Experimenter effects on ingroup preference and self-concept of urban aboriginal children

82

Experimenter Effects on Ingroup Preference and Self-concept of Urban Aboriginal Children

Anne Pedersen, Iain Walker, and Colleen Glass Murdoch University

The present study investigated the effects of experimenter (Aboriginal &.. Anglo), school culture, gender, and age on 117 Aboriginal-Australian children’s ingroup preference and self-concept. Based on self-categorisation theory, an experimenter effect on ingroup preference but not on self-concept, was predicted. Past research led to a further hypothesis that the children would show outgroup preference. Results confirmed that the children showed greater ingroup preference when interviewed by an Aboriginal experimenter; no experimenter effect was found with self-concept scores. However, they did not uniformly show outgroup preference as was predicted; scores were quite heterogeneous. While age had no significant effect on ingroup preference, a negative correlation existed between age and self-concept. Self-concept scores were unrelated to ingroup preference scores. Implications of the findings and limitations of h e present study are discussed.

revious research shows that prejudice of non-Aboriginal P adults toward Aboriginal-Australian people is all too common in Perth society (e.g., Pedersen & Walker, 1997). However, little empirical research exists as to how - or indeed if - the views of a prejudiced society affect the attitudes of Aboriginal children toward their cultural group (e.g., as indicated by their degree of ingroup preference) and/or themselves personally (as indicated by their self-concept). This study hopes to shed some light on this question by investigating Aboriginal children’s ingroup preference and self-concept when interviewed by an Aboriginai versus an Anglo experimenter.

To give a sociocultural context to this paper, Perth is the capital city of the State of Western Australia, and has a population of about I .25 million people. Aboriginal people (of which a high proportion are Nyoongahs) comprise approximately 1.4% of the city’s population (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 1996). Aboriginal people suffer from a host of social problems, for example poor health, inadequate housing conditions, lower educational levels, high levels of unemployment, and loss of land (Australians for Reconciliation, 1996; Toussaint, 1987). Additionally, several recent community surveys reveal that a high percentage of non-Aboriginal Perth residents are prejudiced against Aboriginal people (e.g., Peder- sen, Contos, Griffiths, Bishop, & Walker, 1998; Pedersen & Walker, 1997; Pedersen, Walker, Contos, & Bishop, 1997). Well over half of the respondents in these three surveys scored above the midpoint on a modem prejudice scale. However, there is a lack of research on how such negative sociocultural conditions affect Aboriginal-Australian children’s appraisals of themselves at both the group and individual levels.

This paper will begin by reviewing literature relevant to this study. It should be noted that there is a degree of overlap in the literature between the terms selfconcept and self-esteem. Self- concept refers to the “cognitive appraisals of attributes about ourselves” (Hattie, 1992, p. 10). Self-esteem, however, refers to the evaluation of self and its attributes, and may be either general or dimension-specific. Only aspects of our self-concept

that are important to us will affect our self-esteem (Hattie). In previous research. the difference between self-concept and self-esteem often cannot be easily established. Thus, in reviewing existing studies, the terms concept and esteem will be used somewhat interchangeably (as occurs in past research), but as the original authors have defined them. In this paper, however, we examine self-concept rather than self-esteem. Likewise, we do not explicitly use an evaluative component when measuring ingroup preference in our research.

Ingroup Preference of Morginolised Children Research into the development of ingroup preference of children of “marginalised cultures dates back to Goodman (1946). Since then, much research has been done with children from a variety of cultures all over the world. In many early studies, a strong “white bias’’ (i.e., a preference for “white” stimulus figures which can be seen to reflect the status quo)’ was found with children from both marginalised cultures (K.B. Clark & M. Clark, 1947) and the dominant culture (e.g., Stevenson & Stewart, 1958). However, results became more ambivalent in the early 1970s. with many studies finding no strong white bias, especially those using African-American participants (e.g., Hraba & Grant, 1970). This reduction in white bias may have been partly due to changes in research methods (Aboud, 1988), but may also reflect real change in how marginalised children view their group due to widespread social change (Brand, Ruiz, & Padilla, 1974).

Vaughan (1978a) wrote of the importance of context when he discussed the impact of social change on intergroup attitudes. He pointed out that Maori children’s ingroup preference in the 1970s was stronger than just 10 years earlier: as the Brown Power Movement grew, so too did Maori children’s positive self-definition. Vaughan stressed the need to consider the wider social context in these circumstances, and that even very young children are sensitive to cultural changes.

The above indicates a decline in outgroup preference for some groups. However, such a clear reduction has not been

The research reported in this paper is enhanced by the insigho that follow Colleen Glass’ being an Aboriginal (Koorie) social scientist and teacher. W e would like to thank Dina Narkle for her help interviewing the children in a pilot study; Yvonne Nouwland and Marianne Polier for their help in interviewing the children in the present study: and all the participating children, parents, and schools. Funding by the Aboriginal Affairs Department Perth helped immeasurably in complering this research. Mark Rapley and three anonymous reviewers provided helpful feedback on earlier d r a b of this paper. Address for correspondence: Anne Pedersen or lain Walker at School of Psychology, Murdoch University, Murdoch W A 6 150, Australia. Email: peder- [email protected] or [email protected]

Australian Journal of Psychology Vol. 5 I, No. 2. I999 pp. 82-89

lngroup Preference of Aboriginal Children 83 found in studies with children from indigenous cultures over the last two or more decades. For example, Blue, Corenblum, and Annis (1987). Corenblum and Annis (1987), and Hunsberger (1978) all found a strong outgroup preference with native Canadian children. Vaughan (1978b) found that, even though strong outgroup preference had diminished, Maori children generally still showed more outgroup preference than Pakeha (white European) children, although this decreased in more urban settings. Interestingly, S.C. Wright and Taylor (1995) found that ingroup preference of native Canadian children increased when the children learned their own language. This latter finding stresses the importance of the immediate context as well as the wider social context.

