Title: DISCRIMINATORY AFFECTS OF NATIVE AMERICAN MASCOT ENDORSEMENT (NAME) ON IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP DYNAMICS.
1DISCRIMINATORY AFFECTS OF NATIVE AMERICAN MASCOT
ENDORSEMENT (NAME) ON IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP DYNAMICS.
2Stereotypes, 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
3Historical Perspective
- Conflict
- Land, Resources etc.
- Governmental Social Policies Contact
- e.g. exclusion, extermination, assimilation
- Images/Stereotypes Created
- Image as a resource
- One Contemporary Conflict
4Native 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
5Image Sources
- Books/Literature
- primitive, degrading, filthy, warlike, savage,
hostile, fugitives, runaway slaves, riffraff, and
bold (Trimble, 1988, p. 189) - Television/Motion Pictures
- Two main sources of info (Vrasidas, 1997)
- Mythology of the Western genre
- Created and perpetuated negative
images/stereotypes
6Examination of Stereotypes
- Most common and earliest depictions of American
Indians were that of the noble savage and the
blood-thirsty savage (Trimble, 1988). - Many of the earliest depictions can be seen in
classic western movies.
7Examination of Stereotypes
- Westerns focus on friction between American
Indians and White settlers. - The most common image bloodthirsty savage.
- depicted as cruel, ruthless, uncivilized,
aggressive, hostile killers. - Athletic Team names modeled these.
8American Indian Athletic Team Nicknames, Logos
and Mascots
- Warriors and Indians are listed in the top ten of
most popular nicknames used by sport teams
(Nuessal, 1994). - Nicknames can also refer to whole Indian nations
such as the Illini, Chippewas, Black Hawks,
Seminoles, Sioux, and Hurons.
9Sports 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
10Stereotypes 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
11Differences 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)
12(No Transcript)
13Differences 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)
14(No Transcript)
15Studies on American Indian Nicknames and Logos
- Sigelman (1998) conducted a survey on the
Washington Redskins football team by measuring
public opinion toward the use of the name
Redskins. - few surveyed saw the need to discontinue the use
of the name. - supporters failed to realize their depictions as
racial stereotyping. - Fenelon (1999) conducted survey in Cleveland, OH
regarding the Cleveland Indians baseball team use
of the logo Chief Wahoo. - Caucasians wanted to keep the logo at all costs
despite protests by American Indians - African Americans remained neutral.
- American Indians wanted a change.
16Effects 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
17Fighting 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
18(No Transcript)
19(No Transcript)
20(No Transcript)
21(No Transcript)
22(No Transcript)
23(No Transcript)
24(No Transcript)
25(No Transcript)
26(No Transcript)
27Fighting Sioux Controversy and Conflict
- Prejudice and Discrimination?
- Hostile environment?
- Who is Affected?
28Social 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
29Methods
- 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
30Methods
- 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
31Procedures
- 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
32(No Transcript)
33(No Transcript)
34Results
- N268 87 males (34.50), 152 females (60.30),
and 13 who omitted their gender (5.2). - Mean age was 19.61 (SD1.61).
- 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
35Results
- 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 ANOVAs
- Prejudice and discrimination ratings
- Composite ratings
- Intellect and aptitude, positive affect,
aggressiveness
36Results
- 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.
37Results
- 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.
38Results
- 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).
39Results
40Results
- 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
41Results
- 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.
42(No Transcript)
43Results
- 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.
44Results
- 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.
45- Cell sizes keep 193, neutral 32, change 10
46Results
- 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.
47Results
- One-way MANOVA on Composite Scores
- Only on Ratings of Native Confederate
- Student Characteristics as IVs
- Academic Standing
- of Sports Followed
- Type of Sports Followed
- One-way ANOVA on of Sports Followed
- Participant NAME as IV
48Results
- Academic Standing
- Significant MANOVA
- prejudice ratings, F(3,112) 4.58, p .005
- aggressiveness ratings, F(3,112) 2.99, p
.034.
Cell size by gender and academic standing for ratings of Native confederate. Cell size by gender and academic standing for ratings of Native confederate. Cell size by gender and academic standing for ratings of Native confederate. Cell size by gender and academic standing for ratings of Native confederate. Cell size by gender and academic standing for ratings of Native confederate.
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
Female 38 14 8 4
Male 23 14 8 4
Total 61 28 16 8
49Prejudice Ratings
- Tukey HSD revealed that sophomore students (M
6.48, SD 1.40) rated the Native confederate
significantly less than freshman students (M
7.17, SD 1.10), p .046, d .53 and junior
students (M 7.67, SD .97) p .010, d .99
50Aggressiveness Ratings
- Tukey HSD revealed that sophomore students (M
2.53, SD .97) rated the Native confederate as
significantly more aggressive than senior
students (M 1.41, SD .84), p .040, d 1.23.
51Results
- of Sports Followed
- Significant
- Prejudice ratings F(2,119) 3.45, p .035
- positive affect ratings, F(2,119) 3.97, p .021
Cell size by gender and number of sports followed for ratings of Native confederate. Cell size by gender and number of sports followed for ratings of Native confederate. Cell size by gender and number of sports followed for ratings of Native confederate. Cell size by gender and number of sports followed for ratings of Native confederate.
None One Two or more
Female 14 8 42
Male 6 11 32
Total 20 19 74
52Results
- significant difference in prejudice ratings was
between students who followed two or more sports
(M 6.85, SD .1.30) compared to students who
followed only one sport (M 7.57, SD .98), p
.025, d .62.
53Results
- positive affect ratings revealed that students
who followed two or more sports at UND (M 4.09,
SD .85) rated the Native confederate
significantly less than students who only
followed one sport (M 4.72, SD 1.00), p
.017, d .67.
54Results
- Type of Sport Followed
- Nonsignificant MANOVA
55Results
- Participant NAME
- number of sports followed F(2,236) 8.05, p lt
.001. - students who endorsed keeping the Fighting Sioux
name/logo (M 2.00, SD 1.03) followed
significantly more sports than student who
endorsed a neutral position about the Fighting
Sioux name/logo (M 1.26, SD 1.10), p .001,
d .69.
56- Note Cell sizes keep 193, neutral 32,
change 10.
57Discussion
- 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
58Discussion
- 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.
59Discussion
- 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
60Discussion
- 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)
61Discussion
- 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
62Discussion
- 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
63Limitations 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
64Conclusions
- 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.
65Conclusions
- 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.