Visiting or Here to Stay? Framing Đa văn hóa và Thái độ đối với nhóm dân tộc thiểu số tại Mỹ - Melissa Ann McManus Scircle

University of Massachusetts Amherst ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst Open Access Dissertations 9-2013 Visiting or Here to Stay? How framing multiculturalism in different ways changes attitudes and inclusion of ethnic minorities in the United States Melissa Ann McManus Scircle University of Massachusetts Amherst, mscircle@mail.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.edu/open_access_dissertations Part of the Social Psychology Commons Recommended Citation McManus Scircle, Melissa Ann, "Visiting or Here to Stay? How framing multiculturalism in different ways changes attitudes and inclusion of ethnic minorities in the United States" (2013). Open Access Dissertations.7275/3vjf-x238 https://scholarworks.edu/open_access_dissertations/809 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst. For more information, please contact scholarworks@library.

VISITING OR HERE TO STAY? HOW FRAMING MULTICULTURALISM IN DIFFFERENT WAYS CHANGES ATTITUDES AND INCLUSION OF ETHNIC MINORITIES IN THE UNITED STATES A Dissertation Presented by MELISSA MCMANUS SCIRCLE Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Massachusetts Amherst in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY September 2013 Department of Psychology © Copyright by Melissa Scircle 2013 All Rights Reserved VISITING OR HERE TO STAY? HOW FRAMING MULTICULTURALISM IN DIFFFERENT WAYS CHANGES ATTITUDES AND INCLUSION OF ETHNIC MINORITIES IN THE UNITED STATES A Dissertation Presented By MELISSA MCMANUS SCIRCLE Approved as to style and content by: ___________________________________________ Nilanjana Dasgupta, Chair ___________________________________________ David Cort, Member ___________________________________________ Ronnie Janoff-Bulman, Member ___________________________________________ Brian Lickel, Member ___________________________________________ Maureen Perry-Jenkins, Member ____________________________________ Melinda Novak, Department Head Department of Psychology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work would not have been accomplished without the help of many people. Number one on that list is my advisor Buju Dasgupta. Thank you for challenging me and pushing me to be my best. Your support and patience while waiting for me to “get it”, and your celebrating with me when things would finally “click” made the challenges something I could handle and even appreciate.

Thank you to my dissertation committee members: Brian Lickel, David Cort, Maureen Perry- Jenkins, and Ronnie Janoff-Bulman. I was fortunate to have your suggestions and encouragement throughout this process. My thanks to the wonderful Social Psychology division at UMass for helping me to become a better researcher. A special thank you to my officemates Mindi Rock and Elicia Lair, and my friend Cassie DeVito; you three were always available to provide feedback, help troubleshoot, vent, or chat.

I am also indebted to those who began graduate school with me for making the first few years so wonderful (I heart Coho). And last but never least, I am grateful for the support of my family, particularly Adam and Thumper. Thank you for making the last five years possible, and for helping me to follow my dreams. iv ABSTRACT VISITING OR HERE TO STAY? HOW FRAMING MULTICULTURALISM IN DIFFFERENT WAYS CHANGES ATTITUDES AND INCLUSION OF ETHNIC MINORITIES IN THE UNITED STATES SEPTEMBER 2013 MELISSA MCMANUS SCIRCLE, B.

INDIANA UNIVERSITY BLOOMINGTON M., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Ph., UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Directed by Dr. Nilanjana Dasgupta Three experiments explored the way in which different framings of multiculturalism influence White American perceivers’ attitudes towards ethnic minorities and inclusion of them in the national group. Results showed that while participants always preferred Whites to ethnic minorities, the difference in liking was largest when multiculturalism was described as permanent and Whites were present (vs. absent) in that description.

In contrast, differences in liking did not vary by the role of Whites when multiculturalism was described as temporary (Studies 1 and 2). Second, Whites were always seen as more American than ethnic minorities, but particularly when Whites were present (vs. absent) in the description of multiculturalism regardless of the temporal framing (Studies 1 and 2). Third, participants experienced a greater need to affirm the White status quo when multiculturalism was described as permanent and Whites were present (vs.

absent) in the description (Study 2). Finally, bias against ethnic minorities was greatest when the description of multiculturalism affirmed the primacy of White heritage in the definition of the nation. Overall findings suggest that not explicitly including the majority group in multiculturalism may lead to better relations between them and minority groups. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

v LIST OF TABLES. viii LIST OF FIGURES. 5 The Current Research. EXPLICIT ATTITUDES ITEMS.

EXPLICIT INCLUSION ITEMS. STUDY 1 MANIPULATION CHECK. AFFIRMATION OF STATUS QUO. STUDY 2 MANIPULATION CHECK.

126 vii LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Means and standard deviations for the Study 1 manipulation check. Means and standard deviations for the Study 1 Explicit Attitudes variables. Means and standard deviations for the Study 1 exploratory variables.

Means and standard deviations for the Study 2 manipulation check. Means and standard deviations for participants’ reported affect in Study 2. Means and standard deviations for the Study 2 exploratory variables. Means and standard deviations for Affirmation of Status Quo in Study 3.

Means and standard deviations for participants’ reported affect in Study 3. Means and standard deviations for the Study 3exploratory variables. Contrast weights for the interaction contrasts conducted in Study 3. 100 viii LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1a & 1b.

Study 1: Feeling thermometer ratings of ethnic minorities and Whites. Study 1: Implicit attitudes towards ethnic minorities and Whites. Study 1: Explicit inclusion of ethnic minorities and Whites. Study 1: Implicit inclusion of ethnic minorities and Whites.