This ambiguity of results may be due partly to methodologi- cal issues. One criticism of the early studies concerns the use of experimenters from social groups different from those to which the children belong (usually Anglo experimenters with marginalised children). Yet results are inconclusive as to whether ingroup preference results are affected by experimenter group membership. Some studies found no experimenter effect (e.g., Corenblum & Annis, 1993, with native Canadian participants). Some found that children scored higher with an experimenter from their own culture (e.g., Katz, Sohn, & Zalk, 1975, with African-American and white participants). Some found that older children scored higher with an experimenter from their own culture (e.g., Vaughan, 1963, with Maori participants), and others results were inconclusive (e.g., Williams, Best, & Boswell, 1975, with African-Amen- can participants).

The importance of the broader social and cultural changes on intergroup attitudes has already been noted with New Zealand participants (Vaughan, 1978a). Similar changes took place in Australia in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g., the freedom ride in New South Wales: see Curthoys, 1997, for a descrip- tion). The lack of research on the sense of self of Aboriginal children makes it impossible to gauge empirically the effects of such social changes. However, some recent research is worth noting.

Black (1931) examined the ingroup preference of 71 Aboriginal (Koori) children in New South Wales, aged 7 to 11. Three groups of children were tested (inner city, suburban, and rural). Although most children showed ingroup preference toward Aboriginal “friends”, this was not the case with “neigh- bours” and “potential spouse”. Nevertheless, children in the metropolitan school were generally more pro-Aboriginal. These children came from a stronger community, where Aboriginal people were more likely to be employed and to have links with their heritage. These children also felt that the school encouraged them to feel positive about their Aborigi- nality. Black suggests that how Aboriginal children’s identity develops depends on both the school (e.g., culturally appropriate programs) and the community environment (e.g., employ- ment). She also suggests that it is not useful to generalise about Aboriginal children; they are not a homogeneous group.

Although past research often fails to differentiate between how people feel about their cultural group and how they feel about themselves, theoretical considerations suggest that it may be essential to do so. Social identity theorists (e.g.. Tajfel & Turner, 1986) distinguish between personal (individual) and group (social, or cultural) identity. A similar distinction was made by Eric Willmot, an Aboriginal-Australian academic, in 1982. A major tenet of social identity theory (SIT) is that individuals will attempt to attain or maintain a “positive social identity” (Tajfel & Turner, 1986, p. 40). However, identity can be influenced by other factors (e.g., sociohistorical conditions such as oppression or social group boundary restrictions). The immediate context is also important (Hogg & Abrams, 1988).

The nature of ingroup preference of Aboriginal-Australian children, and its relation to self-concept, have not been examined empirically, yet seem to be of basic importance to understanding in this area.

Self-concepts of Marginalised Children It has been argued that children from marginalised cultures would have lower self-concepthelf-esteem because they are socialised to intemalise the negative opinion of the dominant culture about themselves and their cultural group - a kind of “internalised oppression” (Dudgeon & Mitchell, 199 1). Some studies (e.g.. McInerney, 1992; S.C. Wright & Taylor, 1995) do find that rnarginhlised children score lower on self-esteem than do children from the dominant culture. However, most research fails to support this notion. Many studies find no difference between scores of marginalised children and children from the dominant culture (e.g., Hare, 1977, with African-American participants; Withycombe, 1973, with native American participants) and others find that marginalised children scorc higher (e.g., Osborne, 1995. with African- American participants). Additionally, scores may depend on the facets of self-concept or self-esteem being tested. For example, although Hare found no difference on a general self- esteem scale or with questions relating to home or peer relations, the children scored lower on school questions.

So why do mrtrginalised groups not necessarily internalise generally unfavourable attitudes toward them held by the wider community’? Dudgeon, Lazaroo, and Pickett (1990) argued that self-esteem for Aboriginal-Australians depends on the opinion of “significant others”, and that it is likely for Aboriginal people that significant others are Aboriginal rather than non-Aboriginal. Overall, research seems to suggest that the self-worth of a cultural minority may be positive when referenced to the primary group, and negative when referenced to the outgroup. This supports the position of self-categorisation theory (SCT: Turner & Oakes, 1989). SCT posits that there are three broad self-categorisation levels: superordinate (e.g., a human being), intermediate (e.g., an Aboriginal or Anglo identity), or subordinate (e.g., a person in his or her own right). In certain circumstances, people may define themselves more as a group member than as an individual, and vice versa. Thus, when reference is made to the Aboriginal ingroup, the subordinate (personal) category is likely to be salient; when reference is made to the non-Aboriginal outgroup, an intermediate-level (group) identity is more likely. Different categories of self will be more salient in different circumstances.

Another factor that may influence self-concept and esteem scores.is gender. Some studies found no gender difference on self-esteem (e.g., M.M. Wright & Parker, 1978); other studies found that boys scored higher (e.g., Verkuyten, 1995). Conversely, Lefley’s (1976) self-concept study with native American children found that girls scored higher. In several Australian self-concept studies (e.g., Marsh, 1985), boys scored higher on facets such as “physical abilities” while girls scored higher on facets such as “reading”.

To our knowledge, no research exists that found an experimenter effect with self-concept and esteem. The absence of such an effect would support SCT. As Turner and Oakes (1989) argued, “personal self-categorisations gain in salience as intergroup differences decrease and intragrouphterpersonal differences increase” (p. 244). Thus, in the context of self- concept testing, it is probable that the subordinate (personal) category is more salient than the intermediate (group) category - all questions revolve around personal rather than cultural issues. Conversely, in the context of ingroup preference testing, it is probable that the intermediate category is more salient than the subordinate category - all questions revolve

Australian Journal of Psychology - August 1999

84 Anne Pedersen. lain Walker, and Colleen Glass

around cultural groups rather than the individual. Thus, the culture of experimenter would be more salient for ingroup preference testing than for self-concept testing.

