Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesExperimental Manipulations
The name and a 4 x 4 mm picture on the HR profile sheet indicated applicant gender. More than 200 pictures of African Americans and Asian Americans were rated to obtain the eight pictures used in this experiment. There were two pictures each of Asian-American men, Asian-American women, African-American men, and African-American women. Pictures were rated on a 9-point Likert-type scale by a diverse group of 15 student judges. Following the procedure of Heilman and Saruwatari, (28) pictures were matched on dimensions of "old-young," "trustworthy-untrustworthy," and "hardworking-lazy" to avoid a confound of perceived age, moral character, or energy for work with appearance and gender. Two pictures were used for each of the manipulations so that individual characteristics associated with a particular photograph would not be a confound. (29) Pictures were chosen so that they fell in the middle of the attractiveness continuum. The average picture ratings across African-American and Asian-American samples were: African-American female--[M.bar] = 5.25, 5.26; African-American male--[M.bar] = 5.66, 5.46; Asian-American female--[M.bar] = 5.42, 5.15; Asian-American male--[M.bar]. = 5.00, 4.77.
Dependent Measures
After reviewing the human resource profile, subjects rated the employee on the salary amount he or she should receive ($45,000-$47,000 in $500 increments), the raise amount that he or she should receive next year if current performance is maintained (2 percent-10 percent in 2 percent increments), and the amount that should be spent annually on the employee's training ($1,000-$5,000 in $1,000 increments). Training was included because women in the past have received less executive education than men. (30)
Each employee was also rated on a series of 9-point bipolar scales. To gain additional information for variable formulation, two focus groups were conducted: one with six African Americans, the other with six Asian Americans. The African-American focus group was composed of four women and two men, average age 24.83, while the Asian-American focus group was composed of three men and three women, average age 26. Because of past racial mistrust between these two groups, we selected African Americans to assess Asians and vice versa to capture extreme views in terms of stereotyping. For example, African Americans have described Asians as aloof and unfriendly. (31) In interviews with residents of an urban housing project, Guthrie and Hutchinson (1995) found that African Americans assumed that Asian Americans were all immigrants, stealing away employment opportunities that belonged to them. (32) Other stereotypes of African Americans toward Asians include "unfriendly toward non-Asians" and "believe themselves to be superior to people of other groups and cultures." (33) At the same time, Asians see blacks as lazy, unattractive, and unsuccessful. (34) Tensions are exacerbated because Asians have been upheld as a success story compared to African Americans and Hispanics, (35) and because Asians have been portrayed as "super successful models that African Americans should copy." (36)
Following the focus group methodology of Krueger, (37) we introduced the discussion with a general question to get subjects talking and interacting. We asked participants to "Think back throughout your careers and throughout your life; can you recall any specific instances with other races where you felt resistance communicating with them?" From initial answers, we generated several follow-up questions. Participants were asked their general perceptions of the respective group, if they thought a gender hierarchy existed, and if they thought the ethnic group in question would be good at managing people of their own and other cultures. The discussion was free flowing, with explanations and examples requested for clarification when needed. Discussions were tape-recorded and later transcribed. Approximately four pages of focus group data were generated from both samples.
The following examples illuminate some of the stereotypes present:
From the Asian American focus group: [African Americans] have little experience working with Asian Americans. Therefore, they don't trust and understand them. I think African-American males like to stir up trouble: they are aggressive and intimidating; they like to deny responsibility and are rude. When' I have debated or argued with African Americans, I usually back off when they get too aggressive.
From the African-American focus group: Everyone wanted to sit right next to the Asian-American people because they knew that they're very smart in chemistry and math. During test time, everyone sat around them. I think they are very timid people and they keep to themselves. I guess they think everyone else is not as smart and intellectual as they are; they think they are more intelligent than any other ethnic group. Asian Americans figure African Americans are low class.
