49
DISCRIMINATORY AFFECTS OF NATIVE AMERICAN MASCOT ENDORSEMENT (NAME) ON IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP DYNAMICS. John Gonzalez, PhD
DISCRIMINATORY AFFECTS OF NATIVE AMERICAN MASCOT ENDORSEMENT (NAME)
ON IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP DYNAMICS.
John Gonzalez, PhD
Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination
• Little research w/Native & White American group dynamics– Stereotypes (Hanson & Rouse, 1987;
Sandefur & Lam, 1985; Trimble, 1988)– Attitudes/Prejudice (Ancis, Choney, &
Sedlacek, 1996; Bennett & Simons, 1991)
• Native Mascot/logos and Discrimination?• Conflict • Context and Perspective
Historical Perspective
• Conflict– Land, Resources etc.
• Governmental & Social Policies & Contact– e.g. exclusion, extermination,
assimilation
• Images/Stereotypes Created– Image as a resource– One Contemporary Conflict
Native American Images
• Multifaceted– Spiritual– Ancient– Lazy– Savage
• Noble• Civilized• Blood thirsty
• Sources of Images– Books/Literature– Magazines/
Newspapers– Television– Motion Pictures– Radio– Internet– Athletic Teams
Sports Team Images
• Highly Visible• Symbolism
– Positive• bravery, courage, and strength
– Negative• brutality, fury, violence, and
viciousness
• Most often symbols of Natives are the negative ones
Stereotypes Derived from American Indian Nicknames, Logos and Mascots
• Common traits associated with Indian mascots are bravery, courage, strength, endurance, brutality, rage, fury, and destructiveness (Fuller & Manning, 1987).
• Nonverbal behavior-tomahawk chop-war chants/dances-costumes/paint
Differences of Opinions
• Proponents of American Indian nicknames, logos, and mascots say:-they bring honor and tribute-they are not intended to be offensive and not all American Indians object to their use.-what about the Vikings or the Irish?-if American Indians are being honored then why not use them?-its tradition and part of American identity.
Davis (1993) and Pewewardy (2000)
Differences of Opinions
• Opponents say:-they condone stereotypes and racism.-they focus on a historical image rather than on modern day American Indians.-they often are inaccurate depictions.-they ignore multicultural diversity- they often misuse sacred objects and rituals.-they influence the self-esteem of American Indians.
LaRocque (2001) and Davis (1993)
Effects of Stereotypes/Images
• In General– Develops negative attitudes– "exploiters can not only avoid thinking of
themselves as villains, but they can also justify further exploitation" (Franzoi, 1996, p. 394).
• Native Americans – have served precisely the same function:
• To protect from a sense of guilt; justify further exploitation
– psychological damage of seeing cartoon-like caricatures of themselves embodied in the mascots
– Natives are not the only minority group that has those stereotypes advertised in government-funded public schools • Peking Chinks –Peking Illinois
Fighting Sioux Controversy and Conflict
• The nickname the “Sioux” was adopted by UND in 1930 – before known as “Flickertails”
• “Fighting” was added later. • Since the 1960s, questions raised about
the appropriateness of the “Fighting Sioux” (Vorland, 2000).– Several prejudicial and discriminatory events
have occurred on campus over the years that have been linked to the controversy
Fighting Sioux Controversy and Conflict
• Prejudice and Discrimination?– Hostile
environment?– Who is Affected?
Social Identity Theory
• In-group/Out-group Bias– tendency for groups to show favoritism toward members
of their own social group over other groups
• Out-group Homogeneity Effect– tendency for group members to see their own group as
more diverse and variable than members of other groups
• Social Categorizations– Native or White– Native American Mascot Endorsement (NAME; Pro vs.
Anti)
• Multiple Social Categorizations– Native or White and NAME
Methods• Materials
– Research Protocol• Similar to Lambert, Cronen, Chasteen, and
Lickel (1996)• Confederate photograph (to create social
categories)
– Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale (Schmitt, Branscombe, and Kappen,2003).
– Participant demographic sheet
Methods
• Research Protocol – one-page vignette describing recent day
of the student– Questionnaire 1
• Ratings of prejudice and discrimination
– Questionnaire 2• Ratings on 22 attributes • Factor analysis created composite scores
– intellect and aptitude, positive affect, and aggressiveness
Procedures
• Created Multiple Social Categories (confederate photos attached to vignette)
– Two confederates• One Native American• One White American
– 3 photos of each confederate• One w/Pro Fighting Sioux Regalia• One w/Anti Fighting Sioux Regalia• One w/ “casual” dress (neutral/unknown)
• Participants rate only one confederate– Between groups design
Results• N=268: 87 males (34.50%), 152 females
(60.30%), and 13 who omitted their gender (5.2%).
