- Email: [email protected]
The effects of affective and cognitive treatment on attitude change toward ethnic minority groups
Inrernorionrrl JournP of lnlerculfuief Retntions, Vol. 7, ~9.149-165, Printed in the USA. All rights reserved.
0147-I767/S3/020149~17S03.~/0 Copyright 0 1983 Pergamon Press Lfd
1983
THE EFFECTS OF AFFECTIVE AND COGNITIVE TREATMENT ON ATTITUDE CHANGE TOWARD ETHNIC MINORITY GROUPS
SHA REESE
Brigham
B. C. t. FUR UT0
Young University-Hawaii
DA VID M. FURUTO Windward
Community
College, University of Hawaii
ABSTRACT. Thepurpose of this s/u& was to compare the effects of cognitive and affective treatments on the attitudes of white university students in Hawaii (a place where many ethnic minority groups live with tittle overt diser~m~nation and where no one racial group, such as the whites, is in the majorit_y) toward ethnic minorit_v groups. it was hypothesized that the rank order of the groups from most .favorable to least favorable in social distance and attitude for and against ethnic minorit? groups, would be: Affective Treatment, Cognitive Treatment, Hawaii Control, and Mainland Comparison Group. The Social Distance Scale and Prejudice and Rotionality Scale were used as pretest and posttest instruments in the Fall, 1980 with 94 Brigham Young University- Hawaii Campus (B YU- HC) and 30 Brigham Young Universit.)’ (B YU) in Utah undergraduate students. Analysis qf covariance led to supporting the three hypotheses at the 0.01 significance level, It was found that the Aflective Treatment Group consistentlv had a greater change in attitude toward ethnic minorities followed by the Cognitt’ve, Hawaii Control, and Mainland Comparison Groups. It was concluded that the qffecrive treatment was the most effective in changing attitudes toward ethnic minority groups.
INTRODUCTION Much research has been conducted in the area of attitude promote racial harmony between blacks and whites. According (1981) there are five types of programs which can be used intercultural attitudes: (a) self-awareness, in which people learn cultural bases of their own behavior; (b) cognitive training,
change to to Rrislin to change about the in which
This paper is based on the principal author’s doctoral dissertation completed at the Brigham Young University, 1981. Theadvice of RichardW. Brislin isgmtefuIl~acknowledged. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Sharfene Laie, Hawaii 96762.
B.C.L. Furuto,
149
~YU~Hawaii
Campus,
Box 1858,
150
Sharlene Fururo and D&d
M. Furuto
people are presented various facts about other cultures; (c) attribution training, in which people learn the explanation of behavior from the point of view of people in other cultures; (d) behavior modification, in which people analyze the aspects of their own culture that they find rewarding and punishing; and, (e) experiential learning, in which people actively participate in realistic simulations of other cultures. Further, Rosenberg and Hovland (1966) analyzed attitudes according to three components: affective, cognitive, and conative, all of which were encompassed in Brislin’s framework. Most attitude change research has focused on the affective component, although studies by Katz and Rraly (I 933) and La Piere ( 1934) paved the way for keen interest in the cognitive and conative components, respectively. Of the research studies which focused on attitude change in intercultural situations, there is little direction to indicate whether an affective treatment or cognitive treatment is more effective when the subjects are not members of the dominant group. Also there is little in the literature regarding attitude change toward Polynesians and Orientals (Feagin, 1978). Further information regarding the above would be helpful, particularly in view of the thousands of Polynesians and Orientals who have been immigrating to the Continental U.S.A. and their subsequent adjustment difficulties in the last decade. Many Polynesians, due to their physical features (dark skin and kinky hair), have been mistakenly identified as being Negroes. As such, non-Polynesians will sometimes have the same attitude toward Negroes and Polynesians. Due to attitude transference, it is not unfounded to conclude that one’s attitudes toward Negroes can be similar to one’s attitudes toward Polynesians. In addition, information regarding the above focusing on Negroes or Polynesians would be useful in situations and/or locations where the Negroes or Polynesians, are the dominant group. Information on the above could also ameliorate interpersonal relationship problems between the Polynesians, Orientals, and Negroes with whites in places where numbers of all four cultures come into contact. This experiment focused on attitude change toward Polynesians, Orientals, and Negroes due to affective treatment, cognitive treatment, and no planned treatment in Hawaii where the white subjects did not constitute the dominant racial group. In addition, a comparison group on the Continental U.S.A. was a part of the experiment. The authors predicted that the white students subjected to the affective treatment would make the most favorable change toward Polynesians, Orientals, and Negroes in terms of decreasing social distance (i.e., close social acceptance of an ethnic minority group), increasing positive attitude (Note I) for ethnic minority groups (i.e., attitude for or in favor of ethnic minority groups), and decreasing negative attitude against ethnic minority
Effects qf Affective/
Cognitive
Treatments
on Attitude
Change
151
groups (i.e., attitude against or in disfavor of ethnic minority groups). This prediction is derived from Allport (1954), Amir (1969), and Brislin (1981) who concluded that affective interpersonal relationships have produced more significant attitude changes toward ethnic minority groups than other treatments. It was also predicted that the group subjected to the cognitive treatment would make favorable attitude changes, although not to the degree as those who were exposed to the affective treatment. This is derived from Simpson and Yinger (1972) who concluded that the usefulness of information dissemination in producing favorable attitudes toward other groups may have some positive effects but has been less influential than what many have believed. The authors further predicted that the Hawaii Control Group would make more favorable attitude changes toward ethnic minority groups than the Mainland Comparison Group due to the fact that the former group would have more exposure (Zajonc, 1968) to ethnic minority groups as part of their everyday lives than would members of the latter. Since the Mainland Comparison Group did not undergo any treatment and had minimal contact with ethnic minority groups, it was predicted that they would demonstrate the least attitude change in terms of social distance and attitude for and against ethnic minority groups. Subjects in the four groups were thus predicted to indicate varying attitudes of not only social distance but also attitude for and against ethnic minority groups.
Hypotheses HI: The rank order of the groups from most favorable to least favorable in social distance toward Negroes, Orientals and Polynesians will be: Affective Treatment, Cognitive Treatment, Hawaii Control, and Mainland Comparison Group. HI: The rank order of the groups from most favorable to least favorable in positive attitude for ethnic minority groups will be: Affective Treatment, Cognitive Treatment, Hawaii Control, and Mainland Comparison Group. H1: The rank order of the groups from most favorable to least favorable in negative attitude against ethnic minority groups will be: Affective Treatment, Cognitive Treatment, Hawaii Control, and Mainland Comparison Group.
METHOD Subjects Altogether there were 124 subjects, all of whom were white, single, fulltime students who belonged to the Mormon Church. The sample consisted of 65 females and 59 males. There were 70 subjects between 18
152
Sharlene Furuto and David M. Furuto
and 19 while 54 reported to be between 20 and 24 years of age. The mean income of the parents of the subjects was approximately $18,000. There were 64 freshmen and 60 sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Ninety-four subjects were randomly selected from all students who enrolled at the Brigham Young University-Hawaii Campus (BYU-HC) for the first time in the Fall, 1980. These students had never been to Hawaii prior to the Fall, 1980. At the BYU-HC, these white students found themselves to no longer be members of the dominant racial group. Rather, a majority of the BYU-HC student body was composed of Polynesians and Orientals. Approximately 65% of the student body were of Polynesian and/or Oriental ethnic origin and 35% were of white ethnic origin. Meanwhile, 30 subjects were randomly selected at the Brigham Young University (BYU) in Utah and comprised the Mainland Comparison Group. Members of the Mainland Comparison Group were enrolled in one of four English Il.5 course sections. English I15 is the freshman English course and is required for graduation from BYU in Utah. Ninetyone English 115 course sections were offered during the Fall, 1980 semester, of which four were randomly selected and used. The racial makeup at the BYU in Utah was in sharp contrast to that at the BYU-HC. Approximately 90% of the students at BYU in Utah were white and lOV0 were nonwhite. Few activities involving contact among people from various cultural groups were held on the BYU in Utah campus in comparison to the BYU-HC. Instruments The Social Distance Scale and Prejudice and Rationality Scale were the pretest and posttest instruments used in the study. Both instruments were administered at the beginning and end of the Fall, 1980 semester to the 94 BYU-HC and 30 BYU in Utah subjects. Directions for the questionnaires were based on those used by Bogardus (1959) and Schuman and Harding (1964). First the Social Distance Scale was administered, followed by the Prejudice and Rationality Scale. Procedure On the BYU-HC, after all the pretest questionnaires collected, the subjects were randomly divided into three groups:
had
been
Experimental Group One: Affective Treatment Group Experimental Group Two: Cognitive Treatment Group No Planned Treatment: Hawaii Control Group Experimental Group One, the Affective Treatment Group, into four subgroups of eight white subjects each. In addition,
was divided eight ethnic
Effects ofAfJctive/
Cognitive
Treatments
on Atritude
Change
153
