Affects of Race in Ambiguous Situations Jordon Epps, Suhanya Erne, Natasha Owen, Gizelle Torres California State University, Northridge Presented: 2005.

Affects of Race in Affects of Race in Ambiguous Ambiguous SituationsSituations

Jordon Epps, Suhanya Erne, Natasha Owen, Jordon Epps, Suhanya Erne, Natasha Owen, Gizelle TorresGizelle Torres

California State University, NorthridgeCalifornia State University, Northridge

Presented: 2005 PSI CHI Research CompetitionPresented: 2005 PSI CHI Research Competition

Introduction Introduction Past ResearchPast Research

Hurricane KatrinaHurricane Katrina

Mary-Beth, Oliver, and Dana (2002)Mary-Beth, Oliver, and Dana (2002)

Hugenberg and Bodenhausen (2004) Hugenberg and Bodenhausen (2004)

Introduction Introduction Past ResearchPast Research

Hurricane Hurricane KatrinaKatrina Different Different

captions on captions on pictures with pictures with identical identical situationssituations

Introduction Introduction Past ResearchPast Research

Mary-Beth, Oliver, and Dana (2002)Mary-Beth, Oliver, and Dana (2002) Differences in White participants’ Differences in White participants’

identification and misidentification of identification and misidentification of Black and White criminals Black and White criminals

Introduction Introduction Past ResearchPast Research

Hugenberg and Bodenhausen (2004)Hugenberg and Bodenhausen (2004) Hostility towards facial expressions of Hostility towards facial expressions of

African Americans and Caucasians—African Americans and Caucasians—more hostility towards African more hostility towards African AmericansAmericans

HypothesisHypothesis

We hypothesized that ethnicity and We hypothesized that ethnicity and cultural influences affects the cultural influences affects the interpretation of a person in either a interpretation of a person in either a positive or negative way. positive or negative way.

MethodMethod

ParticipantsParticipants

CSUN Human Subject CSUN Human Subject PoolPool

101 Participants101 Participants 15 African Americans 15 African Americans

(14.9%)(14.9%)

28 Caucasians (27.7%)28 Caucasians (27.7%)

32 Hispanics (31.7%)32 Hispanics (31.7%)

26 Other Races (25.7%)26 Other Races (25.7%)

Methods Methods MaterialsMaterials

QuestionnaireQuestionnaire Set of 10 pictures/Set of 10 pictures/

3 versions3 versions Four key pictures, Four key pictures,

6 random pictures6 random pictures

Method Method MaterialsMaterials

Illegally Breaking into a Car VS Legally Breaking into Car

Method Method MaterialsMaterials

ArguingArguing VS VS Friendly Friendly Conversation with SecurityConversation with Security

Method Method MaterialsMaterials

Cheating VS Working with a Classmate

Method Method MaterialsMaterials

Gun to Gun to ProtectProtect Family VS Gun to Family VS Gun to Protect Protect OutsideOutside of Family of Family

Methods Methods ProcedureProcedure

Dividers set upDividers set up Participants viewed pictures 1-10 and Participants viewed pictures 1-10 and

answered questions accordinglyanswered questions accordingly Participants filled out demographic Participants filled out demographic

info (age, race, gender, major), then info (age, race, gender, major), then answered the question pertaining to answered the question pertaining to their view on level of equality of racial their view on level of equality of racial groupsgroups

DebriefingDebriefing

ResultsResults

Chi Square TestChi Square Test Alpha .05Alpha .05

ResultsResults

SignificantSignificant Findings Findings Car Situation “illegally breaking in vs. Car Situation “illegally breaking in vs.

legally breaking in,” legally breaking in,” Pearson Chi-Square =.002.Pearson Chi-Square =.002.

Hispanic - Car

illegal67%

legal33% illegal

legal

White - Car

illegal32%

legal68%

illegal

legal

Black - Car

illegal27%

legal73%

illegal

legal

ResultsResults

NonNon Significant Findings Significant Findings Cheating SituationCheating Situation

Pearson Chi-Square =.668Pearson Chi-Square =.668

Gun SituationGun Situation Pearson Chi-Square =.616 Pearson Chi-Square =.616

ResultsResults

SignificantSignificant Findings Findings Security Situation “arguing vs. friendly Security Situation “arguing vs. friendly

conversation”conversation” Pearson Chi-Square =.001 Pearson Chi-Square =.001

Black - Security

arguing 38%

friendly62%

arguing

friendly

Hispanic - Security

arguing76%

friendly24%

arguing

friendly

White - Security

arguing12%

friendly88%

arguing

friendly

DiscussionDiscussion

FindingsFindings Supports past researchSupports past research Although, only 2 out of the 4 main Although, only 2 out of the 4 main

pictures were significant, it still pictures were significant, it still supports our hypothesis supports our hypothesis

Hispanics viewed more negativelyHispanics viewed more negatively Los Angeles location—we are exposed to Los Angeles location—we are exposed to

more Hispanic immigrants who are viewed more Hispanic immigrants who are viewed more negativelymore negatively

DiscussionDiscussion

LimitationsLimitations Pictures were not identicalPictures were not identical

In some of the facial expressionsIn some of the facial expressions In the angles which the pictures were shotIn the angles which the pictures were shot

Participant BiasParticipant Bias Participants may have answered the Participants may have answered the

questions in a way which made them seem questions in a way which made them seem more socially desirablemore socially desirable

ConclusionConclusion

All racial groups are All racial groups are notnot perceived equally. There is a perceived equally. There is a

negative perception when certain negative perception when certain minority groups are present.minority groups are present.

Thank youThank you

THE ENDTHE END