Relationship Between Ingroup Preference and Self-concept No clear-cut relationship exists between attitudes toward oneself and one’s ingroup. M.L. Clark (1982) found no relationship between ingroup preference and self-esteem, while Hughes and Demo (1989) found a positive relationship between racial- esteem and self-esteem. One study with native Canadian children found a negative relationship between ingroup preference and self-esteem (Corenblum & Annis. 1993). implying that the more the children felt positive about themselves personally, the less positive they felt about their cultural group and vice versa. Corenblum and Annis suggested that their participants may have been motivated to distance themselves from a low- status group to enhance their personal self-esteem, which is in line with SIT. However, the finding of a negative relationship conflicts with the arguments outlined previously in this paper that marginalised children gain their feelings of self-worth primarily from significant (ingroup) others.

Research Aims and Hypotheses The primary aim of this study was to examine the ingroup preference of Aboriginal children. Also of interest was the relationship between ingroup preference and self-concept, and the effect of the interviewer’s culture,2 school culture, age, and gender on both dependent measures.

On the basis of the literature reviewed, three hypotheses were formulated and tested in the study. First, based on the strong ingroup ties of the Aboriginal community (Dudgeon et al., 1990). on the findings of Katz et al. (1975). who found that participants scored higher with an experimenter of their own culture, and on the tenets of S C T discussed previously, it was predicted that the Aboriginal children in this study would score higher on ingroup preference when tested by an Aboriginal experimenter. Second, based on the lack of any evidence showing an experimenter effect with self-concept testing, as well as on the tenets of SCT, it was predicted that the culture of experimenter would not affect self-concept scores. Third, based on previous findings (Corenblum & Annis. 1993), and despite Hypothesis 1, it was predicted that the children would show outgroup preference. Owing to the inconsistent findings in previous literature concerning the relationship between group and personal self-constructs, no specific hypothesis was made in this regard.

METHOD Conslderatlons in Testing Aboriginal Children Attempts were made to make the scales culturally appropriate for Aboriginal children, as psychological tests tend to favour people from the culture where it was developed (Anastasi, 1988). Several issues need to be raised here. First, most self- esteem measures are questionable when used with Aboriginal people (Dudgeon et al., 1990). Are the scales measuring children’s attitudes toward themselves within (and thereby referenced to) an academic mainstream cultural setting, or toward themselves and their own primary cultural group generally? Second, the testing procedure, as well as the test itself, must be culturally appropriate. Kearins (1995) suggested that experimenters make the tests untimed, as timed tests discriminate against Aboriginal people who tend not to “live by the clock” (p, 1). Experimenters should also make their behaviour low-key, speak softly and slowly, and invite Aboriginal children to participate rather than assume they will participate. Experimenters should give their given name rather

than introduce themselves by title (e.g., Ms - ), and should also explain why they are there. Third, Aboriginal people should be involved in the planning, implementation, and interpretation of research conducted with Aboriginal people (Davidson, 1980).

In the present study, the scales were developed with the help of Aboriginal people. The scale questions attempted to encap- sulate a variety of aspects of Aboriginal children’s lives, not only mainstream aspects. Additionally, although the testing occurred within a school setting, the procedure was made as culturally specific as possible (e.g., non-authoritarian experimenters, untimed tests, participation being requested rather than imposed).

Participants One hundred and seventeen Aboriginal (primarily local Nyoongah) children aged between 5 and 12 years participated in the study. The Aboriginal children were designated as such by their parents on the school register. There were 48 children aged 5 to 7,35 children aged 8 or 9, and 34 children aged 10 to 12. There were more girls (67) than boys (50). Half of the children (58) were tested by a female Aboriginal (Nyoongah) experimenter and the remaining 59 were tested by a female Anglo experimenter. All participants attended one of three public primary schools in a Perth metropolitan suburb classi- fied as being low to middle socioeconomic status (ABS, 1991). Approximately 2.5% of the suburb’s population was Aborigi- nal (ABS, 1996). There was no expectation of school differences as a11 schools were close to each other. No school taught an Aboriginal language, although each school promoted Aboriginal culture in some respedts (e.g., inviting Aboriginal people for guest talks, exhibiting Aboriginal art).

Measures Both ingroup preference and self-concept measures comprised 10 facets. These facets were piloted in studies conducted in the previous year. Eight facets were taken from self-concept research with non-marginalised children (sport, school, parental relations, physical appearance, achievement, behavioural conduct, friends, and physical ability). These facets were checked with Aboriginal adults who, after agreeing that the facets were also relevant to Aboriginal children, added another two facets: extended family (relatives) and co-opera- tiveness. The facets formed the basis for both the ingroup preference and self-concept scales. However, children under the age of 8 were not tested on the self-concept scale due to controversy in the literature about the validity of testing very young children.

Ingroup preference. Ingroup preference was measured by a derivation of the Preschool Racial Attitude Measure (PRAM 11; Williams, Best, Boswell, Mattson, & Graves, 1975). Ten short stones, based on the 10 facets, were individually read to each child. Four stories were negative and six were positive (two stories were removed from the scale after testing due to reliability problems, hence the uneven number of negative/positive items). Hdshe was asked to point to one of two pictures (of an Aboriginal or Anglo figure) that best suited each story.’ If the child found the task difficult, helshe was then given a “no preference” option. Altogether, 10 pictures of Aboriginal stimulus figures and 10 pictures of Anglo stimulus figures were shown to each child. The figures portrayed both sexes (six female, four male), different ages (child, adolescent, young adult, older adult), and differeqt positions (standing, sitting. walking). The Aboriginal and Anglo figures were matched in every way except stereotypically distinguishing physical characteristics. The Aboriginal figures incorporated

Australian journal of Psychology - August I999

lngroup Preference of Aboriginal Children 85 the general stereotype of brown skin colour, brownhlack hair, brown eyes, and a broadly shaped nose. The Anglo figures were pale in colour, had brown hair streaked with blonde, dark blue eyes, and a smaller shaped nose. The children were given the choice of selecting the Aboriginal figure or the Anglo figure. An example of an ingroup preference question is “One of these men is really good at sport. He plays for a team on the weekend that usually wins. Which is the man who is really good at sport?”.