minority BYU-HC students who had volunteered to participate in the experiment were added to each of the four subgroups. These Polynesian and Oriental students (Tongan, Samoan, Hawaiian, Fijian, Maori, Tahitian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, and Vietnamese) were added to the four subgroups to racially mix the subgroups and provide opportunities for close interpersonal relationships between white subjects and ethnic minority students. Therefore, each affective treatment subgroup was comprised of 16 individuals, of whom half were randomly selected white subjects and half were ethnic minority volunteers. All members in each affective subgroup were pretested, treated, and posttested; however, only the eight white students in each of the four subgroups comprised the BYU-HC sample. Altogether there were 32 subjects in the Affective Treatment Group. The four subgroups convened on a weekly basis throughout the semester to participate in spiritual, cultural, and social experiences. The subgroups met for two hours per week to review the cultural backgrounds, values, common behavioral patterns, and feeling of the Samoan, Hawaiian, Chinese, and Negro ethnic minority groups. Altogether, the subgroups met for 14 weeks in an informal group setting for a brief spiritual lesson followed by the cultural discussion and/or activity. Refreshments, of the type customarily served in Polynesia or the Orient, were usually provided after each group session while participants were observed to interact and socialize in a spirit of camaraderie. One group session proceeded as follows: prayer; short spiritual lesson about “Unconditional Love”; the Samoan group member discussed his background and lifestyle in Samoa, including his family, the education he received, what he did for recreation, folkways he observed; his feelings regarding the above; question and answer period; and refreshments unique to Samoa. Group activities were also held during those weeks when there was no group presentation or discussion. One group activity that was intended to better understand the Chinese consisted of visiting Chinatown in Honolulu. In Chinatown, the Chinese group members led the groups through the open market, Temple, shops, theater, park, and apartment buildings. During lunch at a Chinese restaurant, the Chinese students described their backgrounds, lifestyles, and relevant feelings. Throughout the experience, the students had the opportunity to talk and mingle with the local Chinese people. Experimental Group Two, the Cognitive Treatment Group, met for an hour each week for classroom instruction. The Cognitive Treatment Group convened for a total of 14 weeks, and lessons emphasized the cultural backgrounds, values, and common behavioral patterns of the Samoan, Hawaiian, Chinese, and Negro ethnic minority groups. The methodology used within and outside the classroom included: lectures,
154
Sharlene Furuto and David M. Furuto
readings, multi-media presentations, small group discussions, role play, mime, field trips, values clarification and cultural activities. Thirty-one subjects were assigned to Experimental Group Two; there were no other people besides the 31 who met regularly over the 14 week period. In sharp contrast to the Affective Treatment Group, there was no close contact between ethnic minority groups and whites in the Cognitive Treatment Group. An example of a classroom presentation follows. The concept to be taught was the matai system and how it cares for the political, educational, and social welfare of the Samoan family. The means by which this concept was taught included a lecture, a cassette recording, and a small group discussion, all of which focused on the matai system. The group discussion was led by an outside visitor who was a Samoan talking chief well respected by his peers. The Hawaii Control Group or no planned treatment group included 3 1 students. While the students did not undergo any planned treatment, the students were nevertheless exposed and encouraged to participate in the multitude of on-campus and off-campus cross-cultural activities during the Fall, 1980 semester. For example, during weekly student general assemblies, students were encouraged to experience the diverse cultures at the BYU-HC. Further, ethnic minority clubs, the Mormon Church wards (congregations), and the neighboring Polynesian Cultural Center frequently sponsored cultural activities throughout the semester. In addition, subjects may have attended classes, resided in dormitories, shared meals, gone to social activities, and attended church meetings with members of the different ethnic minority groups on campus. Thus, the Hawaii Control Group represented typical experiences available at BYU-HC, while the Affective and Cognitive Treatment Groups represented interactions above and beyond the typical experiences. On the BYU in Utah campus the Mainland Comparison Group, which was composed of 30 white students, had no planned intervention. Due to the predominance of whites at the BYU in Utah, the Mainland Comparison Group was considered to be relatively free from contact with Polynesians and Orientals.
RESULTS Disposition
of Hypothesis
One
Three analyses of covariance were conducted using the respective covariate pretests: social distance toward Negroes, Orientals, and Polynesians. The analysis of covariance revealed significant differences at the 0.01 level. There were differences between the four groups (Affective Treatment Group, Cognitive Treatment Group, Hawaii Control Group,
Effects of Affective/Cognitive
Treatments on Attitude Change
155
and Mainland Comparison Group) in social distance towards Negroes (F = 10.7, df = 3, 90), Orientals (F = 10.8, df = 3, 90), and Polynesians (F = 9.8, df = 3, 90).
Social distance toward Negroes. To determine where the differences existed in terms of social distance toward Negroes, six sub-hypotheses were analyzed through t tests. Of the six, three showed differences at the .O1 significance level. In each of the three comparisons which follow, the first group exhibited a significantly closer social distance toward Negroes than the second group: (a) Affective Treatment Group (Affective) over Mainland Comparison Group (Mainland); (b) Cognitive Treatment Group (Cognitive) over Mainland; and (c) Hawaii Control Group (Hawaii) over Mainland. In the following, of the three sub-hypotheses which failed to be rejected at the 0.01 significance level, although there were no significant differences between the comparisons, the first group indicated a closer social distance toward Negroes than the second group: (a) Affective over Cognitive; (b) Affective over Hawaii; and, (c) Cognitive over Hawaii. The statistical data are displayed in Table 1 for the adjusted means (that is, adjusted for the covariate) for the significance levels on the comparisons between the groups. Social distance toward Orientals. To determine where the differences existed in terms of social distance toward Orientals, six comparisons of the four treatment groups were carried out. In each of the following, the first group exhibited a significantly closer social distance toward Orientals than the second group: (a) Affective over Mainland; (b) Cognitive over Mainland; and, (c) Hawaii over Mainland. In the following, although there were no significant differences between the comparisons, the first group indicated a closer social distance toward Orientals than the second group: (a) Affective over Cognitive; (b) Affective over Hawaii; and, (c) Hawaii over Cognitive. The statistical data can be seen in Table 1 for the adjusted means for the four groups and for the significance levels on the comparisons between the groups. Social distance toward Polynesians. To determine where the differences existed in social distance toward Polynesians, six comparisons of the four treatment groups were carried out. In the following, the first group demonstrated a significantly closer social distance toward Polynesians than the second group: (a) Affective over Mainland; (b) Cognitive over Mainland; and, (c) Hawaii over Mainland. In the following, although there were no significant differences between the comparisons, the first group indicated a closer social distance toward Polynesians than the second group: (a) Affective over Cognitive; (b) Affective over Hawaii;
156
Skarlene
Furum
and David
M. Furuto
TABLE 1 Social Distance toward Negroes, Orientals, and Polynesians Adjusted Distance
Means (LSM) for the Posttest on Social
t Tests for Specific Comparisons Between
LSM
Standard Error
3.12 3.16 3.42 3.89
0.017 0.110 0.108 0.109
Groups
Comparisons
P
toward Negroes Affective Treatment Cognitive Treatment Hawaii Control Mainland Comparison
Affective -Cognitive Affective -Hawaii Affective -Mainland Cognitive-Hawaii Cognitive-Mainland Hawaii -Mainland
* 0.04 0.01 * 0.01 0.01
toward Orientals Affective Treatment Cognitive Treatment Hawaii Control Mainland Comparison
2.72 3.02 2.93 3.47
0.095 0.098 0.097 0.097
Affective -Cognitive Affective -Hawaii Affective -Mainland Cognitive - Hawaii Cognitive-Mainland Hawaii -Mainland
0.03 . 0.03 l
0.01 0.01
toward Polynesians Affective Treatment Cognitive Treatment Hawaii Control Mainland Comparison
*Indicate
probability
2.60 2.94 2.98 3.44
0.109 0.111 0.109 0.111
greater than 0.05 significance
Affective -Cognitive Affective -Hawaii Affective -Mainland Cognitive-Hawaii Cognitive -Mainland -Mainland Hawaii
0.03 0.02 0.01 * 0.01 0.01
level.
and, (c) Cognitive over Hawaii. The statistical data can be seen in Table 1 for the adjusted means and for the significance levels on the comparisons between the adjusted means of the groups.
Analysis of covariance was conducted using the covariate pretest positive attitude for ethnic minority groups. The analysis of covariance revealed significant differences at the 0.01 level. There were differences between the four groups in positive attitude for ethnic minority groups (F = 16.1, df = 3, 90).
Effects of Affective/
Cognitive
Treatments
on Attitude
Change
1.57
TABLE 2 Positive and Negative Attitude For and Against Ethnic Minority Groups Adjusted Means (LSM) Positive Attitude toward Group
for Ethnic Minority
Affective Treatment Cognitive Treatment Hawaii Control Mainland Comparison
Negative Attitude
89.33 87.77 86.69 85.61
Against
Affective Treatment Cognitive Treatment Hawaii Control Mainland Comparison
probability
Minority 94.10 95.07 95.49 96.72
t Tests for Specific Comparisons Between Groups
Standard Error
LSM
Positive Attitude
‘Indicate
for the Posttest on Ethnic Minority Groups
Comparisons
P
Groups 0.389 0.399 0.395 0.401
Affective -Cognitive Affective -Hawaii Affective -Mainland Cognitive-Hawaii Cognitive-Mainland Hawaii -Mainland
0.01 0.01 0.01 f 0.01 0.05
Groups 0.294 0.301 0.303 0.298
greater than 0.05 significance
Affective -Cognitive Affective -Hawaii Affective -Mainland Cognitive-Hawaii Cognitive-Mainland -Mainland Hawaii
0.02 0.01 0.01 . 0.01 0.01
level.
