stories were created by white producers for white audiences, which included a n t i - I n d i a n a t t i t u d e s a n d p r e j u d i c e s . The Baltic of the Elderbrufih Gulch {1913) by D.W. Griffith is one example of how Native Americans were presented to the American public. In the movie, Griffith .showed Indians eating dogs and doing an emotional war dance in preparation for attack.

The classic American Westerns al.so were developed during the silent era of motion pictures. When sound entered the picture industry (1930), Indians were rarely given the chance to speak. In the 1930s and 194Gs, the Lone Ranger and the Indian caricature named Tonto (meaning "stupid" in Spanish) were popular. Tonto spoke in clipped baby talk, using phrases like "Kemo-sabe" and "Get 'em up. Scout." He was portrayed as inferior to the Lone Ranger in every area, such as shooting ability and speed, except for wisdom, which was a positive quality, "acceptable" for an Indian to possess. Tonto's only purpose was to serve his white master.

A combination of the popular media in the first half of the 1900s (movies, comic books, pulp novels, and eventually television) helped create the popular concept of a "real Indian." According to media images, a Native American rode horses, wore headdresses, and stood on hilltops, "looking for wagon trains under the flat of his hand." Movies ignored the cultural diversity of different tribes and languages in North America. The same Plains-Southwest tribes - Blackfeet, Cheyenne, Comanche, and Apache - have been used repeatedly to portray Native Americans. The Indian was constantly portrayed in movies of the 1930s and 1940sas vicious, cruel, lazy, stupid, dirty, speaking in grunts, and often drunk. In The Last of flic Mahiain^ (1920,1936), Indians were presented as barbaric, prone tti excessive drinking and a threat to white women.

Portrayals of Native Americans improved after World War 11, which provided the United States with German and Japanese "villains." By the late 1940s, Indians were sometimes portrayed as victims of circumstances created by whites. More realistic Westerns,such as Broken Arnnv, were produced. A few films in the 1960s and 1970s were almost of documentary quality. Little B/^ Mati (1971) was a reversal of the Hollywood western, depicting white civilization as corrupt and hypocritical.'^

Native Americans in American Media

NATIVE AMEHICAN STERLOTYPLS, TV POKTRAYMS, AND PESSONAL CONMCT 267

Shively compared perceptions of Western films by American Indians and Anglo Americans.^" Both groups identified with the white heroes, but they differed in their perceptions of whether the Westerns were authentic portrayals of the Old West. None of the Indians ranked "authentic portrayal of the Old West" as an important reason for liking the movies, while 50 percent of the Anglos ranked it as most important.^'

In addition to being stereotyped in movie roles. Native Americans have been typecast through advertising and sports team names. Product labels associated with Native Americans include the Land O'Lakes butter maiden, Mazola margarine, Kickapoo Joy Juice, and Crazy Horse Malt Liquor. Sports teams and their mascots are offensive to some members of the Native American community. Many feel that names such as the "Washing- ton Redskins," the "Atlanta Braves," and the "Kansas City Chiefs" only help to promote current and past stereotypes and are inaccurate representations of Native Americans.^^

The Contact Hypothesis

According to complexity-extremity theory, evaluations (e.g., stereo- types) by in-group members of their own group are often more positive than evaluations of out-group members (e.g., members of another race) because frequent contact among in-group members generates "a larger number of dimensions along which individuals may be characterized."^-^ When many independent dimensions are used to judge another person (or a stimulus), some of these dimensions will be favorable and others unfavorable, resulting in an overall evaluation that is less extreme, unlikely to be extremely favorable or extremely unfavorable. With less contact, fewer dimensions are used, resulting in extreme evaluations, either good or bad.-̂ '' For example, previous research has shown that whites use fewer dimensions to evaluate blacks, and that these evaluations are more likely to be negative.--'' Consistent with this analysis, the contact hypothesis predicts that frequent contact will allow participants to use more dimensions in evaluating each other, resulting in less extreme evaluations. When initial evaluations are negative, resulting perceptions from increased contact should be more positive.

Early studies provide some evidence that intergroup interactions can produce positive changes in attitudes but only under conditions of equal status of the group members,-'' mutual goals,^^ and cooperation.-" When positive attitude change is observed, the new attitudes are directed at the individual out-group members, rather than the out-group itself. Most of these results have been observed in experimental settings, using dependent measures directed at liking for the persons interacted with. When general attitudes toward the out-group are measured, the results often show no change. Experimental manipulations of personal contact have produced positive attitude change toward individual out-group members, but not toward the group.

Results from nonexperimental studies have also been mixed. A nationwide survey of white adults found that the racial views of whites who had black friends were similar to the views of whites with no black f riends.^^ However, another national survey found that whites who live in areas where black-white interaction is more common (e.g., racially mixed neighbor- hoods) perceived that white attitudes toward blacks were becoming more positive.-"' They also were more committed to the goal of greater social interaction between blacks and whites. Whites who had greater opportunity

268 usM & MASS CoMMUWKMnoN QUAXITJ<LY

to interact with blacks had a more positive perception of race relations in general, and were more supportive of black-white interaction.

Most explanations for the mixed support of the contact hypothesis have focused on methodology and measurement issues. Many of the experi- mental studies created extreme intergroup hostilities which may be resistant to short-term contact interventions.-" Also, many of these studies are con- ducted in highly specific settings (e.g., schools), and do not measure attitudes toward the larger minority group.^^ Surveys have used a wide array of measures to tap interracial contact and attitudes. Contact is often assumed from structural factors such as living in a racially mixed neighborhood-'-' or from interpersonal conditions, such as having a close friend who is black.-^ Measures of interracial attitudes include opinions on the state of race rela- tions, willingness to interact with members of another race, and general attitudes toward the minority group.