Analysis of focus group data and review of the relevant literature led to creation of the following conceptual categories (1) Competence: competent/incompetent, intelligent/unintelligent, qualified/unqualified; (2) Seriousness about work: silly/no-nonsense, fanciful/realistic, scattered/focused, impractical/practical, casual/businesslike; and (3) Politeness: inconsiderate/thoughtful, ill-mannered/well-mannered, impolite/polite, rude/gentile. Coefficient alphas for competence, seriousness about work, and politeness were .80, .77, and .84, respectively.
Results
Manipulation Checks and Preliminary Analyses
Preliminary [t.bar]-tests did not indicate a confound of either gender or attractiveness for job type. The job-type ratings for chemical engineer and human resource officer were respectively 5.67 and 4.80 on a 9-point masculine/feminine scale [t.bar] (116) = 2.92, [p.bar] < .0040. The mean of attractiveness was mid-range (5.74) on a 9-point manly/womanly scale. Correlations among seriousness about work, competence, and politeness ranged from .65-.69.
Dependent Measures
A 2 x 2 x 2 MANOVA was conducted to check for overall effects across dependent variables. Results revealed a significant main effect for race [F.bar] (3,117) = 3.87, [p.bar] < .01, and a significant interaction effect for race x gender [F.bar] (3,117) = 5.29. ANOVA revealed that in general Asian Americans were perceived as more competent [F.bar](1, 119) = 10.43, [p.bar] < .0013, omega square = .07, more polite [F.bar] (1, 119) = 4.11, [p.bar] < .05, omega square = .02, and more seriousness about work [F.bar] (1, 119) = 5.13, [p.bar] < .03, omega square = .03, than African Americans, providing support for Hypothesis 1. Simple effects analyses of the gender x race interaction for seriousness about work showed that African-American men were considered less serious about work than Asian-American men, but there was no corresponding difference on this variable between African-American and Asian-American women (See Figure 1). No significant differences emerged for the salary and compensation variables or for the job type manipulation. Thus, no supporting evidence was found for research questions three and four.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Planned [t.bar]-test comparisons (least squares difference method) further indicated that African-American men were viewed as less competent than Asian-American women [t.bar] (59) = 1.93, [p.bar] < .06, and less competent than both Asian-American men [t.bar] (59) = 3.30, [p.bar] < .0016 and Asian-American women [t.bar] (59) = 3.25, [p.bar] < .00. African-American men were viewed as less polite than African-American women [t.bar] (59) = 2.17, [p.bar] < .04, Asian-American men [t.bar] (59) = 2.23, [p.bar] < .03, and Asian-American women t (55) = 2.70, [p.bar] < .01. Asian-American women were viewed as less serious about work than Asian-American men [t.bar] (64) = 2.18, [p.bar] < .02, while African-American men were considered less serious about work than African-American women [t.bar] (53) = 2.66, [p.bar] < .02, Asian-American men [t.bar] (59) = 3.74, [p.bar] < .00, and Asian-American women [t.bar] (59) = 1.72, [p.bar] < .07. [T.bar]-test results are reported in Table 1. Partial support was provided for hypothesis two, that a hierarchy exists with regard to race and gender for Asian and African Americans: namely, Asian-American men, Asian-American women, African-American women, and African-American men.
Discussion
These data provide evidence for a hierarchy of assessment based on African-American and Asian-American appearance. Even though all candidates had the same qualifications and job performance history, their job-related characteristics were differentially rated. Specifically, persons with an African-American male appearance experienced the most negative stereotypes, in that they were viewed as less competent and less serious about work than persons in the other groups. These results reflect cultural stereotypes of "lazy, irresponsible, and not intelligent" (38, 39, 40) sometimes associated with African Americans. African-American men were also viewed as less polite than individuals in the other three groups, reflecting the stereotype of "resentful, trouble-making, and prone to violence." (41, 42, 43) African-American women fared significantly better; their qualities were viewed as being more or less equivalent to those of Asian-American men and women. These results are congruent with the cultural stereotype of African-American women being seen as more stable, cooperative, and hard working than their male counterparts. The fact that African-American men were not, however, rated lower in terms of salary or training budget could be a form of "aversive racism," in which prejudicial attitudes are expressed indirectly. The aversive racist voices discomfort through avoidance and exclusion of minorities from social and informal networks.
FEED