Positive attitude for ethnic minority groups. To determine where the significant differences occurred in terms of positive attitude for ethnic minority groups, t tests were applied to analyze six sub-hypotheses. Of the six, four showed differences at the .Ol significance level. In each of the following comparisons, the first group demonstrated a higher positive attitude for ethnic minority groups (i.e., a more favorable attitude) than the second group: (a) Affective over Cognitive; (b) Affective over Hawaii; (c) Affective over Mainland; and, (d) Cognitive over Mainland. From the sub-hypotheses that failed to be rejected, while no significant differences were found between the comparisons, the first group exhibited a higher positive attitude for ethnic minority groups than the second group: (a) Cognitive over Hawaii; and, (b) Hawaii over Mainland. To support the preceding discussion, Table 2 on the adjusted means and on the significance levels provide the statistical data. Disposition
of Hypothesis
Three
Analysis of covariance was conducted using the covariate pretest negative attitude against ethnic minority groups. The analysis of covariance revealed significant differences across the four treatment groups at the 0.01 level. There were differences between the four groups in negative attitude against ethnic minority groups (F = 13.4, df =3, 90).
158
Shartene Furuto and David hf. Furuto
Negative attitude against ethnic minority groups. To determine where the significant differences occurred, statistical I tests were applied to analyze the six sub-hypotheses. Of the six, four showed differences at the 0.01 significance level. In each of the following comparisons, the first group exhibited a lower negative attitude against ethnic minority groups score (i.e., a more favorable attitude) than the second group: (a) Affective over Hawaii; (b) Affective over Mainland; (c) Cognitive over Mainland; and, (d) Hawaii over Mainland. On the other hand, although there were no signi~cant differences between the following two comparisons, the first group indicated a lower negative attitude against ethnic minority groups than the second group: (a) Affective over Cognitive; and, (b) Cognitive over Hawaii. Table 2 on the adjusted means for the four groups and on the significance levels on the comparisons between the adjusted means of the groups provide the statistical data. DISCUSSION
Hypotheses
and Sub-hypotheses
All three hypotheses were confirmed. It was interesting to note that when the four groups were compared with each other, the Affective Treatment Group consistently showed the most favorable attitude change in social distance as well as greater positive attitude for and less negative attitude against ethnic minority groups followed by the Cognitive, Hawaii Control, and Mainland Comparison Groups when: (a) white subjects were no longer the dominant racial group and (b) the ethnic minority groups studied were Polynesians and Orientals. The one exception to the pattern was in comparing the Hawaii Control Group and Cognitive Treatment Group in social distance toward Orientals. In this relationship, the Hawaii Control Group indicated a more favorable social distance towards Orientals than the Cognitive Treatment Group. In comparing the four groups in the experiment on social distance and attitude for and against ethnic minority groups, 30 sub-hypotheses were generated. Seventeen out of the 30 sub-hypotheses were accepted at the 0.01 significance level. Although 13 sub-hypotheses failed to be accepted at the 0.01 level, the trend indicated that more favorable attitudes were obtained according to the above ranking of the four treatment groups.
Affective
why the Affective Treatment Group. One explanation Treatment Group demonstrated the most favorable attitude change in social distance and positive attitude for and less negative attitude against ethnic minority groups is that the affective treatment had elements identified in previous research as effective (Brisiin, 1981). Meeting on a weekly basis as a mixed group of eight ethnic minority and eight white
Effwts
of Affective/Cognitive
Treatments
on Attitude
Change
159
members to share ideas and feelings and participate in activities helped most to bridge the gap between whites and people of Polynesian and Oriental origin and promote a positive attitude toward ethnic minority groups. A program which offered the opportunity for whites, Polynesians, and Orientals to discuss topics, share feelings and ideas, and participate in activities for 14 weeks may have assisted in better understanding another’s values, traditions, and standards. It should be noted that the group members also related with one another informally before and after the groups convened. The group meeting was an excellent vehicle for permitting the students to meet and interact with each other on a close and ongoing basis while learning about their cultural similarities and differences. For example, some discussion sessions began with the planned topics but led to other, innermost revelations of sentiments common to all, thus developing a more cohesive group. An eventual discovery that several affective treatment subgroups made was that there were more similarities than differences between the whites and the various ethnic minority groups.
Cognitive Treatment Group. The Cognitive Treatment Group demonstrated less favorable attitude change than the Affective Treatment Group but more favorable attitude change than the Hawaii Control and Mainland Comparison Groups, as hypothesized. However, the Cognitive Treatment Group made more favorable attitude changes toward ethnic minorities than was expected from perusal through the research literature. For example, the literature indicated that information dissemination about ethnic minorities did not materially change attitudes toward those paiticular groups (Simpson & Yinger, 1972). This was not to say that transmitting such information had no value, but rather that its usefulness in producing more favorable attitudes toward ethnic minority groups was less than many professional educators have believed. Simpson and Yinger (1972) further claimed that: Purely factual instruction tends to mitigate some of the more extreme expressions of prejudice and that, where there is any readiness to receive it, it provides some protection against the mob-raising appeals to which ignorance is exposed.. . . Greater knowledge may not seriously change our evaluations (p. 222). One possible reason for the consistently favorable change in attitude could have been that, while the cognitive treatment consisted of a classroom experience, the experience was nontraditional and lectures were minimized. Instead, the learning experiences consisted frequently and regularly of activities such as mime, role play, small group discussion, and field trips. The Affective Treatment Group, Cognitive Treatment Group, and Hawaii Control Group members, due to their living in Hawaii during the
160
Shariene Furuto and David M. Fzrruto
experiment, were exposed to many ethnic cultural activities and ethnic minority peoples. The significance of this situation is detailed later in this article. At this point, however, it should be noted that while all three groups regularly experienced a variety of ethnic cultural activities and ethnic minority groups, the members of the Affective Treatment and Cognitive Treatment Groups were exposed to additional ethnic cultural activities and peoples due to the respective experimental treatments. That is, the Affective Treatment Group and Cognitive Treatment Group members had the opportunity to participate in ethnic cultural activities and relate to ethnic minority group members above and beyond what the Hawaii Control Group members were exposed to due to the affective and cognitive treatments. This may be an explanation for the greater attitude changes made by the Affective Treatment Group and Cognitive Treatment Group members than the Hawaii Controi Group members.
Hawaii Control Group. The finding that the Hawaii Control Group underwent a favorable change in attitude toward ethnic minority groups could be due to several reasons. The reasons, however, would apply to not only the Hawaii Control Group but also the Affective and Cognitive Treatment Groups as well. First, the subjects in the three groups lived in Hawaii for one semester and were exposed to more ethnic minorities than whites both on-campus and off-campus (State of Hawaii Statisrical Report 143, 1981; Willardson, 1980; B KU--HC several Catalog 19801981). Given the very large number of ethnic minority peoples with whom the subjects related for three and a half months in a positive social climate, it is possible to conclude that having interacted with the ethnic minorities made a favorable impact on changing attitudes toward them. A second reason the three groups underwent a favorable change in attitude could have been due to off-campus and on-campus exposure to many ethnic activities. These cultural experiences may have altered the subjects’ attitudes toward ethnic minorities as well. There were many ethnic activities offered off-campus by nonuniversity sponsors during the Fall, 1980. Following are some examples of nonuniversity sponsored cultural activities: Aloha Week parade (including dance, sports, and food demonstrations); Cultural Center Caper (including dance, martial arts, food demonstrations, films. dragon dance, firecracker display), ~aka~iki No Ka Oi (Polynesian talent show); department stores’ demonstrations (how to prepare Oriental foods, how to sew a kimono, the art of floral arrangement), and Polynesian Cultural Center Special Observations Days (Samoan Day, Tongan Day, Hawaiian Day). Subjects were exposed to cultural experiences not only off-campus but also on-campus. On the BYU-HC itself, some of the many cultural activities which were held for student observation and/or participation included the following: Clubs Cultural Night (talent show), Hawaiian
Effects of Affective/
Cognitive
Treatments
on Attitude
Change
161
Club Assembly, Chinese Club Assembly, and International Week (sports, foods, slides, dance, and language demonstrations). In addition to these, the Mormon Church wards (congregations) sponsored regular activities when ethnic talent shows were a part of the program. Also, subjects attended classes, lived in dormitories, ate meals, and attended Church with members of many ethnic groups. Due to the great number of diverse cultural activities described above, it was possible that the subjects were exposed to a number of them and/or others and that these experiences fostered a change in attitude toward ethnic minority groups. The third possible reason for the consistently favorable change in attitude made by the Affective Treatment, Cognitive Treatment, and Hawaii Control Groups could have been because the subjects were affected by the romanticism of Hawaii. For example, subjects were removed from their familiar settings and introduced to a multitude of new and perhaps appealing experiences. It was possible that the acceptance of the new experiences encouraged an acceptance of the ethnic peoples also. The fourth possible explanation for the favorable change in attitude reported by the three groups was that the overall group membership of the subjects changed. When the subjects left the Continental U.S.A., they parted with membership in various social groups and initiated new social group memberships and relationships on the BYU-HC. It is conceivable to expect that when the subjects found themselves in new groups with markedly different and clearly positive standards from previous ones with regard to ethnic relations, there was a terminating of the old standards and an adhering to the new standards of relating to ethnic minority groups. The fifth possible reason for the positive attitude change was that the white subjects were under-represented and were minorities themselves in an environment of many other minorities. It was possible that the white subjects at times felt like minorities and were thus able to empathize with how minorities such as the Polynesians and Orientals might feel when on the Continental U.S.A., for example. An acquisition of this empathetic feeling may have induced favorable attitude changes toward ethnic minority groups. The sixth and last possible explanation offered is that the population density may have contributed to the favorable attitude changes. BYUHC had an enrollment of 1,800 students, was located in a rural town of approximately 6,000 residents, and was relatively isolated from the metropolitan area of Honolulu, Hawaii. BYU in Utah, on the other hand, had an enrollment of 26,000 students, was located in a town of approximately 55,000 residents, and was proximate to the amenities that a relatively large metropolis offers. Thus, with fewer persons and variables that impinge upon interpersonal relationships, the interaction between the white subject members of ethnic minority groups was probably increased.