Most studies have used as predictors or stimulus conditions fre- quency of contact and structure of the interaction (e.g., cooperative versus competitive). Implicit in these manipulations is the assumption that quality of contact is the key determinant of positive attitude change. Quality is rarely measured directly.^'' For example, it is assumed that cooperative interaction among equals will be positively evaluated, thereby leading to positive attitude change.

In this study, we use direct measures of frequency o( contact and affective evaluations of contact as predictors of negative or positive stereo- types of a minority group (Native Americans) by white college students in a nonexperimental setting. Attitudes toward Native Americans are measured directly using measures of stereotypes. We also extend the contact hypoth- esis to include as predictors of positive or negative stereotypes, not only frequency and affective evaluations of direct personal contact, but also frequency and affective evaluations of vicarious contact via television.

Another variation from previous "contact" studies is our analysis of evaluations oi first cotifact on stereotypes. The usual variable studied is "frequency" of contact. Learning theories and studies on impression forma- tion suggest that first contact may be a more powerful predictor of stereo- types than contact in general.-""'

Several theories can explain why and how vicarious contact via television might affect stereotypes of Native Americans.

Social cognitive theory explains how behaviors, attitudes, and values can be learned vicariously by observation.-'^ Observational learning Is the outcome of a series of steps: attention, retention, motor reproduction, activa- tion of motivational processes, and matching performance. Learning is affected by both environmental and cognitive factors. Environmental factors that facilitate learning include the following characteristics of the observed event: repetition, realism, simplicity, and reward value. Learning occurs when the following cognitive conditions exist: the observer perceives the events to be functional, and he/she feels competent in performing them. These environmental and cognitive conditions are often found in television and tbe television viewer.

Social cognitive learning principles therefore can explain how people learn about other races as portrayed on television. Most people have limited opportunities for direct contact with other races in unstructured settings (e.g., in social situations). It is easier to observe minority groups in a wide

Vicarious Contact

NATIVE AMEJOCAN STEREOTYPES, TV POKTKAYALS, AND PEKSCWAL O W M C T 269

range of situations in television portrayals. Television viewing requires less effort than engaging in direct interpersonal contact with a member of another race.

Cultivation theory also explains how television can affect stereotypes of Native Americans.""^ Cultivation occurs when viewers generalize to their own social environments the realities they have learned from television. Television presents a uniform view of reality; frequency of exposure leads viewers to accept television realities. More recently, cognitive factors such as perceived realism of the observed TV event have been added to the model.^^ There is evidence that viewers generalize to their own environments TV realities such as violence, crime, gender roles, and political orientations.'"' There is also evidence that white viewers' perceptions of fhe sociocconomic status of some racial groups (e.g., African Americans) are affected by what they see on television.'"

Cognitive models of impression formation (e.g., stereotyping) such as the cognitive complexity model focus on the amount of information gained from the interaction: the more information learned, the more positive the evaluation.''^ Applied to stereotyping, these models predict that the more dimensions available forjudgingagroup, the more likely the evaluation will be positive.

Learning theories suggest that stereotypes are determined by the valence of information about a group rather fhan by fhe amount of informa- tion.*-' Positive information leads to positive stereotypes; negative informa- tion leads to negative stereotypes. Also, information learned first is more influential than information learned subsequently since first impressions form the foundation on which later experiences are evaluated."

Social cognitive and cultivation theories provide a theoretical ratio- nale for our expectation tbat vicarious exposure to Native Americans via television will affect stereotypes of Native Americans. Cognitive and learn- ing theories provide competing hypotheses on the effects of television on stereotypes. Cognitive theories predict that frequency of contact and amount of information determine whether stereotypes are positive or negative. According to learning theories, what's important is how the information is evaluated.

" ^ The following hypotheses are tested with Native Americans as the object of stereotypes by white colfege students:

HI: Frequency of contact predicts positive stereotypes.

H2: Frequency of contact predicts perceived familiarity with the group.

H3: Perceived familiarity predicts positive stereotypes.

Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are suggested by the complexity-extremity theory of stereotyping which states tbat contact leads to familiarity which then leads to positive racial attitudes. This causal ordering of variables is shown in Figure 2.

H4: Positive evaluations of first contact predict positive stereotypes.

H5: Positive evaluations of first contact lead to positive evaluations of contact in general.

H6: Positive evaluations of contact in general predict positive stereotypes.

Hypotheses 4,5, and 6 are derived from instrumental learning theories which state that positive experiences with a stimulus lead to liking and are generalized to other similar stimuli. Also, first experiences affect evaluations of subsequent experiences. Applied to race relations, these theories suggest tbat people who have positive experiences with a member of another racial group, will learn to like that individual, and will generalize liking to the racial group.*^ The causal ordering of variables in H4, H5, and H6 is shown in Figure 3.

The following hypotheses extend personal contact principles to vicari- ous contact via television.

H7: Total TV Viewing (frequency of contact) predicts positive stereotypes.

H8: Total TV Viewing positively predicts the number of attributes of Native Americans perceived in television.

H9: The greater the number of attributes perceived in television, the more positive the stereotype.