The children were given 1 point if they picked the Aboriginal stimulus figure in the positive stories, or the Anglo stimulus figure in the negative stories. They were given 0 points if they chose the opposite, and 0.5 point if they gave a “no preference” response. Possible scores ranged from 0 (selecting all negative stimulus figures as Aboriginal, and all positive stimulus figures as Anglo) to 10 (selecting all positive stimulus figures as Aboriginal, and all negative stimulus figures as Anglo).

Scores fell into five major categories taken from the PRAM I1 instrument (Williams & Morland, 1976), and our scoring procedure followed theirs. However, as the PRAM I1 had 24 items, and our instrument had 10 items, category boundaries are somewhat different. These categories were based on Williams and Morland’s statistical procedure, which worked on the chance expectancy of participants falling within each category. By chance, 3.3% of responses should fall into each of the two extreme categories, 12.1% of responses should fall into each of the two moderate categories, and 69.2% of responses should fall into the no preference category. The categories used in the present study are as follows:

Strong outgroup (Anglo) preference (scores 0 to 3.2) Moderate outgroup preference (scores 3.3 to 4.0) No preference either way (scores 4.1 to 5.9) Moderate ingroup (Aboriginal) preference (scores 6.0 to 6.7) Strong ingroup preference (scores 6.8 to 10)

Self-concept. The format of our self-concept scale was taken from the Haner (1982, 1985) Perceived Competence Scale for Children. The 10 questions were matched to the ingroup preference facets, and were individually read to each child. Possible scores on each facet ranged from 1 to 4 as per the Harter (1982) instrument: scores 1 and 2 were negative, scores 3 and 4 were positive. Likewise, possible self-concept scale scores ranged from 1 to 4 (averaging scores across the 10 facets). An example is “Some kids do very well at all kinds of sports BUT other kids are not very good when it comes to sports. Are you more like the kids who do really well at sports, or those kids who aren’t very good when it comes to sport?’. The children would answer that they were either like the kids who do well at sport, or like the kids who do not. They were then asked if this was “sort of true” or “really true” for them, thus creating four possible responses. The higher the score, the higher the self-concept.

A more established measure of global self-worth (Harter, 1985) was used in a pilot study conducted in the previous year. Although the reliability for the Anglo children was reasonable (a = ,81), it was abysmal (a = .09) for the Aboriginal children. It was therefore decided to dispense with this scale.

Procedure The children were taken individually from their classrooms by either a Nyoongah or Anglo female experimenter, and some time was spent on rapport building. The experimenter (who was not a teacher, school staff member, or known to the child) sat down with each child and showed h i d h e r some photographs of her friends and family. She then talked to the

child about some personal details about her life (e.g., her family/friends). The children were then told exactly what the testing procedure entailed, and asked whether they would like to participate. All children chose to participate. For the older children, the self-concept scale was given first, followed by the ingroup preference scale. For the younger children, some additional time was first spent drawing a picture, to counter- balance the time not given to the self-concept testing. Testing took place in Februaryh4arch 1997.

RESULTS Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for each scale, setting out the scale means and standard deviations, the scale coeffi- cient alphas, and actual score ranges.

Reliability The internal consistency reliability for the ingroup preference scale was adequate for data from the Nyoongah experimenter, but low for those from the Anglo experimenter. The reliability of the ingroup preference scale was barely adequate when using data from both experimenters.

For the self-concept scale, reliability was adequate using data from both experimenters: reliability for the Nyoongah experimenter was only slightly better than that of the Anglo experimenter.

lngroup Preference Possible (and actual) ingroup preference scores ranged from 0 to 10 (N = 117, M = 4.56, SD = 2.14). Just over one third (34.2%) of children scored above the scale midpoint. Few children (9 children out of 117) gave no preference responses (approximately 8%) and only 24 individual responses out of a total of 1,170 were no preference (approximately 2%). The mean score of 4.56 does not support Hypothesis 3, that the mean ingroup preference score would show an outgroup preference (a score of 4.56 falls in the lower end of the no preference category).

It was not possible to do a 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 ANOVA on ingroup preference scores (the factors being gender, experimenter,‘age, and school) because of insufficient cell numbers. A 2 x 2 x 3 ANOVA (Experimenter x Gender x Age) revealed no gender effect, F(1, 105) = .85, ns; no age effect, F(2, 105) = .74, ns; and no interaction between age and gender, F(2, 105) = 0.17. ns, between age and experimenter, F(2. 105) = 0.24, ns, or between gender and experimenter, F(1, 105) = 1.55, ns. However, a significant experimenter effect was revealed, F( I , 105) = 5.32, p < .02, with scores with the Nyoongah experimenter (M = 5.01) being higher than scores with the Anglo experimenter (A4 = 4.1 1). This supports Hypothesis I .

Table I Descriptive Characteristics of Scales

M SO ci Ranp;e

Both experimenters lngroup preference 4.56 2.14 .55 0 to 10.00

Self-concept 3.13 0.43 .66 1.90 to 4.00

Nyoongah expenmenter lngroup preference 5.01 2.36 .65 0 to 10.00

Self-concept 3.14 0.44 .68 1.90 to 3.80

Anglo experimenter lngroup preference 4.1 I 1.81 .34 0.50 to 8.00

Self-concept 3.12 0.44 .64 2.30 to 4.00

Australian Journal of Psychology - August I999

86 Anne Pedersen. lain Walker, and Colleen Glass

m- Nopnln*lo. sronphmw -ol*polq -lmw

Figure I Distribution of ingroup preference scores by experimenter.

The experimenter effect on ingroup preference scores can be seen clearly when breaking up the data into the five categories described earlier in the Ingroup Preference subsection under Measures, in particular with respect to the extreme scores. Figure 1 shows that children were twice as likely to show strong outgroup preference with the Anglo experimenter than with the Nyoongah experimenter (40.7% compared to 20.7%). They were almost three times as likely to show strong ingroup preference with the Nyoongah experimenter than with the Anglo experimenter (24.1% compared to 8.5%).