162
Sharlene Furuto and David M. Furuto
Consequently, subjects at the BYU-HC had more opportunities to expand their understanding and appreciation of ethnic minority groups than subjects at the BYU in Utah.
Mainland Comparison Group. The Mainland Comparison Group never indicated a more favorable attitude toward ethnic minority groups, in contrast to the other three Hawaii Groups in the experiment. The above could have been an indication that although the Mainland Comparison Group may have cognitively developed an understanding of ethnic minorities as part of their general studies at a liberal arts university, the affective dimension was not substantively modified.
CONCLUSIONS The following were drawn as a result of investigating the three hypotheses of this study: I. The affective treatment was found to be the most effective treatment in changing attitudes toward ethnic minority groups. In essence, affective treatment consisted of providing white subjects with the opportunity to meet regularly and frequently in an informal group setting with an equal number of ethnic minority group members for indepth cultural, spiritual, social discussions, and activities. 2. The cognitive treatment was found to be less effective than the affective treatment in changing attitudes toward ethnic minority groups; however, in situations where affective treatment is not possible and/or preferred, then cognitive treatment could be used to change attitudes toward ethnic minority groups. 3. The experience of the Hawaii Control Group or no planned treatment was found to be an effective treatment in changing attitudes toward ethnic minority groups, although not as effective as the affective and cognitive treatments; therefore, in situations where the affective and cognitive treatments are not possible and/or preferred, attitude change in a multiethnic setting which emphasized positive intergroup relations can still have a favorable effect.
RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations are made: 1. It is recommended that affective treatment be used to encourage more positive attitudes toward ethnic minority groups. The approach can be used in institutions wherein whites and ethnic minority groups relate one to another.
Effects of Affective/
Cognitive
Treatments
on Attitude
Change
163
2. It
is recommended also that a research study be designed and conducted to determine more specifically the most effective content and methodology to change attitudes toward ethnic minorities in a group contact experience. 3. Cognitive treatment is recommended to change attitudes toward ethnic minority groups but not at the expense of affective treatment, whenever possible. 4. It is recommended that an experience such as that which the Hawaii Control Group underwent (i.e., frequent and regular exposure to many ethnic minority group members and activities) be used to change attitudes toward ethnic minority groups, but not at the expense of affective and cognitive treatments. REFERENCE
NOTE
1. The position the authors take on attitude is that of Schuman and Harding (1964) who developed the concepts irrational attitude for (irrational pro) and irrational attitude against (irrational anti) ethnic minority groups. Irrational attitude is defined as an attitude not based on formal logic or incontrovertible fact, but rather the everyday logic and probable fact involved in statements and counter-statements of daily conversation. The irrational attitude for ethnic minority groups, then, is an attitude based on everyday logic and probable fact for or in favor of ethnic minority groups. One who possessed an irrational attitude for ethnic minority groups could be described as a sentimentalist. While the term sentimentalist may be interpreted as a derogatory label, the authors were interested in measuring the subjects’ sentiments. On the other hand, the irrational attitude against ethnic minority groups is an attitude based on everyday logic and probable fact against or in disfavor of ethnic minority groups. A person with an irrational attitude against ethnic minority groups could be described as a bigot. The authors elected to use Schuman and Harding’s Prejudice and Rationality Scale to study ethnic attitudes instead of other scales because the Prejudice and Rationality Scale had the following advantages: (1) it was sensitive to the purpose of the research; (2) it had a high reliability which was reported in two research studies that were conducted by Schuman and Harding (1964); (3) it had respectable construct validity and content validity according to Allport (Schuman & Harding, 1964); and it had a relatively high concurrent validity; (4) it was noteworthy both for its methodological construction and for the substantive findings resulting from its application (Robinson, Rusk, & Head, 1973); and (5) it had a format which was not only complementary to the second scale used, the Social Distance Scale, but also a creatively different way to measure attitudes in contrast to the familiar agree-disagree, Likert, or other rating
164
Sharlene Furuto and David M. Furuto
scale item formats that were susceptible to contamination agreement response set (Robinson et al., 1973).
from
an
REFERENCES ALLPORT,
G. The nature or prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1954. AMIR, Y. Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. PsJschological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 3 19-342. BOGARDUS, E.S. Social distance. Los Angeles: Antioch, 19S9 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY. Hawaii Campus general catalog 1980-81. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1980. BRISLIN, R. Cross-cultural encounters: Face-to-face interaction. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon, 198 I. FEAGIN, J.R. Racial and ethnic relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978. KATZ, D., & BRALY, K. Racial stereotypes of one-hundred college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1933, 28, 280-290. LA PIERE, R.T. Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 1934, 13, 230-237. ROBINSON, J.P., RUSK, J.G., & HEAD, K.B. Measures ofpoliticalattitudes. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, 1973. ROSENBERG, M.J., & HOVLAND, C.1. Cognitive, affective and behavioral components of attitudes. In W.J. McGuire, R.P. Abelson, & J.W. Brehm (Eds.), Attitude Organization and Change (Vol. 6). New Haven: Yale University, 1966. SCHUMAN, H., & HARDING, J. Prejudice and the norm of rationality. Sociometry, 1964, 27, 353-371. SIMPSON, G.E., & YINGER, J.M. Racial and cultural minorities: An analysis qfprejudice and discrimination. New York: Harper and Row, 1972. STATE OF HA WAII STATISTICAL REPORT 143. Honolulu: Department of Planning and Economic Development. March 18, 1981. WILLARDSON, G. In the Kamehameha tradition: Hawaii calls Elliot Cameron. BYU Toduy, August 1980, 16-17. ZAJONC, P. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9, l-27.
ABSTRACT
TRANSLATIONS
El propgsito
de este estudio es de comparar 10s efectos de tratamientos cognitivos y afectivos en las attitudes de estudiantes Anglo-Sajones en Hawaii (donde muchoskrupos htnicos minoritarios experimentan ligera discrimination y donde ning& grupo racial tal coma el Anglo-Sajon forma una mayoria) hacia grupos, C tnlcos minoritarios. La hip/otesis fuk que el 6rden de preperencia de 10s grupos desde el mas favorable al menos favorable en distancia social y actitud en favor o en contra de grupos minoritarios seria: Tratamiento Afectivo, Tratamiento Cognitive, Grupo de Control de Hawaii, y Grupo Comparative de1
Effects of Affective/
Cognitive
Treatments
on Attitude
Change
165
Las escalas de Distancia Social y Prejuicio y Continente. Raciocinio fueron usadas coma instrumentos de pre evaluacik y post evaluacibn en el Onto20 de 1980 con 94 estudiantes de bachillerato de la universidad Brigham Young de Hawaii y 30 estudiantes de bachillerato de la misma universidad en Provo. El anAlisis de covariacio'n sostuvo las tres hip6tesis al nivel Result6 que el grupo de Tratamiento Afectivo conde 0.01. sistentemente tuvo un mayor cambio en actitud hacia las minorias / etnicas, sequido por el Grupo Cognitivo, el Grupo de Control Se Ileg; de Hawaii, y 1,os Grupos Comparatives de1 Continente. a la conclusion que el Grupo de Tratamiento Afectivo fue el mas efectivo en cambiar attitudes hacia 10s grupos ktnicos minoritarios.
La pr&ente &tude se propose de comparer les effets des traitements cognitif et affectif sur les attitudes des Qtudiants de race blanche B >dgard de minorit& ethniques aux Hawai (milieu oh vivent plusieurs d'entre ell'es rencontrant peu de discrimination patente et sans qu'aucune - les Blancs, entre autresL'hypoth&e de d&part imne soit num&iquement majoritaire). pliquait qu'en matiere de distance sociale et d'attitude "is-avis de minorit& ethniques, le rang de classement des groupes - plus favorable/mains favorable - s'htablirait comme suit: Groupe de traitement affectif, Groupe de traitement cognitif, Groupe tsmoin (Ha&i'), et Groupe de comparaison (Continent). L'&chelle de distance sociale et celle des pr&jug& et de rationalit; furent utilisees comme instruments de mesure avant et apres le test administre au tours de l'automne 1980 2 des gtudiants de premier cycle de l'Universit6 Brigham Young (BYU) donte 94 Gtaient de campus des Hawai (BYU - HC) et 30 de campus de 1'Utah. L'analyse de covariance tend a' soutenir les trois hypothkes de depart avec un seuil de signification de 0.01. 11 ressort que le Grope de traitement affectif fait r&guli&rement preuve d'un changement d'attitude plus important 'a l'igard de minorites ethniques que le Groupe cognitif, le Groupe t'kmoin et que le Groupe continental de comparaison. 11 en rkulte done que le traitement affectif est le plus apte 'a modifier les attitudes $ l'e'gard de groupes ethniques minoritaires.
