DISCRIMINATORY AFFECTS OF NATIVE AMERICAN MASCOT ENDORSEMENT (NAME) ON IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP DYNAMICS.

1
DISCRIMINATORY AFFECTS OF NATIVE AMERICAN MASCOT
ENDORSEMENT (NAME) ON IN-GROUP/OUT-GROUP DYNAMICS.

• John Gonzalez, PhD

2
Stereotypes, 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

3
Historical Perspective

• Conflict
• Land, Resources etc.
• Governmental Social Policies Contact
• e.g. exclusion, extermination, assimilation
• Images/Stereotypes Created
• Image as a resource
• One Contemporary Conflict

4
Native 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

5
Image 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

6
Examination 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.

7
Examination 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.

8
American 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.

9
Sports 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

10
Stereotypes 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

11
Differences 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)
13
Differences 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)
15
Studies 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.

16
Effects 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

17
Fighting 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)
27
Fighting Sioux Controversy and Conflict

• Prejudice and Discrimination?
• Hostile environment?
• Who is Affected?

28
Social 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

29
Methods

• 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

30
Methods

• 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

31
Procedures

• 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)
34
Results

• 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

35
Results

• 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

36
Results

• 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.

37
Results

• 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.

38
Results

• 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).

39
Results
40
Results

• 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

41
Results

• 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)
43
Results

• 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.

44
Results

• 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

46
Results

• 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.

47
Results

• 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

48
Results

• 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
49
Prejudice 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

50
Aggressiveness 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.

51
Results

• 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
52
Results

• 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.

53
Results

• 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.

54
Results

• Type of Sport Followed
• Nonsignificant MANOVA

55
Results

• 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.

57
Discussion

• 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

58
Discussion

• 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.

59
Discussion

• 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

60
Discussion

• 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)

61
Discussion

• 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

62
Discussion

• 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

63
Limitations 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

64
Conclusions

• 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.

65
Conclusions

• 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.