HIO: The greater the number of positive attributes per- ceived in television, the more positive the stereotype.

HI 1: The greater the number of negative attributes per- ceived in television, the more negative the stereotype.

Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9 are suggested by complexity-extremity theory which states that frequency of contact (e.g., via TV viewing) leads to more trait attributions, which lead to more positive evaluations of the outgroup. (See Figure 4). Hypotheses 10 and 11 are suggested by learning theories which state that pleasant experiences (e.g., as indicated by perceptions of positive attributes of the target group in TV portrayals) lead to liking of the target person and his / her group, while negative experiences lead to negative evaluations. The number of positive and negative attributes perceived in television is affected by frequency of TV viewing (see Figures 5 and 6.)

Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire distrib- uted to undergraduate students at fwo public universities in the Northwest.*'*' The questionnaires were distributed in class. Students were given extra credit for completing the questionnaire, which included items measuring the variables of interest in the present study as well as items measuring opinions about civi! rights and stereotypes of other ethnic groups. Tbe instructor told students that this was a study of how people perceived themselves in relation to others. Students were debriefed and results presented to them a month after the questionnaires were administered.

Dependent Measures. The dependent variable, stereotypes of Native Americans, was measured using a revised scale adapted from a national

N«TV£ AMERICAN STEREOTYPES, TV Poi^vAtAiJi, AND PERSONAL C I W M C T

Methods and Measures

271

survey of racial images.*'' The scale asks respondents to rate whether people in the designated racial group are eloser to one or the other of two polar adjectives (attributes) according to their own perceptions. Instructions were: "Please think of Native Americans in the United States today. Check a space between each of the adjectives below to indicate how you would describe Native Americans in general." A 7-point scale was used. The scale includes six attributes, all of which were used in the present study. These were wealth (rich/poor), work ethic (hard working/lazy), violence (violence- prone/not violence-prone), intelligence (unintelligent/intelligent), depen- dency (prefer to be self-supporting/prefer to live off welfare), and patriotism (patriotic/unpatriotic). According to Smith, these adjectives are often used by the public to describe "common-place and vital images of people in the United States" today. Several traits were added to the Smith scale after discussions in an intercultural communication seminar identified additional dimensions used in contemporary American society to stereotype ethnic minorities. These were crime (likely to commit/not likely to commit), trust (can be trusted/not to be trusted), drugs (likely to use/not likely to use), family ties (strong/weak), education (educated/not educated), tolerance of other races (toferant/not tolerant), and alcohol use (likely to abuse/not likely to abuse). Items were factor analyzed to construct our final measures of stereotypes.

The positive and negative ends of each bipolar measure were identi- fied by consensus among members of a graduate seminar in intercultural communication. The criterion for making these judgements was "which was the positive attribute, in contemporary American society." The raters had no difficulty in identifying the positive and negative ends of the items. The positive attributes were rich, hard working, not violence prone, intelligent, prefer to be self supporting, patriotic, not likely to commit crimes, can be trusted, not likely to use drugs, likely to have strong family ties, not likely to deal drugs, educated, tolerant of other racial groups, and not likely to abuse alcohol use. The end points toward the positive attributes were scored "7"; negative attribute end points were scored " 1 " . Mean scores for attributes in each factor were computed as a measure of positive/negative stereotypes (Table 2); the higher the score, the more positive the stereotype.

Measures of Predictor Variables. Direct contact predictor variables were frequency of contact, evaluation of first contact, and evaluation of contact in general. Frequency of contact was measured by asking respon- dents:

"For each of the groups listed below, please tell us how often you interact with them on a person-to-person basis." Groups listed included "Native Americans." Responses were scored on a five point scale: No Contact (]), Very Seldom (2), Sometimes (3), Quite Often (4), and Very Often (5).

To measure evaluation of first contact, we asked respondents, "For each of the following groups, please tell us whether your first personal encounter with a member of the group was pleasant or unpleasant." Native Americans were among the groups listed. Possible responses were Very Unpleasant (1), Unpleasant (2), Pleasant (3), Very Pleasant (4).

The scale measuring evaluation of contact in general was similar to the evaluation of the first contact scale, except for the lead question: "For each of the following groups, please tell us whether your personal contact with them in general has been pleasant or unpleasant."

Variables measuring vicarious contact via television were frequency of TV viewing, and descriptions and evaluations of TV portrayals.

2 72 jauRMU^M & MASS CnfAMUMCATiON QuAF:im\

To measure frequency of TV viewing, respondents were asked, "How many hours of TV do you watch in a week?" The assumption was that frequent TV viewers would have a greater opportunity to observe Native Americans portrayed in television programs and movies.

Descriptions and evaluations of TV portrayals of Native Americans were measured with an open-ended question: "Think of the television movies and programs you have recently seen. In these movies and TV programs, how were each of the following ethnic groups portrayed? List the adjectives or portrayals for each ethnic group that stand out for you."

Responses for thirty respondents were coded and analy?:ed by mem- bers of a graduate seminar in intercultural communication. The number of adjectives (descriptions) were coded for each ethnic group (including Native Americans). Then, each attribute was coded as positive, neutral, or negative, after discussion by the coders until consensus was reached. The second author participated in the discussions and coding of responses from the first thirty respondents. She then coded the rest of the questionnaires, using standards set in the preliminary coding. This procedure yielded four mea- sures: number of attributes perceived in TV portrayals of Native Americans, number of perceived positive TV attributes, number of perceived negative TV attributes, and number of perceived neutral TV attributes. The last three measures were considered to be an indication of the viewer's affective evaluation of the television encounter with Native Americans.