Table 2 lists the experimenter effects on each ingroup preference facet. With the Nyoongah experimenter, there were 4 out of 10 facets where the children’s mean scores suggested an overall positive view of the Aboriginal stimulus figure, but with the Anglo experimenter only 2 out of 10 facets were seen positively. Mean scores were higher on every facet when tested by the Nyoongah experimenter. However, none of the ingroup preference facet score differences were statistically significant. Thus, the experimenter effect was only apparent when small differences in each facet were accumulated across all facets.

Self-concept Possible self-concept scores ranged from 1 to 4. The actual scale scores ranged from 1.90 to 4.00 (n = 64, M = 3.13, SD =

Table 2 Ingroup Preference Facer Scores (Means and Standard Deviations) for Results Obtained with the Nyoongah and Anglo Experimenters

0.43). The vast majority (92.2%) of children scored above the scale midpoint.

It was not possible to do a 2 x 2 x 2 x 3 ANOVA on self- concept scores (the factors being gender, experimenter, age, and school) because of insufficient cell numbers. A one-way ANOVA revealed no school effect, F(2,61) = .22, ns. A 2 x 2 x 3 ANOVA (Experimenter x Gender x Age) revealed no gender effect, F(1, 56) = .40, ns; no experimenter effect, F(1, 56) = .05, ns; and no interaction between age and gender, F( 1, 56) = 0.16, ns, between age and experimenter, F( 1, 56) = 0.00, ns, or between gender and experimenter, F(1, 56) = .33, ns. However, a significant age effect was revealed, F(1, 56) = 4.96, p e .03, where older children (aged 1&12) scored lower (M = 3.01, SD = 0.46) than the younger children (aged 8 and 9; M = 3.23, SD = 0.39). A correlation that just fell short of statistical significance was also found between self-concept scores and age (in years, rather than in the two age categories; r(63) = -.24, p = .056).

Relationship between fngroup Preference and Self-concept There was no relationship between ingroup preference and self- concept scores using data from all participants, 463) = .15, ns; from the Nyoongah experimenter, 432) = .27, ns; or from the Anglo experimenter, r(30) = -.05, ns. Thus, the distinction between the personal and group constructs is supported.

DISCUSSION Experimenter Effects A major focus of this study was to examine the effect of engaging an Aboriginal versus an Anglo experimenter on Aboriginal children’s responses on ingroup preference and self-concept scales. Hypothesis 1 predicted that Aboriginal children would score higher with the Nyoongah experimenter on ingroup preference; Hypothesis 2 predicted that no experimenter effect would occur with self-concept. These hypotheses were supported.

While the finding that the children scored higher with the Nyoongah experimenter on the ingroup preference scale does not support some previous research (e.g., Corenblum & Annis, 1993), it does support others (Katz et al., 1975). Whether the

Nyoongah experimenter Anglo experimenter

Negative Physical appearance (M = .34. SD = .47)

Parents (M = .39, SD = .48)

Clever (M = .39, SD = .49)

Friends (M = .4 I, SD = .SO)

Achievement (M = .47, SD = .SO)

Sport (M = .47. SO = .SO)

Sport (M = .45, SD = SO)

Equal

Positive

None

Trouble (M = .53, SD = .SO)

Cooperativeness (M = .59. SD = .48)

Relatives (M = .70, SD = .46)

Physical ability (M = .7 I, SD = .45)

Negative Physical appearance (M = .I9. SD = .39)

Friends (M = .26, SD = .44) Parents (M = .32, SD = .46)

Clever (M = .33, SD = .47)

Achievement (M = .40, SD = .49)

Trouble (M = .45, SD = .SO)

Equal

Positive

Coopeativeness (M = .SO. SD = .SO)

Relatives (M = .58, SD = .49)

Physical ability(M = .62, SD = .49)

Aurtmlian journal of Psychology - August I999

lngroup Preference of Aboriginal Children 87


effect is due to more identification and rapport being felt with a same-culture experimenter, or due to social (cultural) desirabil- ity processes, cannot be ascertained from these data. It should be noted, however, that the results clearly support SCT, as there was no experimenter effect with self-concept, where presum- ably a subordinate-level self-identity (or personal self) was more salient than an intermediate-level self-identity (or group self).

lngroup Preference Hypothesis 3, that the children would show outgroup preference, was not supported. Overall, the mean score fell into the no preference category, albeit leaning toward outgroup preference. However, the mean no preference score seems to be due to the heterogeneous responses of the children: less than a quarter of children showed a no preference score. Instead, the scores were spread over the five categories. These results indicate the necessity of recognising the diversity in ingroup preference scores among Aboriginal children. This conclusion was also reached by Black (1991), who warned against gener- alising about Aboriginal children.

The children’s scores were not overwhelmingly positive (in fact, approximately 40% of children displayed a degree of outgroup preference, either strong or moderate). Bearing in mind the prejudiced nature of Perth society as reflected in the results of surveys discussed earlier, this result is not altogether suipris- ing and suggests that the children are aware of specific social stereotypes of both Aboriginal and Anglo people. While previous studies have documented the general negativity felt by many mainstream Australians about Aboriginal people (Augoustinos, Rapley, & Tuffin, in press; Pedersen & Walker, 1997), the present study makes these general negative perceptions more specific, at least as perceived by young Aboriginal children.

The results are even less surprising when examining each of the 10 facets individually. The children rated physical appearance as the most negative of all the facets. The images in magazines and on television that are supposedly beautiful rarely depict Aboriginal people. The dominant culture sets the standard. Similarly, the relatively low scores for “parents” and “clever” may reflect the low esteem of mainstream society for the parenting skills and the “cleverness” of Aboriginal people. This may also be reflected in the mass media; the publicity that Aboriginal issues receive from the media is often negative (MickIer, 1992). On the other end of the scale, however, physical ability was seen positively, as were relatives and co-opera- tiveness. It is interesting to note that the latter two of the three positive facets relate to what may be regarded as collectivist values. Compared with western individualistic cultures, an Aboriginal person’s self-concept is less separable from his or her social context (Dudgeon et al., 1990), and is more integrally related to his or her family and community (Langton, Atkinson, Wanganeen, & Williams, 1985).