• Mean age was 19.61 (SD=1.61).• 51.9% were freshman, 29.3% were
sophomores, 13.8% juniors, 5.0% were seniors
• Opinion on Logo: 81.6% keep, 14.2% neutral, 4.2% change
• Type of Sport most followed: 54% Hockey, 26% Football, 8% Basketball
Results
• 2 X 3 X 3 (Race X (c) NAME X (p) NAME)– Not statistically possible – Only 10 White students opposed Fighting
Sioux
• 2 X 3 (Race X (c) NAME) Design– Series of 2 X 3 ANOVA’s
• Prejudice and discrimination ratings• Composite ratings
– Intellect and aptitude, positive affect, aggressiveness
Results• Prejudice Ratings
– significant main effect of Race, F(1,189) = 4.53, p = .035.
– no significant main effect of NAME, F(2,189) = 1.22, p = .30
– No significant interaction between Race and NAME, F(2,189) = 1.12, p = .33.
• Main effect of Race– Native confederate (M = 6.90, SD = 1.28)
received an overall lower rating than the White confederate (M = 7.29, SD = 1.22), d = .31.
Results• Discrimination (potential) Ratings
– No significant main effect of Race, F(1,187) = .95, p = .33
– No significant main effect of NAME, F(2,187) = .76, p = .46
– A significant interaction between Race and NAME, F(1,187) = 5.77, p = .004.
Results • Interaction between Race and NAME
– Native received lower ratings as his opinion changed from endorsing Fighting Sioux name/logo (M = 7.22, SD = 1.29) to being unknown (M = 6.60, SD = 1.51) to openly opposing the Fighting Sioux name/logo (M = 6.15, SD = 1.92)
– while the ratings for the White confederate increased from when he endorsed the Fighting Sioux name/logo (M = 5.85, SD = 1.67) to being unknown (M = 6.85, SD = 1.81) and then decreased when openly opposing the Fighting Sioux name/logo (M = 6.58 SD = 1.56).
Results
anti-logoneutralpro-logo
Confederate's Opinion of Fighting Sioux Name/Logo
7.25
7.00
6.75
6.50
6.25
6.00
5.75
Dis
crim
inat
ion
Rat
ings
White
Native
Confederate's EthnicGroup
Results• Intellect and Aptitude ratings
– No significant main effect of Race, F(1,186) = 1.83, p = .17
– No main effect of NAME, F(2,186) = .06, p = .93
– No significant interaction between Race and NAME, F(2,186) = 2.77, p = .06
Results• Positive Affect Ratings
– Significant main effect of Race, F(1,187) = 5.87, p = .016.
– No significant main effect of NAME, F(2,187) = 1.09, p = .33
– No significant interaction between Race and NAME, F(2,187) = .95, p = .38.
• Main effect of Race– Native confederate (M = 4.23, SD
= .84) rated less positively than the White confederate (M = 4.55, SD = 1.02), d = .34.
anti-logoneutralpro-logo
Confederate's opinion of Fighting Sioux Name/Logo
4.80
4.70
4.60
4.50
4.40
4.30
4.20
Po
sitiv
e A
ffec
t Rat
ing
s
White
Native
Confederate's EthnicGroup
Results
• Aggressiveness Ratings– No significant main effect of Race, F(1,186) = 1.11, p = .29.
– No significant main effect of NAME, F(2,186) = .76, p = .47.
– No significant interaction between Race and NAME, F(2,186) = 2.35, p = .09.
Results• Social Dominance Orientation and (p)
NAME– significant difference in Social
Dominance Orientation (SDO) between the groups, F(2, 232) = 6.036, p = .002.
– participants in favor of keeping the Fighting Sioux name and logo (M = 2.19, SD = .99) scored significantly higher on SDO than those who were neutral (M = 1.81, SD = .89) and those who endorsed changing the name and logo (M = 1.23, SD = .26), d = .40 and 1.34, respectively.
changeneutralkeep
Participant's Opinion on the Fighting Sioux Name/Logo
2.20
2.00
1.80
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
So
cia
l D
om
ina
nc
e S
co
res
• Cell sizes: keep = 193, neutral = 32, change = 10
Results
• SDO and Ratings– significant negative correlations w/SDO:
• prejudice ratings, r(115) = -.276, p = .003• discrimination ratings, r(114) = -.226, p
= .01• intellect and aptitude ratings, r(114) =
-.316, p = .001• positive affect ratings, r(114) = -.198, p
= .03.