This procedure is a departure from usual content analysis in which coders describe messages by counting the occurrences of previously defined content categories. It is adapted from free response methods of assessing stereotypes, in which respondents are asked to list the adjectives that first come to mind when they think of members of the group identified.^" Free response methods, although tedious to organize and analyze, have been found to evoke more schematic and automatic cognitive processing from respondents than checklist measures.''^ Our use of a free response method to analyze TV ethnic .stereotypes is based on the assumption that college students (our respondents) are capable of remembering and reporting ethnic portrayals they had recently viewed on television. While we are not able to validate this method by comparing it to conventional content analysis, we provide some evidence of its theoretical validity in tests of our vicarious contact hypotheses.

^ , Results The Sample. The sample consisted of 191 white college undergradu-

ates, 39% male and 61% female. Average age was 20.43 years; 85% were from University A and 15% were from University B, seven miles away. This sample is, of course, not representative of a larger population; our interest was in analyzing relationships between variables. Significance tests in the regres- sion analyses are used as indicators of the magnitude of effects.

Some of the descriptive statistics (mean scores and standard devia- tions) for the sample are the following:

TV hours per week, 8.63 hours (s.d. = 6.8); Frequency of contact with Native Americans, 2.40, 5 = very often; First encounter, 3.19, 4 = very pleasant; Contact in general, 3.11, 4 = very pleasant; Familiarity with Native American culture, 2.75, 5 = very familiar.

NATivLAMi.RicANSruii.iriyi-if, TV PnnrRAYAi^, ANDPERSONAI CavTAcr 273

Patriotic Tolerant Lazy Intelligent Violent Crime Deal Drugs Rich Abuse Alcohol Educated Welfare Family Ties Trust Use Drugs

Variance Explained by Each Factor

Factor 1

0.699 0.681 0.669 0.621 0.123 0.104 0.142 0.233 -0.059 0.524 0.376 0.087 0.389 0.397

2.633

TABLE I Factor Loadings: Stereotype Scales

Factor 2

-0.043 0.308 0.163 0.196 0.762 0.732 0.725 -0.020 0.281 0.099 0.225 0.071 0.410 0.395

2.273

Factor 3

0.219 -0.207 0.173 0.207 0.009 0.278 O.{)74 0.733 0.746 0.578 0.496

-0.069 0.224 0.167

2.036

Factor 4

-0.051 -0.217 0.142 0.194 0.135 0.150

-0.160 -0.036 -0.174 0.157 0.289 0.866 0.426 -0.447

1.447

Communality Estimates

.541

.649

.524

.504

.615

.646

.576

.638

.669

.643

.322

.768

.551

.542

Total Communiality Estimate: 8.388 Final Solution, Varimax Rotation.

These statistics indicate that our respondents were not heavy televi- sion viewers (average of just a little over an hour per day). There was infrequent contact with Native Americans. The first encounter was rated to be quite pleasant; contact in general was also pleasant, although less so than the first encounter. Respondents were not too familiar with Native American culture.

Although clearly not representative of the larger adult white popula- tion in the United States, our sample can provide for interesting tests of our hypotheses. One would expect that our respondents - considering pleasant contact with Native Americans - would not hold negative stereotypes. This was not the case.

Stereotypes of Native Americans. The fourteen stereotype items were factor analyzed, using varimax rotation to obtain a final solution. As Table 1 .shows, four factors emerged. The first factor, which we called "Intelligence" included the following items: patriotism, tolerance, work ethic, and intelli- gence. The seccjnd factor ("Violence") included violence, crime, and drugs (dealing). The third factor ("Wealth") included rich, alcohol abuse, educa- tion, and self-reliance. The fourth factor ("trust") included family ties, trust, and drugs (use).

Table 2 shows that our white respondents rated Native Americans lower than whites in three of the four stereotype factors, and in most of the individual trait items. Although most of the stereotype ratings of Native Americans were not at the lower end of the scale, they were significantly lower than ratings of whites. Our white respondents perceived whites in general to be superior to Native Americans on the following traits: patrio- tism, work ethic, intelligence, wealth, (less) alcohol abuse, education, and self supporting. Native Americans were evaluated more positively on tolerance

274 ougNAUSM & MASS COMMUNJC/OION QUARTERLY

Stereotypes

Factor 1: Intelligence *

Patriotic/ Unpatriotic

Tolerant-Other Races/ Not Tolerant Other Races

Hard Working/Lazy

Intelligent/Not Intelligent

Factor 2: Violence *

Not / Violence Prone

Do not/Likely to Commit Crimes

Do not/Likely to Deal Drugs

Factor 3; Wealth

Rich/Poor

Do not /Likely to Abuse Alcohol Use

Educated/Not Educated

Prefer Self Supporting/ Live Off Welfare

Factor 4 : Trust *

Strong Family Ties/ Not Strong Family Ties

Can Be Trusted/ Can't be Trusted

Do not / Likely to Use Drugs

Sample Size

Mean TABLE 2

Scores of Stereotype Variables

Native Americans Mean

3.967

3.743

3.905

3.931

4.282

3.893

3.872

3.804

4.000

3.310

2.947

2.709

3.757

3.825

4.607

5.804

4.444

3.561

('

s.d.