0147-I767/S3/020149~17S03.~/0 Copyright 0 1983 Pergamon Press Lfd
1983
THE EFFECTS OF AFFECTIVE AND COGNITIVE TREATMENT ON ATTITUDE CHANGE TOWARD ETHNIC MINORITY GROUPS
SHA REESE
Brigham
B. C. t. FUR UT0
Young University-Hawaii
DA VID M. FURUTO Windward
Community
College, University of Hawaii
ABSTRACT. Thepurpose of this s/u& was to compare the effects of cognitive and affective treatments on the attitudes of white university students in Hawaii (a place where many ethnic minority groups live with tittle overt diser~m~nation and where no one racial group, such as the whites, is in the majorit_y) toward ethnic minorit_v groups. it was hypothesized that the rank order of the groups from most .favorable to least favorable in social distance and attitude for and against ethnic minorit? groups, would be: Affective Treatment, Cognitive Treatment, Hawaii Control, and Mainland Comparison Group. The Social Distance Scale and Prejudice and Rotionality Scale were used as pretest and posttest instruments in the Fall, 1980 with 94 Brigham Young University- Hawaii Campus (B YU- HC) and 30 Brigham Young Universit.)’ (B YU) in Utah undergraduate students. Analysis qf covariance led to supporting the three hypotheses at the 0.01 significance level, It was found that the Aflective Treatment Group consistentlv had a greater change in attitude toward ethnic minorities followed by the Cognitt’ve, Hawaii Control, and Mainland Comparison Groups. It was concluded that the qffecrive treatment was the most effective in changing attitudes toward ethnic minority groups.
INTRODUCTION Much research has been conducted in the area of attitude promote racial harmony between blacks and whites. According (1981) there are five types of programs which can be used intercultural attitudes: (a) self-awareness, in which people learn cultural bases of their own behavior; (b) cognitive training,
change to to Rrislin to change about the in which
This paper is based on the principal author’s doctoral dissertation completed at the Brigham Young University, 1981. Theadvice of RichardW. Brislin isgmtefuIl~acknowledged. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Sharfene Laie, Hawaii 96762.
B.C.L. Furuto,
149
~YU~Hawaii
Campus,
Box 1858,
150
Sharlene Fururo and D&d
M. Furuto
people are presented various facts about other cultures; (c) attribution training, in which people learn the explanation of behavior from the point of view of people in other cultures; (d) behavior modification, in which people analyze the aspects of their own culture that they find rewarding and punishing; and, (e) experiential learning, in which people actively participate in realistic simulations of other cultures. Further, Rosenberg and Hovland (1966) analyzed attitudes according to three components: affective, cognitive, and conative, all of which were encompassed in Brislin’s framework. Most attitude change research has focused on the affective component, although studies by Katz and Rraly (I 933) and La Piere ( 1934) paved the way for keen interest in the cognitive and conative components, respectively. Of the research studies which focused on attitude change in intercultural situations, there is little direction to indicate whether an affective treatment or cognitive treatment is more effective when the subjects are not members of the dominant group. Also there is little in the literature regarding attitude change toward Polynesians and Orientals (Feagin, 1978). Further information regarding the above would be helpful, particularly in view of the thousands of Polynesians and Orientals who have been immigrating to the Continental U.S.A. and their subsequent adjustment difficulties in the last decade. Many Polynesians, due to their physical features (dark skin and kinky hair), have been mistakenly identified as being Negroes. As such, non-Polynesians will sometimes have the same attitude toward Negroes and Polynesians. Due to attitude transference, it is not unfounded to conclude that one’s attitudes toward Negroes can be similar to one’s attitudes toward Polynesians. In addition, information regarding the above focusing on Negroes or Polynesians would be useful in situations and/or locations where the Negroes or Polynesians, are the dominant group. Information on the above could also ameliorate interpersonal relationship problems between the Polynesians, Orientals, and Negroes with whites in places where numbers of all four cultures come into contact. This experiment focused on attitude change toward Polynesians, Orientals, and Negroes due to affective treatment, cognitive treatment, and no planned treatment in Hawaii where the white subjects did not constitute the dominant racial group. In addition, a comparison group on the Continental U.S.A. was a part of the experiment. The authors predicted that the white students subjected to the affective treatment would make the most favorable change toward Polynesians, Orientals, and Negroes in terms of decreasing social distance (i.e., close social acceptance of an ethnic minority group), increasing positive attitude (Note I) for ethnic minority groups (i.e., attitude for or in favor of ethnic minority groups), and decreasing negative attitude against ethnic minority
Effects qf Affective/
Cognitive
Treatments
on Attitude
Change
151
groups (i.e., attitude against or in disfavor of ethnic minority groups). This prediction is derived from Allport (1954), Amir (1969), and Brislin (1981) who concluded that affective interpersonal relationships have produced more significant attitude changes toward ethnic minority groups than other treatments. It was also predicted that the group subjected to the cognitive treatment would make favorable attitude changes, although not to the degree as those who were exposed to the affective treatment. This is derived from Simpson and Yinger (1972) who concluded that the usefulness of information dissemination in producing favorable attitudes toward other groups may have some positive effects but has been less influential than what many have believed. The authors further predicted that the Hawaii Control Group would make more favorable attitude changes toward ethnic minority groups than the Mainland Comparison Group due to the fact that the former group would have more exposure (Zajonc, 1968) to ethnic minority groups as part of their everyday lives than would members of the latter. Since the Mainland Comparison Group did not undergo any treatment and had minimal contact with ethnic minority groups, it was predicted that they would demonstrate the least attitude change in terms of social distance and attitude for and against ethnic minority groups. Subjects in the four groups were thus predicted to indicate varying attitudes of not only social distance but also attitude for and against ethnic minority groups.
Hypotheses HI: The rank order of the groups from most favorable to least favorable in social distance toward Negroes, Orientals and Polynesians will be: Affective Treatment, Cognitive Treatment, Hawaii Control, and Mainland Comparison Group. HI: The rank order of the groups from most favorable to least favorable in positive attitude for ethnic minority groups will be: Affective Treatment, Cognitive Treatment, Hawaii Control, and Mainland Comparison Group. H1: The rank order of the groups from most favorable to least favorable in negative attitude against ethnic minority groups will be: Affective Treatment, Cognitive Treatment, Hawaii Control, and Mainland Comparison Group.
METHOD Subjects Altogether there were 124 subjects, all of whom were white, single, fulltime students who belonged to the Mormon Church. The sample consisted of 65 females and 59 males. There were 70 subjects between 18
152
Sharlene Furuto and David M. Furuto
and 19 while 54 reported to be between 20 and 24 years of age. The mean income of the parents of the subjects was approximately $18,000. There were 64 freshmen and 60 sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Ninety-four subjects were randomly selected from all students who enrolled at the Brigham Young University-Hawaii Campus (BYU-HC) for the first time in the Fall, 1980. These students had never been to Hawaii prior to the Fall, 1980. At the BYU-HC, these white students found themselves to no longer be members of the dominant racial group. Rather, a majority of the BYU-HC student body was composed of Polynesians and Orientals. Approximately 65% of the student body were of Polynesian and/or Oriental ethnic origin and 35% were of white ethnic origin. Meanwhile, 30 subjects were randomly selected at the Brigham Young University (BYU) in Utah and comprised the Mainland Comparison Group. Members of the Mainland Comparison Group were enrolled in one of four English Il.5 course sections. English I15 is the freshman English course and is required for graduation from BYU in Utah. Ninetyone English 115 course sections were offered during the Fall, 1980 semester, of which four were randomly selected and used. The racial makeup at the BYU in Utah was in sharp contrast to that at the BYU-HC. Approximately 90% of the students at BYU in Utah were white and lOV0 were nonwhite. Few activities involving contact among people from various cultural groups were held on the BYU in Utah campus in comparison to the BYU-HC. Instruments The Social Distance Scale and Prejudice and Rationality Scale were the pretest and posttest instruments used in the study. Both instruments were administered at the beginning and end of the Fall, 1980 semester to the 94 BYU-HC and 30 BYU in Utah subjects. Directions for the questionnaires were based on those used by Bogardus (1959) and Schuman and Harding (1964). First the Social Distance Scale was administered, followed by the Prejudice and Rationality Scale. Procedure On the BYU-HC, after all the pretest questionnaires collected, the subjects were randomly divided into three groups:
had
been
Experimental Group One: Affective Treatment Group Experimental Group Two: Cognitive Treatment Group No Planned Treatment: Hawaii Control Group Experimental Group One, the Affective Treatment Group, into four subgroups of eight white subjects each. In addition,
was divided eight ethnic
Effects ofAfJctive/
Cognitive
Treatments
on Atritude
Change
153