The ingroup preference findings suggest that some Aborigi- nal children have internalised the negative opinion of the dominant culture about their cultural group (Dudgeon & Mitchell, 1991). Conversely, they were simply regurgitating the stereotypes of the dominant culture. Although the experimenters stressed that there were no right or wrong answers, we do not know if this instruction was accepted by the children. Whichever scenario is correct, it is indeed worrying that they were able to reproduce such stereotypes so early in life.

The children do not appear to have a strong “positive group distinctiveness” in line with SIT. Yet, as Hogg and Abrams (1988) suggest, sociohistorical conditions are also relevant to the evaluation of group memberships. It may be that positive and negative Aboriginal stereotypes are too prevalent for the children to ignore. From a theoretical viewpoint, the data appear to support the position of SCT. As Turner and Oakes (1989) argued, social groups are formed on “shared self-categorisation” (p. 265) rather than simply seeking a positive group identity. The

children in the present study, as discussed, seemed well aware of the negative, as well as the positive, societal stereotypes.

Our results support those of Marjoribanks and Jordan (1986), who found that Aboriginal adolescents’ auto-stereotypes were generally only somewhat favourable, while their attitudes toward Anglos were very favourable. Our study shows that that very young children are picking up on social stereotypes. Young children at 5 years were just as likely to respond to many of the ingroup preference items in a stereo- typic fashion as were children at 12 years. This is particularly worrying if one recognises that stereotypes serve to justify and/or legitimise the power relationships within Australian society (e.g., Augoustinos & Walker, 1995).

We are not arguing that the data from either experimenter are right or wrong, or better or worse. It may be that feelings of self-worth of Aboriginal children (or all children) fluctuate depending on the setting they are in. For example, with members of their own community, they may feel better about, and make more positive reference to, their cultural group than when they are with members of the dominant society. This view of the dynamic and contextual nature of children’s realities is consistent with SIT and SCT, and supports the views of Berndt (1977) that both personal and social identity often shift, and are affected by outside views. Some recent American evidence suggests that even asking African-Americans to indicate their ethnicity on a test lowers their performance, apparently because it triggers negative stereotypes (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995). It could also be argued that the Nyoongah experimenter elicited more positive auto-stereotypes.

Regardless of the above, however, our results do not show the uniformly strong outgroup preference reported in research with other indigenous cultures (e.g., Corenblum & Annis, 1993).

Seff-concept Scores No gender effect was found on self-concept scores, which supports some research (e.g., M.M. Wright & Parker, 1978), but not others (e.g., Harper & Marshall, 1991). Older children scored significantly lower on self-concept scores than younger children, which supports some previous research (Katz et al., 1975; Lefley, 1976). Lefley argued that the decrease in her study may have been due to the older children being more exposed to discrepancies in status, economics, and experience between the white and native American cultures.

It has been suggested by several authors looking at a similar drop of self-concept in non-Aboriginal-Australian samples that this may be normal, and not a bad thing. Marsh (1985) argued that the extremely high self-concepts of young chiIdren may lack realism. He further argued that there are two reasons why decreases in self-concept may occur: evidence of limitations (coming face-to-face with harsh realities), and the fact that children may be more likely to compare themselves with peers who are doing better than them as they get older. As Durkin (1995) pointed out, social comparison processes begin early in life, but become more sophisticated throughout childhood. Similarly, Damon and Hart (1988) suggested that a developmental shift occurs around the age of 7, where children move from making statements about the “self’ to making statements about “comparative others”. It should be stressed, however, that the scores were still relatively positive.

The positive self-concept results support the argument of Dudgeon et al. (1990) that significant others for Aboriginal people tend to be Aboriginal rather than non-Aboriginal. However, who are significant others for the children was not tested empirically in the present study, so results must be seen as tentative support only. In any case, these findings imply that the children’s self-concept does not incorporate the prejudiced attitudes of the wider community. Despite this, it remains to be seen from future research whether the positive self-concepts of

88 Anne Pedenen. lain Walker, and Colleen Glass

Aboriginal children are as positive as those of comparable Anglo children.

Relationship Between Ingroup Preference and Self-concept There was no evidence of any relationship between ingroup preference and self-concept; how the children felt about themselves personally did not affect their ingroup preference, and vice versa. This finding was supported by the significant difference between the two constructs, and supports the findings of Katz et al. (1975) and M.L. Clark (1982). In the context of the present study, at least, it was not necessary to sacrifice a positive ingroup identity to achieve a positive self- concept (and vice versa), as seemed to occur with Corenblum and Annis’ (1993) participants.

Bearingin mind the fact that many of the responses given by the children to the ingroup preference questions seemed stereotypical, it could be argued that the children are picking up on the attitudes of their own and the wider community at a very young age. But, like M.L. Clark (1982), the knowledge of these stereotypes does not seem to affect their self-concept. As discussed previously, it may be that they are not using the dominant culture for comparison. That is, non-Aboriginal people cannot be assumed to be the significant others deter- mining Aboriginal children’s self-concept. The immediate and extended families (and perhaps the schools) may buffer the children from the harmful personal influence of prejudice in the outside community.

Scale Rellabilities The ingroup preference scale proved to be more reliable using data from the Nyoongah experimenter than data from the Anglo experimenter. Overall, however, they were less than the reliabilities of the original PRAM I1 studies (e.g., Williams & Morland, 1976). In our study, the reliability of the ingroup preference scale was particularly low with the Anglo experimenter compared to the Nyoongah experimenter. These results indicate that, for the reliable testing of Aboriginal children on cultural or group matters, it is preferable for an Aboriginal experimenter to be used.

However, it is important to note that the scale used in our study was made up of different facets, all of which were hypothesised to add to Aboriginal self-worth. Instead of building a homogenous scale covering similar areas, we constructed a multidimensional heterogeneous scale to cover a broad range of areas, Thus, high internal consistency with this scale would not necessarily be anticipated.