1.013

1.578

1.492

1.272

1.273

0.929

1.199

1.129

1.267

0.994

1.004

1.442

1.35

1.687

0.803

1.263

1.320

1.159

1 = 189 )

Whites Mean

•4.527

3.298

3.545

4.326

4.942

* 3.835

3.879

3.790

3.832

4.631

4.927

3.230

5.53

4.838

4.265

4.602

4.584

3.607

(« = 191

s.d.

0.857

1.483

1.344

1.150

1.195

0.847

1.050

1.025

1.072

0.599

0.785

1.100

1.104

1.322

0.784

1.341

1.234

1.099

)

T-Test Score (P-Value)

T=-5.81 (.0001) T=-9.88 (.0000) T= 2.47 (.01) T - 3 . 1 7 (.002) T=-5.19 (.0000)

T=-15.67 (.0001) T=-21.40 (.0001) T - 3 . 9 6 (.0001) T=-]3.97 (.0001) T=-6.51 (.0001)

T= 4.19 (.0000) T= 8.99 (.0000)

*Overall mean of items in each factor; for all entries, 7=positive stereotype and 1 ̂ negative stereo- type.

of other races and family ties. There were no differences in ratings on the violence factor.

TV and Movie Portrayals of Native Americans. We asked our respondents to list the adjectives and portrayals of Native Americans that stand out in movies and TV programs they had recently seen. The average number ofattributes listed was2.11, including .71 positive, 1.11 negative, and .29 neutral attributes. More negative TV attributes were recalled than either

NATivEAMER)c.ArjSrEiu:aiypi.s,TV PORTRAYALS, AND Pf'RsiiNALCo^^Acr 275

FIGURE 1 Adjectives and Statements Used to Code TV Portrayals of Native Americans

Positive

Wise Proud Friendly Loving Caring Traditional Family-Oriented Nature-Oriented Pioneers Spiritual

Examoles of Positive Statements:

Negative

Savage Violent Stupid Less Intelligent Dutnb Poor Drunken/Alcoholic Uncivilized Gang Members Dysfunctional Families

Neutral

Different Mystic Dancing Indians Medical Quiet Middle Class

"Portrayed as wanting to save their land and close to family," "Always fighting for their rights and things the whites took away from them," "Doing good for others."

Examples of Negative Statements:

"In most movies they are seen to be dirty, poor, and alcoholics," "They are portrayed as lazy alcoholics." "Not self-supported,"

Example of Neutral Statement:

"Living on reservation."

positive or neutral aftributes. Figure 1 shows fhe adjectives and statements used by our coders to categorize TV and movie porfrayals of Nafive Ameri- cans as positive, neutral, or negative.

Tests of Hypotheses. We tested our hypotheses using hierarchical regression, controlling for preceding variables in the causal models (Figures 2 to 6) and the control variables gender and year in school. Path coefficients were estimated from standard regression weights.

Tests for fhe direct contact hypotheses are shown in Figure 2. Fre- quency of direct contact predicted posifive stereofyping in each of fhe four stereofype factors (HI), Direct contact also predicted familiarity (H2; B = .43, p = .0001), buf familiarify did not predict any of fhe stereofype factors (H3). HI and H2 are accepted. H3 is rejected. Frequency of direct contact led fo familiarity and posifive stereotyping. However, familiarity did nof predict positive stereotyping. It appears fhat the frequency of interacfion is an antecedent of stereotyping, buf not because it leads fo familiarify. A possible explanation is that frequency of direct contact is related to positive evalua- tions of contact, which lead to positive stereotyping (see discussion of H4, H5, and H6 below.)

Tests for hypotheses based on learning theories (H4, H5, and H6) are shown in Figure 3. As predicted by H4, posifive evaluations of first confacf predicted posifive stereofyping in each of the four factors: Intelligence (B = .25, p = .0006); Violence (B = .18, p = .02); Wealth (B = .25, p = .0008) and Trusf (B = .13, p = .07), As predicted by H5, positive evaluations of first contact led

2 76 louRNAusM & MASS CuMMUNic/triuN QUAKTERLY

[INTELLIGENCE]

.20(.0O6)

FIGURE 2 Frequency of Direct Contact, Familiarity, and Stereotyping

= .06(.008)

Freq, .43(.0O01) Direct Contact

-.06{n.s.) Familiarity _ R==.23(.OOO1)

INTELLIGENCE R̂ =.06{.02)

IVIOLENCEI

.17{.O2)

Freq .43(.OOO1) Direct . Contact

[WEALTH!

.22(.003)

Freq, .43(.0001) Direct Contact

[TRUST]

.21 (.004)

Freq, Direct Contact

.43(.0001)

=.04(n.s.)

.03(n.s.) Familiarity R2 =.23 (.0001)

VIOLENCE (Not Violent) R2 -.04(n.s.)

=.09(.0009)

.009(n.s.) _> Familiarity

R̂ =.23 (.0001)

WEALTH R̂ =.09(.003)

=.06(.01)

.08(n.s.) Familiarity R= =.23 (.0001)

TRUST R̂ =.06(.02)

Path ccxjfficients are estimated from standard regression weights.

P-value is in parentheses; n.s. = not significant.

to positive evaluations of contact in general (B = .54; p = .0001). However, positive evaluations of contact in general led to positive stereotyping in only 2 factors: Wealth (B = .20, p = .03); and Tru.st (B = .19, p = .04). These results suggest that evaluations of first experiences with Native Americans were more important than evaluations of contact in general as determinants of stereotyping. Contact with Native Americans was infrequent in our sample. Therefore, first contacts could have been more influential, considering the lackofoppurtunities to neutralize first impre.ssions from subsequent contact.