minority BYU-HC students who had volunteered to participate in the experiment were added to each of the four subgroups. These Polynesian and Oriental students (Tongan, Samoan, Hawaiian, Fijian, Maori, Tahitian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Korean, and Vietnamese) were added to the four subgroups to racially mix the subgroups and provide opportunities for close interpersonal relationships between white subjects and ethnic minority students. Therefore, each affective treatment subgroup was comprised of 16 individuals, of whom half were randomly selected white subjects and half were ethnic minority volunteers. All members in each affective subgroup were pretested, treated, and posttested; however, only the eight white students in each of the four subgroups comprised the BYU-HC sample. Altogether there were 32 subjects in the Affective Treatment Group. The four subgroups convened on a weekly basis throughout the semester to participate in spiritual, cultural, and social experiences. The subgroups met for two hours per week to review the cultural backgrounds, values, common behavioral patterns, and feeling of the Samoan, Hawaiian, Chinese, and Negro ethnic minority groups. Altogether, the subgroups met for 14 weeks in an informal group setting for a brief spiritual lesson followed by the cultural discussion and/or activity. Refreshments, of the type customarily served in Polynesia or the Orient, were usually provided after each group session while participants were observed to interact and socialize in a spirit of camaraderie. One group session proceeded as follows: prayer; short spiritual lesson about “Unconditional Love”; the Samoan group member discussed his background and lifestyle in Samoa, including his family, the education he received, what he did for recreation, folkways he observed; his feelings regarding the above; question and answer period; and refreshments unique to Samoa. Group activities were also held during those weeks when there was no group presentation or discussion. One group activity that was intended to better understand the Chinese consisted of visiting Chinatown in Honolulu. In Chinatown, the Chinese group members led the groups through the open market, Temple, shops, theater, park, and apartment buildings. During lunch at a Chinese restaurant, the Chinese students described their backgrounds, lifestyles, and relevant feelings. Throughout the experience, the students had the opportunity to talk and mingle with the local Chinese people. Experimental Group Two, the Cognitive Treatment Group, met for an hour each week for classroom instruction. The Cognitive Treatment Group convened for a total of 14 weeks, and lessons emphasized the cultural backgrounds, values, and common behavioral patterns of the Samoan, Hawaiian, Chinese, and Negro ethnic minority groups. The methodology used within and outside the classroom included: lectures,
154
Sharlene Furuto and David M. Furuto
readings, multi-media presentations, small group discussions, role play, mime, field trips, values clarification and cultural activities. Thirty-one subjects were assigned to Experimental Group Two; there were no other people besides the 31 who met regularly over the 14 week period. In sharp contrast to the Affective Treatment Group, there was no close contact between ethnic minority groups and whites in the Cognitive Treatment Group. An example of a classroom presentation follows. The concept to be taught was the matai system and how it cares for the political, educational, and social welfare of the Samoan family. The means by which this concept was taught included a lecture, a cassette recording, and a small group discussion, all of which focused on the matai system. The group discussion was led by an outside visitor who was a Samoan talking chief well respected by his peers. The Hawaii Control Group or no planned treatment group included 3 1 students. While the students did not undergo any planned treatment, the students were nevertheless exposed and encouraged to participate in the multitude of on-campus and off-campus cross-cultural activities during the Fall, 1980 semester. For example, during weekly student general assemblies, students were encouraged to experience the diverse cultures at the BYU-HC. Further, ethnic minority clubs, the Mormon Church wards (congregations), and the neighboring Polynesian Cultural Center frequently sponsored cultural activities throughout the semester. In addition, subjects may have attended classes, resided in dormitories, shared meals, gone to social activities, and attended church meetings with members of the different ethnic minority groups on campus. Thus, the Hawaii Control Group represented typical experiences available at BYU-HC, while the Affective and Cognitive Treatment Groups represented interactions above and beyond the typical experiences. On the BYU in Utah campus the Mainland Comparison Group, which was composed of 30 white students, had no planned intervention. Due to the predominance of whites at the BYU in Utah, the Mainland Comparison Group was considered to be relatively free from contact with Polynesians and Orientals.
RESULTS Disposition
of Hypothesis
One
Three analyses of covariance were conducted using the respective covariate pretests: social distance toward Negroes, Orientals, and Polynesians. The analysis of covariance revealed significant differences at the 0.01 level. There were differences between the four groups (Affective Treatment Group, Cognitive Treatment Group, Hawaii Control Group,
Effects of Affective/Cognitive
Treatments on Attitude Change
155
and Mainland Comparison Group) in social distance towards Negroes (F = 10.7, df = 3, 90), Orientals (F = 10.8, df = 3, 90), and Polynesians (F = 9.8, df = 3, 90).
Social distance toward Negroes. To determine where the differences existed in terms of social distance toward Negroes, six sub-hypotheses were analyzed through t tests. Of the six, three showed differences at the .O1 significance level. In each of the three comparisons which follow, the first group exhibited a significantly closer social distance toward Negroes than the second group: (a) Affective Treatment Group (Affective) over Mainland Comparison Group (Mainland); (b) Cognitive Treatment Group (Cognitive) over Mainland; and (c) Hawaii Control Group (Hawaii) over Mainland. In the following, of the three sub-hypotheses which failed to be rejected at the 0.01 significance level, although there were no significant differences between the comparisons, the first group indicated a closer social distance toward Negroes than the second group: (a) Affective over Cognitive; (b) Affective over Hawaii; and, (c) Cognitive over Hawaii. The statistical data are displayed in Table 1 for the adjusted means (that is, adjusted for the covariate) for the significance levels on the comparisons between the groups. Social distance toward Orientals. To determine where the differences existed in terms of social distance toward Orientals, six comparisons of the four treatment groups were carried out. In each of the following, the first group exhibited a significantly closer social distance toward Orientals than the second group: (a) Affective over Mainland; (b) Cognitive over Mainland; and, (c) Hawaii over Mainland. In the following, although there were no significant differences between the comparisons, the first group indicated a closer social distance toward Orientals than the second group: (a) Affective over Cognitive; (b) Affective over Hawaii; and, (c) Hawaii over Cognitive. The statistical data can be seen in Table 1 for the adjusted means for the four groups and for the significance levels on the comparisons between the groups. Social distance toward Polynesians. To determine where the differences existed in social distance toward Polynesians, six comparisons of the four treatment groups were carried out. In the following, the first group demonstrated a significantly closer social distance toward Polynesians than the second group: (a) Affective over Mainland; (b) Cognitive over Mainland; and, (c) Hawaii over Mainland. In the following, although there were no significant differences between the comparisons, the first group indicated a closer social distance toward Polynesians than the second group: (a) Affective over Cognitive; (b) Affective over Hawaii;
156
Skarlene
Furum
and David
M. Furuto
TABLE 1 Social Distance toward Negroes, Orientals, and Polynesians Adjusted Distance
Means (LSM) for the Posttest on Social
t Tests for Specific Comparisons Between
LSM
Standard Error
3.12 3.16 3.42 3.89
0.017 0.110 0.108 0.109
Groups
Comparisons
P
toward Negroes Affective Treatment Cognitive Treatment Hawaii Control Mainland Comparison
Affective -Cognitive Affective -Hawaii Affective -Mainland Cognitive-Hawaii Cognitive-Mainland Hawaii -Mainland
* 0.04 0.01 * 0.01 0.01
toward Orientals Affective Treatment Cognitive Treatment Hawaii Control Mainland Comparison
2.72 3.02 2.93 3.47
0.095 0.098 0.097 0.097
Affective -Cognitive Affective -Hawaii Affective -Mainland Cognitive - Hawaii Cognitive-Mainland Hawaii -Mainland
0.03 . 0.03 l
0.01 0.01
toward Polynesians Affective Treatment Cognitive Treatment Hawaii Control Mainland Comparison
*Indicate
probability
2.60 2.94 2.98 3.44
0.109 0.111 0.109 0.111
greater than 0.05 significance
Affective -Cognitive Affective -Hawaii Affective -Mainland Cognitive-Hawaii Cognitive -Mainland -Mainland Hawaii
0.03 0.02 0.01 * 0.01 0.01
level.
and, (c) Cognitive over Hawaii. The statistical data can be seen in Table 1 for the adjusted means and for the significance levels on the comparisons between the adjusted means of the groups.
Analysis of covariance was conducted using the covariate pretest positive attitude for ethnic minority groups. The analysis of covariance revealed significant differences at the 0.01 level. There were differences between the four groups in positive attitude for ethnic minority groups (F = 16.1, df = 3, 90).
Effects of Affective/
Cognitive
Treatments
on Attitude
Change
1.57
TABLE 2 Positive and Negative Attitude For and Against Ethnic Minority Groups Adjusted Means (LSM) Positive Attitude toward Group
for Ethnic Minority
Affective Treatment Cognitive Treatment Hawaii Control Mainland Comparison
Negative Attitude
89.33 87.77 86.69 85.61
Against
Affective Treatment Cognitive Treatment Hawaii Control Mainland Comparison
probability
Minority 94.10 95.07 95.49 96.72
t Tests for Specific Comparisons Between Groups
Standard Error
LSM
Positive Attitude
‘Indicate
for the Posttest on Ethnic Minority Groups
Comparisons
P
Groups 0.389 0.399 0.395 0.401
Affective -Cognitive Affective -Hawaii Affective -Mainland Cognitive-Hawaii Cognitive-Mainland Hawaii -Mainland
0.01 0.01 0.01 f 0.01 0.05
Groups 0.294 0.301 0.303 0.298
greater than 0.05 significance
Affective -Cognitive Affective -Hawaii Affective -Mainland Cognitive-Hawaii Cognitive-Mainland -Mainland Hawaii
0.02 0.01 0.01 . 0.01 0.01
level.