Results• One-way MANOVA on Composite
Scores• Only on Ratings of Native Confederate• Student Characteristics as IV’s
– Academic Standing– # of Sports Followed– Type of Sports Followed
• One-way ANOVA on # of Sports Followed– Participant NAME as IV
Discussion• Mixed support for SIT hypotheses around
in-group/out-group dynamics– Sig. effect of Race (Whites higher than
Natives) – No sig. effect of NAME (Pro-logo not higher
than Anti-logo)– Sig. Interaction (Race & NAME effected
ratings)• Statistical Significant effects and Socially
Significant Trends• Small number of participants favored
changing Fighting Sioux
Discussion• Sig. effect of Race
for Prejudice and Positive Affect ratings– Suggests there is
racial prejudice present on the UND campus
– How much is based on the Fighting Sioux?
• Not clear in this data.
anti-logoneutralpro-logo
Confederates opinion of Fighting Sioux Name/Logo
7.60
7.40
7.20
7.00
6.80
6.60
Prej
udic
e R
atin
gs
White
Native
Confederate's EthnicGroup
anti-logoneutralpro-logo
Confederate's opinion of Fighting Sioux Name/Logo
4.80
4.70
4.60
4.50
4.40
4.30
4.20
Posi
tive
Affe
ct R
atin
gs
White
Native
Confederate's EthnicGroup
Discussion• How much of racial
prejudice/discrimination caused by Fighting Sioux?– No Sig. effect of NAME
• Social significant trend• Effect sizes (pro vs. anti
Native)– Prejudice: d = .41– Discrimination: d = .64
• Sig. Interaction of Race X NAME– Suggests Fighting
Sioux name/logo impacts both White and Native students
anti-logoneutralpro-logo
Confederates opinion of Fighting Sioux Name/Logo
7.60
7.40
7.20
7.00
6.80
6.60
Prej
udic
e R
atin
gs
White
Native
Confederate's EthnicGroup
anti-logoneutralpro-logo
Confederate's Opinion of Fighting Sioux Name/Logo
7.25
7.00
6.75
6.50
6.25
6.00
5.75
Dis
crim
inat
ion
Rat
ings
White
Native
Confederate's EthnicGroup
Discussion
• Social Dominance Orientation– Sig. Effect of Participant NAME & sig.
neg. correlations w/ratings• Suggest individuals in favor of keeping
Fighting Sioux more likely to endorse inequality between ethno-cultural groups, oppression of other groups, and personal and institutional discrimination.
• Also, more likely to view Native people in negative way (incompetent, less easy to get along with, unintelligent, not bright and not successful)
Discussion
• Sports Fan Activity, NAME, and Ratings– More types of sports – more likely to
endorse keeping Fighting Sioux– More sports followed – more prejudice and
less positive reaction to Native confederate• This suggests that sports culture at UND is
sustaining racial prejudice and discrimination toward Native students on the UND campus.
• “Common” statements by UND sports fans (current and alumni) say they support, honor, and respect Native Americans: BUT their reactions to the Native confederate contradict those statements
Discussion• Time spent at UND (academic year)
– Sophomore students provided the lowest ratings of Native – and ratings improved for Junior and Senior students• This suggest that some positive change
occurs in regards to reactions toward Natives
• Some type of “maturity” – age, education in general, exposure to different cultures/Natives
• however, not clear if this positive change is causally linked to UND programs around Native issues
Limitations and Future Study• Sample characteristics
– More upper level (and grad) students?– Participant NAME
• Design characteristics– Artificial environment – will ratings transfer to
real world?– Controversial topic– Would ratings change at different point in time?
• Identify more student characteristic• Gender effects
– Would female confederates change ratings?– Collect data at different time points– Impact of Greater Grand Forks community
Conclusions• This study was an attempt to provide
an objective, empirical, and quantitative analysis on what the impact may be on Native and White students at UND.
• some objective evidence that Native students are more likely targets of racial prejudice and potential discrimination
• Both Native and White students are affected by this controversy in a negative way.
Conclusions• Based on these data, the continued use of the
Fighting Sioux name and logo indicates that the University of North Dakota is sustaining racial prejudice and potential racial discrimination by institutionally endorsing a racial stereotype.
• When an institution uses its power to define what is offensive and what is not about the image of another racial and cultural group – that could be defined as racism or white supremacy.
• Regardless of which side of the issue - actions need to occur.
• University members cannot ignore the prejudice and potential discrimination against other members of their community.