The self-concept scales were reliable and showed no experimenter effect. However, it should be noted that the sessions were conducted in a way that was hoped to be conducive to Aboriginal children feeling relaxed with the experimenter and the testing session (e.g., lack of time restraints). Therefore, these results cannot be safely generalised to a testing situation where the testing context is more “Anglo”.

Limitations of the Project Three limitations of the present study invite mention. First. the scales are “crosscultural” (to be used for inter-cultural comparisons), rather than “cultural” (to be used within a culture). That is, the scales were developed from extant Anglo measures to become as culturally appropriate as possible for Aboriginal children, and to allow comparisons between Aboriginal and Anglo children. Different results may ensue if a cultural measure were used instead of a crosscultural measure. Indeed, any quantitative psychological scale could be argued to be a non-Aboriginal construct. Second, reliability for the ingroup preference scale with the Anglo experimenter was poor. In particular, it is acknowledged that the indirect and heteroge-

neous measure of ingroup preference has disadvantages. Third, as discussed, the self-concept scale was used as an adjunct to the ingroup preference scale only (there was a matching self- concept question for every ingroup preference question) rather than being built primarily as a self-concept measure.

Future Research Several interesting avenues for future research could be pursued from our study. Rather than using a heterogeneous scale, a more global - and hopefully more reliable - scale would be a useful tool to work with. Similarly, it would be useful to further examine self-concept in its own right. Also, only children at primary school participated in our study; further work is vital to establish what occurs with children once they reach adolescence, a time of conflict and identity formation for all children, regardless of culture. Finally, a non-Aboriginal control group was not used in this study, the emphasis being on the experimenter effect on Aboriginal children. A comparative study would be a useful line of further research.

In conclusion, the young Aboriginal children in this study demonstrated at an early age an awareness of specific social stereotypes of both Aboriginal and Anglo people. However, the heterogeneous ingroup preference results also indicate the necessity of recognising the diversity of Aboriginal children. Ingroup preference scores were also higher and more reliable in the presence of the Aboriginal experimenter than in that of the Anglo experimenter, implying that same-culture experimenters are preferable when examining cultural issues. Finally, it is inadvisable to make inferences about the children’s ingroup preference based solely on self-concept tests (or vice versa) due to the lack of relationship between the two constructs.

Footnotes 1. The term white bias has been used historically from the beginning of research in this area to indicate preference for stimulus figures depicting the dominant culture (i.e.. white). While this term is retained in the literature review in this paper, we acknowledge that the word white is problematic, with its emphasis on colour only, as opposed to culture. Alternative terms used in past research are ingroup/outgroup bias and ingroup/ourgroiip preference. For our study, we prefer the term ingroup/outgroup preference., 2. In this paper, we use the construct culture rather than more, which implies a biological reality (Dobbins & Skillings. 1991) that is irrele- vant in Aboriginal-Australian culture and is disputed by biologists and geneticists (e.g., Miles, 1989). Culture, on the other hand, is more of a social-psychological construct (Matsumoto, 1994). Race only becomes important when society gives it differential cultural value (Australian Psychological Society, 1997). 3. It is noted that the stimulus figures in the present study were either Aboriginal (the marginalised group) or Anglo (the dominant group); other cultural groups were not included. If a third group (eg., Asians) were included, we acknowledge that the results would probably have been different. However, our intention was to focus specifically on Aboriginal and Anglo relations.

REFERENCES Aboud, F. (1988). Children andprejudice. New York: Basil Blackwell. Anastasi. A. (1988). Psychological testing. New York Macmillan. Augoustinos, M.. Rapley, M., & Tuffin, K. (in press). Cultural genocide or

a failure to gel? Colonialism, nationalism and the management of racism in Australian talk. Discourse and Society.

Augoustinos, M.. & Walker, I. (1995). Social cognition: An integrated introduction. London: Sage.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1991). Census of population and housing 6August 1991 Penh: A social atlas. Canberra: Author.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1996). Census ofpopularion and housing: Basic communify profile for Perth (Catalogue No. 2020). Canberra: Author.

Australian Psychological Society. (1 997). Racism and prejudice: Psycho- logical perspectives. Melbourne: Author.

Australians for Reconciliation. (1996). Western AustraIia’s other hisrory: A shon guide. Penh: Wordstars.


Berndt, R.M. (1977). Aboriginal identity: Reality or mirage? In R.M. Berndt (Ed.), Aborigines and change: Australia in the ‘70s (pp. 1-12). New Jersey: Humanities Press.

Black, D. (1991). Aboriginal children’s attitudes to children of their own and other raciaWethnic groups. Paper presented at the First International Congress on Prejudice, Discrimination and Conflict, Jerusalem, Israel.

Blue, A.W., Corenblum, B.. & Annis, R.C. (1987). Developmental trends in racial preference and identification in Northern Native Canadian children. In C. Kagitcibasi (Ed.), Growth and progress in crosscultural psychology (pp. 31 1-320). Lisse, Holland: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Brand, E.S., Ruiz, R.A., & Padilla, A.A. (1974). Ethnic identification and preference: A review. Psychological Bulletin. 81, 860-890.

Clark, K.B., & Clark, M. (1947). Racial identification and preference in Negro children. In T. Newcomb & E. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in socialpsychology (pp. 169-178). New York: Holt.

Clark, M.L. (1982). Racial group concept and self-esteem in black children. Journal of Black Psychology. 8, 75-88.

Corenblum, B., & Annis, R.C. (1987). Racial identity and preference in Native and white Canadian children. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 19, 254-265.

Corenblum, B., & Annis, R.C. (1993). Development of racial identity in minority and majority children: An affect discrepancy model. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science. 25,499-521.

Curthoys. A. (1997). Sex and racism in the 1960s. In J. Long, J. Gothard, & H. Brash (Eds.), Forging identities (pp. 11-28). Perth: University of Western Australia Press.

Damon. W., & Hart, D. (1988). Self-understanding in childhood and adolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davidson, G.R. (1980). Psychology and Aborigines: The place of research. Australian Psychologist, 15. 1 1 1-121.