Positive attitude for ethnic minority groups. To determine where the significant differences occurred in terms of positive attitude for ethnic minority groups, t tests were applied to analyze six sub-hypotheses. Of the six, four showed differences at the .Ol significance level. In each of the following comparisons, the first group demonstrated a higher positive attitude for ethnic minority groups (i.e., a more favorable attitude) than the second group: (a) Affective over Cognitive; (b) Affective over Hawaii; (c) Affective over Mainland; and, (d) Cognitive over Mainland. From the sub-hypotheses that failed to be rejected, while no significant differences were found between the comparisons, the first group exhibited a higher positive attitude for ethnic minority groups than the second group: (a) Cognitive over Hawaii; and, (b) Hawaii over Mainland. To support the preceding discussion, Table 2 on the adjusted means and on the significance levels provide the statistical data. Disposition
of Hypothesis
Three
Analysis of covariance was conducted using the covariate pretest negative attitude against ethnic minority groups. The analysis of covariance revealed significant differences across the four treatment groups at the 0.01 level. There were differences between the four groups in negative attitude against ethnic minority groups (F = 13.4, df =3, 90).
158
Shartene Furuto and David hf. Furuto
Negative attitude against ethnic minority groups. To determine where the significant differences occurred, statistical I tests were applied to analyze the six sub-hypotheses. Of the six, four showed differences at the 0.01 significance level. In each of the following comparisons, the first group exhibited a lower negative attitude against ethnic minority groups score (i.e., a more favorable attitude) than the second group: (a) Affective over Hawaii; (b) Affective over Mainland; (c) Cognitive over Mainland; and, (d) Hawaii over Mainland. On the other hand, although there were no signi~cant differences between the following two comparisons, the first group indicated a lower negative attitude against ethnic minority groups than the second group: (a) Affective over Cognitive; and, (b) Cognitive over Hawaii. Table 2 on the adjusted means for the four groups and on the significance levels on the comparisons between the adjusted means of the groups provide the statistical data. DISCUSSION
Hypotheses
and Sub-hypotheses
All three hypotheses were confirmed. It was interesting to note that when the four groups were compared with each other, the Affective Treatment Group consistently showed the most favorable attitude change in social distance as well as greater positive attitude for and less negative attitude against ethnic minority groups followed by the Cognitive, Hawaii Control, and Mainland Comparison Groups when: (a) white subjects were no longer the dominant racial group and (b) the ethnic minority groups studied were Polynesians and Orientals. The one exception to the pattern was in comparing the Hawaii Control Group and Cognitive Treatment Group in social distance toward Orientals. In this relationship, the Hawaii Control Group indicated a more favorable social distance towards Orientals than the Cognitive Treatment Group. In comparing the four groups in the experiment on social distance and attitude for and against ethnic minority groups, 30 sub-hypotheses were generated. Seventeen out of the 30 sub-hypotheses were accepted at the 0.01 significance level. Although 13 sub-hypotheses failed to be accepted at the 0.01 level, the trend indicated that more favorable attitudes were obtained according to the above ranking of the four treatment groups.
Affective
why the Affective Treatment Group. One explanation Treatment Group demonstrated the most favorable attitude change in social distance and positive attitude for and less negative attitude against ethnic minority groups is that the affective treatment had elements identified in previous research as effective (Brisiin, 1981). Meeting on a weekly basis as a mixed group of eight ethnic minority and eight white
Effwts
of Affective/Cognitive
Treatments
on Attitude
Change
159
members to share ideas and feelings and participate in activities helped most to bridge the gap between whites and people of Polynesian and Oriental origin and promote a positive attitude toward ethnic minority groups. A program which offered the opportunity for whites, Polynesians, and Orientals to discuss topics, share feelings and ideas, and participate in activities for 14 weeks may have assisted in better understanding another’s values, traditions, and standards. It should be noted that the group members also related with one another informally before and after the groups convened. The group meeting was an excellent vehicle for permitting the students to meet and interact with each other on a close and ongoing basis while learning about their cultural similarities and differences. For example, some discussion sessions began with the planned topics but led to other, innermost revelations of sentiments common to all, thus developing a more cohesive group. An eventual discovery that several affective treatment subgroups made was that there were more similarities than differences between the whites and the various ethnic minority groups.
Cognitive Treatment Group. The Cognitive Treatment Group demonstrated less favorable attitude change than the Affective Treatment Group but more favorable attitude change than the Hawaii Control and Mainland Comparison Groups, as hypothesized. However, the Cognitive Treatment Group made more favorable attitude changes toward ethnic minorities than was expected from perusal through the research literature. For example, the literature indicated that information dissemination about ethnic minorities did not materially change attitudes toward those paiticular groups (Simpson & Yinger, 1972). This was not to say that transmitting such information had no value, but rather that its usefulness in producing more favorable attitudes toward ethnic minority groups was less than many professional educators have believed. Simpson and Yinger (1972) further claimed that: Purely factual instruction tends to mitigate some of the more extreme expressions of prejudice and that, where there is any readiness to receive it, it provides some protection against the mob-raising appeals to which ignorance is exposed.. . . Greater knowledge may not seriously change our evaluations (p. 222). One possible reason for the consistently favorable change in attitude could have been that, while the cognitive treatment consisted of a classroom experience, the experience was nontraditional and lectures were minimized. Instead, the learning experiences consisted frequently and regularly of activities such as mime, role play, small group discussion, and field trips. The Affective Treatment Group, Cognitive Treatment Group, and Hawaii Control Group members, due to their living in Hawaii during the
160
Shariene Furuto and David M. Fzrruto
experiment, were exposed to many ethnic cultural activities and ethnic minority peoples. The significance of this situation is detailed later in this article. At this point, however, it should be noted that while all three groups regularly experienced a variety of ethnic cultural activities and ethnic minority groups, the members of the Affective Treatment and Cognitive Treatment Groups were exposed to additional ethnic cultural activities and peoples due to the respective experimental treatments. That is, the Affective Treatment Group and Cognitive Treatment Group members had the opportunity to participate in ethnic cultural activities and relate to ethnic minority group members above and beyond what the Hawaii Control Group members were exposed to due to the affective and cognitive treatments. This may be an explanation for the greater attitude changes made by the Affective Treatment Group and Cognitive Treatment Group members than the Hawaii Controi Group members.
Hawaii Control Group. The finding that the Hawaii Control Group underwent a favorable change in attitude toward ethnic minority groups could be due to several reasons. The reasons, however, would apply to not only the Hawaii Control Group but also the Affective and Cognitive Treatment Groups as well. First, the subjects in the three groups lived in Hawaii for one semester and were exposed to more ethnic minorities than whites both on-campus and off-campus (State of Hawaii Statisrical Report 143, 1981; Willardson, 1980; B KU--HC several Catalog 19801981). Given the very large number of ethnic minority peoples with whom the subjects related for three and a half months in a positive social climate, it is possible to conclude that having interacted with the ethnic minorities made a favorable impact on changing attitudes toward them. A second reason the three groups underwent a favorable change in attitude could have been due to off-campus and on-campus exposure to many ethnic activities. These cultural experiences may have altered the subjects’ attitudes toward ethnic minorities as well. There were many ethnic activities offered off-campus by nonuniversity sponsors during the Fall, 1980. Following are some examples of nonuniversity sponsored cultural activities: Aloha Week parade (including dance, sports, and food demonstrations); Cultural Center Caper (including dance, martial arts, food demonstrations, films. dragon dance, firecracker display), ~aka~iki No Ka Oi (Polynesian talent show); department stores’ demonstrations (how to prepare Oriental foods, how to sew a kimono, the art of floral arrangement), and Polynesian Cultural Center Special Observations Days (Samoan Day, Tongan Day, Hawaiian Day). Subjects were exposed to cultural experiences not only off-campus but also on-campus. On the BYU-HC itself, some of the many cultural activities which were held for student observation and/or participation included the following: Clubs Cultural Night (talent show), Hawaiian
Effects of Affective/
Cognitive
Treatments
on Attitude
Change
161
Club Assembly, Chinese Club Assembly, and International Week (sports, foods, slides, dance, and language demonstrations). In addition to these, the Mormon Church wards (congregations) sponsored regular activities when ethnic talent shows were a part of the program. Also, subjects attended classes, lived in dormitories, ate meals, and attended Church with members of many ethnic groups. Due to the great number of diverse cultural activities described above, it was possible that the subjects were exposed to a number of them and/or others and that these experiences fostered a change in attitude toward ethnic minority groups. The third possible reason for the consistently favorable change in attitude made by the Affective Treatment, Cognitive Treatment, and Hawaii Control Groups could have been because the subjects were affected by the romanticism of Hawaii. For example, subjects were removed from their familiar settings and introduced to a multitude of new and perhaps appealing experiences. It was possible that the acceptance of the new experiences encouraged an acceptance of the ethnic peoples also. The fourth possible explanation for the favorable change in attitude reported by the three groups was that the overall group membership of the subjects changed. When the subjects left the Continental U.S.A., they parted with membership in various social groups and initiated new social group memberships and relationships on the BYU-HC. It is conceivable to expect that when the subjects found themselves in new groups with markedly different and clearly positive standards from previous ones with regard to ethnic relations, there was a terminating of the old standards and an adhering to the new standards of relating to ethnic minority groups. The fifth possible reason for the positive attitude change was that the white subjects were under-represented and were minorities themselves in an environment of many other minorities. It was possible that the white subjects at times felt like minorities and were thus able to empathize with how minorities such as the Polynesians and Orientals might feel when on the Continental U.S.A., for example. An acquisition of this empathetic feeling may have induced favorable attitude changes toward ethnic minority groups. The sixth and last possible explanation offered is that the population density may have contributed to the favorable attitude changes. BYUHC had an enrollment of 1,800 students, was located in a rural town of approximately 6,000 residents, and was relatively isolated from the metropolitan area of Honolulu, Hawaii. BYU in Utah, on the other hand, had an enrollment of 26,000 students, was located in a town of approximately 55,000 residents, and was proximate to the amenities that a relatively large metropolis offers. Thus, with fewer persons and variables that impinge upon interpersonal relationships, the interaction between the white subject members of ethnic minority groups was probably increased.