Study 2: Implicit attitudes towards ethnic minorities and Whites. Study 2: Feeling thermometer ratings of ethnic minorities and Whites. Study 2: Implicit inclusion of ethnic minorities and Whites. Study 2: Explicit inclusion of ethnic minorities and Whites.

Study 2: Affirmation of White Status Quo. Study 3: Feeling thermometer ratings of ethnic minorities and Whites. Study 3: Implicit attitudes towards ethnic minorities and Whites. Study 3: Explicit inclusion of ethnic minorities and Whites.

Study 3: Implicit inclusion of ethnic minorities and Whites. 113 iv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Historically, social psychological research on prejudice has focused on social categorization as a precursor of prejudice. As a result, past research has focused on how categorization might be eliminated (i., decategorization) or reframed (i., recategorization) in order to improve intergroup relationships and reduce prejudice against outgroups. One type of recategorization strategy is multiculturalism, a contemporary belief system that requires individuals to value and respect distinctions between in- and outgroup members while at the same time keeping a common superordinate identity in mind—this superordinate identity may be a shared national group (Park & Judd, 2005).

Multiculturalism posits that ethnic group memberships should be acknowledged and celebrated as part of an individual’s multiple social identities (Plaut, 2002; Scott, 2004; Verkuyten, 2005). Although multiculturalism as a recategorization strategy ought to improve intergroup relations, empirical support for this hypothesis is mixed. Previous research shows that multiculturalism sometimes has positive effects (e., when thinking about multiculturalism, majority group members display less prejudice toward ethnic minority groups at both explicit and implicit levels (Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004; Wolsko, Park, & Judd, 2006; Yogeeswaran, Dasgupta, & Gaudet, 2011)), but can also have negative effects (e. when thinking about multiculturalism, majority group members display more stereotypes of minorities (Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2000) and feel that their ingroup is being excluded (Plaut, Garnett, Buffardi, & Sanchez-Burks, 2011)).

Moreover, some effects of multiculturalism are still unknown: It is unclear how making Whites feel included vs. excluded in multiculturalism might impact White individuals’ attitudes towards ethnic minorities. It is additionally unclear how multiculturalism may influence majority group members’ inclusion of ethnic minorities within their national group. More generally, how can multiculturalism have both positive and negative effects? Is it possible to reconcile these opposing outcomes? 1 The overarching purpose of my dissertation was to reconcile the above-mentioned mixed findings by identifying whether different framings of multiculturalism have a differential effect on majority group members’ attitudes toward ethnic minorities and their willingness to include them as legitimate citizens of their national group.

Two broad goals guided the current research. First, I examined whether (a) manipulating the role of Whites in multiculturalism (by explicitly including them in a description of multiculturalism or not) and (b) manipulating the temporal framings of multiculturalism (as a temporary experience of ethnic minority group’s cultural traditions or the permanent integration of ethnic minorities in the U.) have different effects on White individuals’ attitudes towards ethnic minorities. Second, I sought to identify the underlying psychological mechanisms that drive these effects by testing whether motivation to affirm the White American status quo and heritage influences people’s attitudes toward, and inclusion of ethnic minorities in the nation. Social Categorization One of the causes of intergroup bias is social categorization, a spontaneously occurring cognitive process.

Categorization leads perceivers to notice the distinction between groups that include the self (the ingroup) versus groups of other people which don’t include the self (the outgroups), which creates an “us” versus “them” mentality (see Social Identity Theory, Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Self-Categorization Theory, Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), and can lead to stereotyping and prejudice. One potential way to decrease prejudice and stereotyping as well as improve intergroup relations is to change the way that individuals categorize others. Using Decategorization to reduce prejudice Decategorization suggests that if members of two different groups see themselves (and each other) as individuals rather than members of groups (Wilder, 1986) or have personalized interactions to get to know each other on an individual (vs. One popular decategorization strategy in contemporary American culture is colorblindness, which advocates that group members should be viewed as individuals rather than as group members (Hahn et al.

However, although decategorization assumes that prejudice and category differentiation (i., the extent to which two groups are seen as different from each other) are positively correlated—less category differentiation is correlated with less prejudice–empirical research does not support this assumption (Park & Judd, 2005; Wolsko et al. Furthermore, eliminating category boundaries may be unrealistic and even unproductive because valued group membership can promote a positive sense of self for group members (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Since decategorization may not be feasible and has potentially negative effects, researchers have come up with an alternative option: recategorizing group members into a common group in order to reduce or eliminate intergroup bias. Using Recategorization to reduce prejudice Two dominant theories discuss how to recategorize ingroup and outgroup members effectively to enhance intergroup attitudes and relations.

Perhaps the most well-known is the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000), which proposes that intergroup biases can be reduced when group members recategorize themselves into a superordinate group (e., White and Black Americans can see themselves as all being Americans instead of members of their respective ethnic groups). By seeing themselves as a single inclusive group instead of two completely separate groups, attitudes towards former outgroup members are predicted to become more positive since they are now ingroup members. Over two dozen empirical studies support this one-group recategorization perspective (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005, for a review). For example, Nier, Gaertner, Dovidio, Banker, and Ward (2001) found that when White participants interacted with a Black confederate as either teammates or separate individuals without a common group connection, participants’ evaluations of the Black confederate (a racial outgroup 3 member) were more positive when they were teammates versus separate individuals.

Just as decategorization is undesirable because it ignores group membership entirely, however, the Common Ingroup Identity Model may also be less than ideal as it minimizes the importance of subordinate social categories. Instead of focusing on similarities and minimizing differences between the ingroup and the outgroup like the one-group recategorization model, another popular recategorization model, the Mutual Intergroup Differentiation model (Hewstone & Brown, 1986), encourages groups to emphasize their distinctiveness from other groups but in the context of cooperating with each other.