Dobbins, J.E., & Skillings. J.H. (1991). The utility of race labeling in understanding cultural identity: A conceptual tool for the social science practitioner. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 37-44.

Dudgeon, P., Lazaroo, S., & Pickett, H. (1990). Aboriginal girls: Self- esteem or self-determination? In J. Kenway & S . Willis (Eds.). Hearts and minds: Self-esteem and the schooling of girls (pp. 71-96). London: Falmer.

Dudgeon, P., & Mitchell, R. (1991). fnternnlised mcism and drug abuse: Some consequences of racial oppression in Australia. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian Psychological Society, Adelaide.

Durkin, K. (1995). Developmental social psychology: From infancy to old age. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.

Goodman, M.E. (1946). Evidence concerning the genesis of interracial attitudes. American Anthropologist, 48, 624-630.

Hare, B.R. (1977). Racial and socioeconomic variations in preadolescent area-specific and general self-esteem. International Journal of Inter- cultural Relations, 1, 31-51.

Harper, J.F., & Marshall, E. (1991). Adolescents’ problems and their relationship to self-esteem. Adolescence. 26, 799-807.

Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Development, 53? 87-97.

Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-perception Profile for Children. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver.

Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hogg, M.A.. & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychol-

ogy of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Roudedge. Hraba, J., & Grant, G. (1970). Black is beautiful: A reexamination of

racial preference and identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 398-402.

Hughes, M., & Demo, D.H. (1989). Self-perceptions of Black Americans: Self-esteem and personal efficacy. American Journal of Sociology, 95,

Hunsberger, B. (1978). Racial awareness and preference of white and Indian Canadian children. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 10, 176-180.

Katz, P.A., Sohn, M., & Zalk, S.R. (1975). Perceptual concomitants of . racial attitudes in urban grade-school children. Developmental

Kearins, 1. (1995). Psychological testing for Aboriginal clients. Unpub- lished manuscript, University of Western Australia.

Langton, M.. Atkinson. W., Wanganeen. D., & Williams, M. (1985). Contact history: lntroduction - A celebration of resistance to colonialism. Black Australia, 2. 38-45.

132-159.

Psychology, 11. 135-144.

Lefley. H.P. (1976). Acculturation, child-rearing, and self-esteem in two Nonh American Indian Tribes. Ethos, 4, 38540 I .

Majoribanks. K., & Jordan, D.F. (1986). Stereotyping among Aboriginal and Anglo-Australians. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology. 17, 17-28.

Marsh. H.W. (1985). Age and sex effects in multiple dimensions of preadolescent self-concept: A replication and extension. Australian Journal

Matsumoto. D. (1994). People: Psychology from a cultural perspective. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Mclnerney, D.M. (1992). Cross-cultural insights into school motivation and decision making. Journal of lntercultural Studies, 13, 53-74.

Mickler, S. (1992). Visions of disorder: Aboriginal people and youth crime reporting. Cultural Studies, 6, 322-336.

Miles, R. (1989). Racism. London: Routledge. Osbome, J. (1995). Academics. self-esteem, and race: A look at the under-

lying assumptions of the disidentification hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 21,449455.

Pedersen, A., Conros. N.. Criffiths. B., Bishop, B., & Walker, 1. (1998). The function of attitudes toward Aboriginal-Australians in an urban and rural setting. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Pedenen. A., & Walker. I. (1997). Prejudice against Australian Aborig- ines: Old-fashioned and modern forms. European Journal of Social

Pedersen. A., Walker, I.. Contos, N., & Bishop, B. (1997). Attitudes to Aborigines and perceived discrimination. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Conference of the Society of Australasian Social Psycholo- gists, Wollongong. New South Wales.

Steele, C.M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 6 13-629.

Steele. C.M.. & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69,797-8 1 1.

Stevenson, H.W., & Stewart, E.C. (1958). A developmental study of racial awareness in young children. Child Development, 29, 399-409.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S . Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: BrookdCole.

Toussaint, S. (1987). Nyungars in the city: A study of policy, power and identity. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Western Australia, Perth.

Turner, J.C., & Oakes, P.J. (1989). Self-categorisation theory and.social influence. In P.B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (2nd ed.. pp. 233-275). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Vaughan. G.M. (1963). The effect of the ethnic grouping of the experimenter upon children’s responses to tests of an ethnic nature. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2, 66-70.

Vaughan, G.M. (1978a). Social categorisation and intergroup behaviour in children. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 339-360). London: Academic Press.

Vaughan, G.M. (1978b). Social change and intergroup preferences in New Zealand. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 297-3 14.

Verkuyten, M. (1995). Self-esteem, self-concept stability, and aspects of ethnic identity among minority and majority youth in the Netherlands. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 155-175.

Williams, J.E.. Best, D.L., & Boswell, D.A. (1975). The measurement of children’s racial attitudes in the early school years. Child Develop- ment, 46,494-500.

Williams. J.E., Best, D.L., Boswell, D.A., Mattson. L.A.. & Graves. D.J. (1975). Preschool Racial Attitude Measure 11. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 35, 3-18.

Williams, J., & Morland, K. (1976). Race, color, and the young child. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Willmot. E. (1982). Aboriginal views: Schooling and identity levels. The Aboriginal Child at School, 10, 12-20. .

Withycombe, J.S. (1973). Relationships of self-concept. social status, and self-perceived social status and racial differences of Paiute Indian and white elementary school children. Journal of Social Psychology, 91, 337-388.

Wright, M.M., & Parker, J.L. (1978). The relationship of intelligence, self- concept and locus of control to school achievement for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children. The Exceptional Child, 25, 167-179.

Wright, S.C., & Taylor, D.M. (1995). Identity and language of the class- room: Investigating the impact of heritage versus second language instruction on personal and collective self-esteem. Journal of Educa- tional Psychology, 87,241-252.

Of P~chology. 37, 197-204.

Psychology, 27, 56 1-587.

lngroup Preference of Aboriginal Children 89


Experimenter effects on ingroup preference and self-concept of urban aboriginal children

Documents