Vicarious contact hypotheses based on cognitive theories predicted that frequency of TV viewing (an indicator of frequency of vicarious contact) leads to positive stereotypes (H7) and to a greater number of attributes perceived in television {H8). We also predicted that the greater the number

CAU STERF.OTyn.s, TV PORTRAYALS, /wn PFRSONAL C()̂ T/lL^ 277

tINTELLIGENCE]

.25(.0006)

Evaluation

Contact

[VIOLENCE]

.18{.O2)

1 Evaluation nfiot Contact

[WEALTH!

.25(.0008)

Evaluation of let Contact

[TRUST]

.13(.O7) 1 Evaluation

Contact

.54(.00Gl)

.54(.0001)

.54(.0001)

.54(.0001)

FIGURE 3

Evaluation of Contact and Stereotxfping

Evaluation .13(n.s.)

in General R̂ =.33(.00(n)

R2 =.03(n.s.)

Evaluation .08(n.s.)

in General

R2=.10(.0005)

Evaluation .20(.03)

in General R̂ =.33(.0001)

R2 =.03(n.s.)

Evaluation ,19(.O4)

INTELLIGENCE

VIOLENCE (Not Violent) R2 =.04(n.s.)

^̂

WEALTH

TRUST R̂ =.05(.05)

Path coefficients are estimated from standard regression weights.

P-value is in parentheses; n.s. - not significant.

of perceived television attributes, the m o r e positive the s t e r e o t y p e (H9). Figure 4 s h o w s that frequency of TV v i e w i n g (TV h o u r s ) did not lead to a greater n u m b e r of perceived TV attributes a n d p r e d i c t e d positive s t e r e o t y p - i n g in only one factor (Violence). Also, t h e n u m b e r of perceived TV a t t r i b u t e s w a s related to s t e r e o t y p i n g in only one factor (Wealth), a n d in the opposife direction from o u r prediction (B = -.14). Therefore, w e musf reject o u r vicarious contact h y p o t h e s e s based on cognitive theories.

Using learning theory, w e p r e d i c t e d fhat the greater the n u m b e r of perceived positive attributes in television, the m o r e positive the s t e r e o t y p e (HIO), and t h e g r e a t e r the n u m b e r of perceived n e g a t i v e a t t r i b u t e s in televi- sion, the m o r e negarive the s t e r e o t y p e ( H l l ) . Figures 5 a n d 6 s h o w limited s u p p o r t for these h y p o t h e s e s . Controlling for frequency of TV v i e w i n g , the

278 & MASS COMMU/^K..AIKIN QUAKTEKLV

FIGURE 4 Frequency of TV Viewing, Perceived TV Attributes, and Stereotyping

[INTELLIGENCE]

.02(n.s.)

TV -,03(n.s.) Hours

No. of TV Attributes R̂ =.003(n.s.)

INTELLIGENCE R̂ =.02(n.s.)

[VIOLENCE]

.15{.O5)

TV -.03(n.s.) Hours

[WEALTH]

-.06(n.s.)

=.003(n.s.)

=.03(n.s.)

No. of TV .03(n.s.) _> Attributes VIOLENCE

(Not Violent) R= -.03(n.s.)

TV -.03(n.s.) Hours

No. of TV Attributes

=.003(n.s.) WEALTH R-=.O7(.O1)

[TRUST]

TV Hours

-.03(n.s.) No. of TV Attributes R2 =.003 (n.s.)

-.04(n.s.) -> TRUST

R= =.03(n.s.)

Path coefficients are estimated from standard regression weights.

P-value is in parentheses; n.s. = not significant.

number of perceived positive TV attributes predicted positive stereotyping in the Violence factor (B = .15, p = .04) but not in the other factors. The number of perceived negative TV attributes was related to negative stereotyping in the Wealth factor ( B = -.16, p = .03), but not in the other factors. It appears that perceived positive and negative TV attributes predict stereotyping only for traits more easily depicted in television, such as violence and affluence.

Our study shows tbat two variables consistently predicted stereotyp- ing of Native Americans by white college students: frequency of personal contact and evaluation of first contact. Frequent personal contact led to positive stereotyping, as did positive evaluations of first contact {more so than positive evaluations of contact in general). These findings support a

Discussion

NAWZ AMERICAN STEKEITTWES, TV POKTRAYALS, AND PERSONAL ComAcr 279

FIGURE 5 Perceived Positive TV Attributes and Stereotyping

[INTELLIGENCE]

-02(n.s.)

TV .06(n.s.)

iVIOLENCE]

.15(.O5)

TV .06(n.s.)

[WEALTH]

--06(n-s-)

TV .06(n.s.) Hours

[TRUST]

-n(n.s-)

TV .06(n.s-) Hours

No. of Positive TV Attributes R̂ =.02(n.s.)

INTELLIGENCE

R-=.03(n.s.

No. of Positive TV Attributes R2 =.02(n.s.)

.15(.O4) VIOLENCE {Not Violent)

No-of Positive TV Attributes R̂ =.02(n.s.)

WEALTH R ' -.O5(.O5)

N o . of •^ Positive TV

Attributes

.05(n.s.) > TRUST

R= =.03{n.s.)

Path coefficients are estimated from standard regression weights.