162
Sharlene Furuto and David M. Furuto
Consequently, subjects at the BYU-HC had more opportunities to expand their understanding and appreciation of ethnic minority groups than subjects at the BYU in Utah.
Mainland Comparison Group. The Mainland Comparison Group never indicated a more favorable attitude toward ethnic minority groups, in contrast to the other three Hawaii Groups in the experiment. The above could have been an indication that although the Mainland Comparison Group may have cognitively developed an understanding of ethnic minorities as part of their general studies at a liberal arts university, the affective dimension was not substantively modified.
CONCLUSIONS The following were drawn as a result of investigating the three hypotheses of this study: I. The affective treatment was found to be the most effective treatment in changing attitudes toward ethnic minority groups. In essence, affective treatment consisted of providing white subjects with the opportunity to meet regularly and frequently in an informal group setting with an equal number of ethnic minority group members for indepth cultural, spiritual, social discussions, and activities. 2. The cognitive treatment was found to be less effective than the affective treatment in changing attitudes toward ethnic minority groups; however, in situations where affective treatment is not possible and/or preferred, then cognitive treatment could be used to change attitudes toward ethnic minority groups. 3. The experience of the Hawaii Control Group or no planned treatment was found to be an effective treatment in changing attitudes toward ethnic minority groups, although not as effective as the affective and cognitive treatments; therefore, in situations where the affective and cognitive treatments are not possible and/or preferred, attitude change in a multiethnic setting which emphasized positive intergroup relations can still have a favorable effect.
RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations are made: 1. It is recommended that affective treatment be used to encourage more positive attitudes toward ethnic minority groups. The approach can be used in institutions wherein whites and ethnic minority groups relate one to another.
Effects of Affective/
Cognitive
Treatments
on Attitude
Change
163
2. It
is recommended also that a research study be designed and conducted to determine more specifically the most effective content and methodology to change attitudes toward ethnic minorities in a group contact experience. 3. Cognitive treatment is recommended to change attitudes toward ethnic minority groups but not at the expense of affective treatment, whenever possible. 4. It is recommended that an experience such as that which the Hawaii Control Group underwent (i.e., frequent and regular exposure to many ethnic minority group members and activities) be used to change attitudes toward ethnic minority groups, but not at the expense of affective and cognitive treatments. REFERENCE
NOTE
1. The position the authors take on attitude is that of Schuman and Harding (1964) who developed the concepts irrational attitude for (irrational pro) and irrational attitude against (irrational anti) ethnic minority groups. Irrational attitude is defined as an attitude not based on formal logic or incontrovertible fact, but rather the everyday logic and probable fact involved in statements and counter-statements of daily conversation. The irrational attitude for ethnic minority groups, then, is an attitude based on everyday logic and probable fact for or in favor of ethnic minority groups. One who possessed an irrational attitude for ethnic minority groups could be described as a sentimentalist. While the term sentimentalist may be interpreted as a derogatory label, the authors were interested in measuring the subjects’ sentiments. On the other hand, the irrational attitude against ethnic minority groups is an attitude based on everyday logic and probable fact against or in disfavor of ethnic minority groups. A person with an irrational attitude against ethnic minority groups could be described as a bigot. The authors elected to use Schuman and Harding’s Prejudice and Rationality Scale to study ethnic attitudes instead of other scales because the Prejudice and Rationality Scale had the following advantages: (1) it was sensitive to the purpose of the research; (2) it had a high reliability which was reported in two research studies that were conducted by Schuman and Harding (1964); (3) it had respectable construct validity and content validity according to Allport (Schuman & Harding, 1964); and it had a relatively high concurrent validity; (4) it was noteworthy both for its methodological construction and for the substantive findings resulting from its application (Robinson, Rusk, & Head, 1973); and (5) it had a format which was not only complementary to the second scale used, the Social Distance Scale, but also a creatively different way to measure attitudes in contrast to the familiar agree-disagree, Likert, or other rating
164
Sharlene Furuto and David M. Furuto
scale item formats that were susceptible to contamination agreement response set (Robinson et al., 1973).
from
an
REFERENCES ALLPORT,
G. The nature or prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1954. AMIR, Y. Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. PsJschological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 3 19-342. BOGARDUS, E.S. Social distance. Los Angeles: Antioch, 19S9 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY. Hawaii Campus general catalog 1980-81. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1980. BRISLIN, R. Cross-cultural encounters: Face-to-face interaction. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon, 198 I. FEAGIN, J.R. Racial and ethnic relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978. KATZ, D., & BRALY, K. Racial stereotypes of one-hundred college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1933, 28, 280-290. LA PIERE, R.T. Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 1934, 13, 230-237. ROBINSON, J.P., RUSK, J.G., & HEAD, K.B. Measures ofpoliticalattitudes. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, 1973. ROSENBERG, M.J., & HOVLAND, C.1. Cognitive, affective and behavioral components of attitudes. In W.J. McGuire, R.P. Abelson, & J.W. Brehm (Eds.), Attitude Organization and Change (Vol. 6). New Haven: Yale University, 1966. SCHUMAN, H., & HARDING, J. Prejudice and the norm of rationality. Sociometry, 1964, 27, 353-371. SIMPSON, G.E., & YINGER, J.M. Racial and cultural minorities: An analysis qfprejudice and discrimination. New York: Harper and Row, 1972. STATE OF HA WAII STATISTICAL REPORT 143. Honolulu: Department of Planning and Economic Development. March 18, 1981. WILLARDSON, G. In the Kamehameha tradition: Hawaii calls Elliot Cameron. BYU Toduy, August 1980, 16-17. ZAJONC, P. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968, 9, l-27.
ABSTRACT
TRANSLATIONS
El propgsito
de este estudio es de comparar 10s efectos de tratamientos cognitivos y afectivos en las attitudes de estudiantes Anglo-Sajones en Hawaii (donde muchoskrupos htnicos minoritarios experimentan ligera discrimination y donde ning& grupo racial tal coma el Anglo-Sajon forma una mayoria) hacia grupos, C tnlcos minoritarios. La hip/otesis fuk que el 6rden de preperencia de 10s grupos desde el mas favorable al menos favorable en distancia social y actitud en favor o en contra de grupos minoritarios seria: Tratamiento Afectivo, Tratamiento Cognitive, Grupo de Control de Hawaii, y Grupo Comparative de1
Effects of Affective/
Cognitive
Treatments
on Attitude
Change
165
Las escalas de Distancia Social y Prejuicio y Continente. Raciocinio fueron usadas coma instrumentos de pre evaluacik y post evaluacibn en el Onto20 de 1980 con 94 estudiantes de bachillerato de la universidad Brigham Young de Hawaii y 30 estudiantes de bachillerato de la misma universidad en Provo. El anAlisis de covariacio'n sostuvo las tres hip6tesis al nivel Result6 que el grupo de Tratamiento Afectivo conde 0.01. sistentemente tuvo un mayor cambio en actitud hacia las minorias / etnicas, sequido por el Grupo Cognitivo, el Grupo de Control Se Ileg; de Hawaii, y 1,os Grupos Comparatives de1 Continente. a la conclusion que el Grupo de Tratamiento Afectivo fue el mas efectivo en cambiar attitudes hacia 10s grupos ktnicos minoritarios.
La pr&ente &tude se propose de comparer les effets des traitements cognitif et affectif sur les attitudes des Qtudiants de race blanche B >dgard de minorit& ethniques aux Hawai (milieu oh vivent plusieurs d'entre ell'es rencontrant peu de discrimination patente et sans qu'aucune - les Blancs, entre autresL'hypoth&e de d&part imne soit num&iquement majoritaire). pliquait qu'en matiere de distance sociale et d'attitude "is-avis de minorit& ethniques, le rang de classement des groupes - plus favorable/mains favorable - s'htablirait comme suit: Groupe de traitement affectif, Groupe de traitement cognitif, Groupe tsmoin (Ha&i'), et Groupe de comparaison (Continent). L'&chelle de distance sociale et celle des pr&jug& et de rationalit; furent utilisees comme instruments de mesure avant et apres le test administre au tours de l'automne 1980 2 des gtudiants de premier cycle de l'Universit6 Brigham Young (BYU) donte 94 Gtaient de campus des Hawai (BYU - HC) et 30 de campus de 1'Utah. L'analyse de covariance tend a' soutenir les trois hypothkes de depart avec un seuil de signification de 0.01. 11 ressort que le Grope de traitement affectif fait r&guli&rement preuve d'un changement d'attitude plus important 'a l'igard de minorites ethniques que le Groupe cognitif, le Groupe t'kmoin et que le Groupe continental de comparaison. 11 en rkulte done que le traitement affectif est le plus apte 'a modifier les attitudes $ l'e'gard de groupes ethniques minoritaires.