P-value is in parentheses; n.s. = not significant.

learning theory interpretatiun of .stereotyping- Frequency of personal contact directly influenced positive stereotyping, but not via the familiarity route (as extremity-complexity theory would suggest). We suspect that the key variable is evaluation of first contact, and that the direction of influence is from evaluation of first contact to frequency of personal contact to stereotyp- ing. Since there wasn't very much personal contact between our respondents and Native Americans, positive first contacts may have motivated thenn to seek out Native Americans (frequent contact) which then led to positive stereotyping.

Our data offer some support for vicarious contact (via television) hypotheses based on learning theory, and no support for the vicarious contact hypotheses based on cognitive extremity-complexity theory. Fre-

280 S CoMMUNnymoN QUIWEKLY

FIGURE 6 Perceived Negative TV Attributes and Stereotyping

[INTELLIGENCE]

.02(n.s.)

TV -.lKn.s.) Hours

No. of -.10(n.s.) > Negative TV _

Attributes _^ INTELLIGENCE

R2 =.03(n.s.)

IVIOLENCEl

.15(.O5)

TV -.ll(n.s. Hours

[WEALTH!

-.06{n.s.)

TV -.ll(n.s.) Hours

=.03(n.s.)

No. of -.07(n.s.) Negative TV Attributes

No. of -.16{.O3) Negative TV Attributes

VIOLENCE (Not Violent) R2 =.03(n.s.)

WEALTH R2 =.08(.0(J7)

[TRUST]

TV -.ll(n.s.) No.of -.ll(n.s.) Hours >̂ Negative TV > TRUST

Attributes R̂ =.04(n.s.)

R^=.O1 (n.s.)

Path coefficients are estimated from standard regression weights.

P-value is in parentheses; n.s. = not significant.

quency of TV viewing did not predict more Native American attributes perceived in TV portrayals, nor positive stereotyping. The number of perceived positive and negative TV attributes each predicted one stereotype factor (out of 4). TV portrayals of Native Americans were scarce; only 2.1 TV attributes could be recalled on the average by our respondents. This scarcity of portrayals may have diluted any possible effects.

Our analysis assumes that interracial contact and evaluation of this contact lead to positive or negative stereotyping, and not the other way around. It is possible that the causal relationship could flow in the other direction, or that the relationship could be bi-directional. In the absence of longitudinal data, we base our model on the direction of causality suggested by the theories we reviewed. Extremity-complexity and stage theories of

N/mVE AMERICAN STEREUTYPES, TV POKTRAYMS, AND PERSONAI. Cot/rAcr 281

stereotyping suggest that contact leads to knowledge which then leads to group evaluation. Learning theories suggest that evaluation of contact leads to evaluation of the stimulus. We also asked our respondents to evaluate their first contact with the target group, which significantly predicted stereotyp- ing. Future research should investigate the causality issue more directly, using longitudinal data, and in different populations.

Two major limitations of this study should be noted. First, college students are more likely than the general adult population to have more contact with Native Americans and to have less negative stereotypes. Also, they watch television less frequently. We probably would find stronger relationships between our predictor variables and stereotyping of Native Americans in a general adult population since there would be greater lati- tude for change from neutral or negative to positive stereotypes.

Second, our measures for TV use did not distinguish between content types. We used a global measure by asking our respondents about portrayals of Native Americans in movies and TV programs they "have recently seen." We therefore asked viewers about their perceptions of Native American portrayals in general. As a validity check, further research should compare results from our observer-based procedure for evaluating message contents with results from more conventional content analysis of specific TV pro- grams and genres.

NOTES

1. Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Cambridge, MA: Addison- Wesley, 1958).

2. Lee Sigelman and Susan Welch, "The Contact Hypothesis Revisited: Black-White Interaction and Positive Racial Attitudes," Social Forces 71 (March 1993): 781-95.

3. John C. Brigham, "Racial Stereotypes, Attitudes, and Evaluation of Behavioral Intentions toward Negroes and Whites," Sociometry 34 (Septem- ber 1971); 360-80; John Brigham, "Ethnic Stereotypes," Psycholoi^ical Bulletin 76 (July 1971): 15-38; Ma Mackie, "Arriving at the Truth' by Definition: The Case of Stereotype Inaccuracy," Social Problems 20 (spring 1973): 431 -47.

4. Peter R. Grant and John G. Holmes, "The Integration of Implicit Personality Theory Schemas and Stereotype Images," Social Psychology Quar- terly U (June 1981): 107-U5.

5. Tom V. Smith, "Ethnic Images in the United States," The Polling Report 7 (May 1991): 1-5.

6. Smith, "Ethnic Images in the United States." 7. Smith, "Ethnic Images in the United States." 8. Gretchen M. Bataille and Charles L. P. Silet, eds.. The Pretend Indians:

Images of Native Americans in the Movies (Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1995); Lester G. Moses, Wild West Shows and the Images of American Indians JSS3-I933 (Albuquerque: Universityof New Mexico Press, 1996); Michael C. Keith, Signals in the Air (Westport, CT: Praeger Publisher, 1995).

9. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing: Summary Population and Housing Characteristics (Washington, DC: GPO, 1990).

10. Joseph G. Ponterotto and J. S. Casa, Handbook of Racial I Ethnic Minor- ity Counseling Research (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1991).

11. Chnsiincl. Bennett.Comprehensiz'eMulticultural Education:Theory and

282 JouRNAusM £f MASS CoMMUNicAnoN

Practice (Bloominglon, IN: Allyn and Bacon, 1990). 12. Roger D. Herring, "Seeing a New Paradigm: Counseling Native

Americans," journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 20 (January 1992): 35-43.

13. Herring, "Seeing a New Paradigm." 14. Swintimish Tribal Mental Health Project, A Gathering of Wisdoms -

Tribal Mental Health: A Guttural Perspective (La Conner, WA: Swinomish Tribal Community, 1991).

15. Swinomish Tribal Mental Health Project, A Gathering of Wisdoms, 122. 16. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing. 17. Swinomish Tribal Mental Health Project,/I Gfl/̂ mM î; of W/siioms, 121, 18. Bataille and Silet, The Pretend Indians. 19. Bataille and Silet, The Pretend Indians, 65, 77, 79, 88, 107,112. 20. JoEllen Shively, "Cowboys and Indians: Perceptions of Western Films

Among American Indians and Anglos," American Sociological Review 57 (December 1992): 725-34.

21. Shively, "Cowboys and Indians." 22. Susan Gordon, "Board of Ed Asked to Ban Indian Mascots," Spokes-

man-Rcvieiv 11 (September 1993). 23. Patricia Linville and Edward E, Jones, "Polarized Appraisal of Out-

Group Members," journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38 (May 1980): 689-703; Patricia Linville, "The Complexity-Extremity Effect and Age Based Stereotyping," journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42 (Eebruary 1982): 193 211.

24. Lee Jussim, Leria Coleman and Lauren Lerch, "The Nature of Stereo- types: A Comparison and Integration of Three Theories," journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology 52 (March 1987): 536-46.

25. Linville and Jones, "Polarized Appraisal of Out-Ciroup Members." 26. Miles Hewstone and Rupert Brown, "Contact Is Not Enough: An

Intergroup Perspective on the 'Contact Hypothesis,'" in Contact and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters, ed. M. Hewstone and R. Brown (Cambridge, MA: Basil-Blackwell, 1986), 1-44.

27. Rupert Brown and Gillian Wade, "Superordinate Goals and Inter- group Behavior: The Effect of Role Ambiguity and Status on Intergroup Attitudes and Task Performance," European journal of Social Psychology 17 (April-June, 1987): 131-42.

28. Hewstone and Brown, "Contact is Not Enough." 29. Mary Jackman and Marie Crane, "Some of My Best Friends are

Black...Interracial Friendship and White Racial Attitudes," Public Opinion Quarterly 50 (winter 1986): 459-86.

30. Sigelman and Welch, "The Contact Hypothesis Revisited." 31. Sigelman and Welch, "The Contact Hypothesis Revisited." 32. Donna M. Desforges, Charles G. Lord, Shawna L. Ramsey, Julie A.

Mason, Marilyn A. Van Leeuwen, Sylvia C. West, and Mark P. Lepper, "Effects of Structured Cooperative Contact on Changing Negative Attitudes Toward Stigmatized Social CJroups," journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy 60 (April 1991): 531-44.

33. Sigelman and Welch, "The Contact Hypothesis Revisited." 34. Jackman and Crane, "Some of My Best Friends are Black." 35. Desforges et al., "Effects of Structured Cooperative Contact." 36. Ellen Berscheid and Elaine Walster, "Physical Attractiveness," in

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed, Leonard Berkowitz, (NY: Academic Press, 1974); Mary B, Brewer, "A Dual Process Model of Impres-

NATIVL AMFIUCAN STEREOiypLs, TV POIUI<AYMS, AND PFH-HMAI. G'NT/ICT 283

sion Formation," in Advances in Social Cognition I, ed. Thomas K. Srull and Robert S. Wyer (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988), 1-36.

37. AlbertBandura, Sof/fl/LcflrnmgTheory(EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 1977); Albert Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986).

38. George Gerbner, Larry Gross, Michael Morgan, and Nancy Signorielli, "Living with Television: The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process," in Per- spectives on Media Effects, ed. Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986), 17-40.

39. Elizabeth M. Perse, Douglas A. Ferguson, and Douglas M. McLeod, "CultivaHon in the Newer Media Environment," Communication Research 21 (February 1994): 79-104.

40. Gerbner et al., "Living with Television," 37. 41. Paula W. Matabane, "Television and The Black Audience: Cultivating

Moderate Perspectives on Racial Integration," journal of Communication 38 (autumn 1988): 379-90.

42. Linville and Jones, "Polarized Appraisal of Out-Group Members"; Linville, "The Complexity-Extremity Effect."

43. Berscheid and Walster, "Physical Attractiveness"; Brewer, "A Dual Process Model of Impression Formation."

44. Berscheid and Walster, "Physical AttracHvess"; Brewer, "A Dual Process Model of Impression Formation."

45. Desforges et al., "Effects of Structured Cooperative Contact." 46. The two universities, seven miles apart, are within thirty miles of two

Native American "reservations." One university waives out-of-state tuition for Native Americans from a nearby reservation.

47. Smith, "Ethnic Images in the United States." 48. Yoianda F. Neimann, Leilani Jennings, Richard M. Rozelle, James C.

Baxter, and Elroy Sullivan, "Use of Free Responses and Cluster Analysis to Determine Stereotypes of Eight Groups," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20 (August 1994): 379-90.

49. Niemann et al., "Use of Free Responses."

284 jouRNAiJSM & MASS COMMUNKAIK >N QUAKJ-F.RI,I