White Teens Perception of Their Peers from Ethnic Minorities - Assignment Example

Institution Tutor     Psychology Student’s name     Course/Number Date Department PART 1 Introduction The following is an analysis on two research studies on human behavioral psychology. The first research study is that which was done by Adorno et al (1950) on authoritarian behavior. The other is by Kumar et al (2011) on white teens’ perception towards their peers from ethnic minorities. Similarities and differences between research by Adorno et al. (1950) and Kumar et al. (2011) In the research on authoritarian personality, Adorno et al (1950) administered their test to a sample which comprised 2,000 Americans. Adorno and his team then asked their respondents on their strength of disagreement or agreement with statements so as to allow researchers to ascertain their attitudes towards social minorities (i.e. ethnic and social minorities), their standpoint on economics, politics and moral values. Adorno and his team ensured that the male to female ratio was equally balanced, so as to ward off the potentiality of gender biasness playing into the research findings. About 1/10 of the samples were subjected to more in-depth interviews, under the supervision of Frenkel-Brunswik Else, Adorno’s co-author. This was Ardono’s subsample. The subsample comprised a group which had harbored the most authoritarian and prejudiced views while the other had aired the least of such views. Males were balanced between low and high scorers in authoritarianism while females were divided between 15 and 25 low. The groups were matched according to religious, age and political affiliation and regional or national background, before being compared to help determine other possible factors that could give rise to an authoritarian personality (Meloen, Van der Linden & De Witte, 2013). On the other hand, through the use of a research study different from that of Adorno et al (1950), Kumar et al (2011) sought to determine how young people viewed their peers who hailed from other ethnic groups. The study by Kumar and her peers uses different focus groups to conduct an explorative study on the attitudes white American teenagers had towards their Middle Eastern counterparts. Kumar and her counterparts in the study were mainly keen on studying the relations between white American teens and their Middle Eastern peers in American school setting. It was found that because of the protective factor, being white was taken for granted when majority of the people surrounding someone was white, while belonging to a racial or ethnic minority marked someone out as different. Therefore, Kumar et al (2011) conclude that being in an ethnic minority or majority colors the attitudes towards others and that self-perception influences people’s understanding of their own identity. Kumar et al (2011) achieved the feat above by conducting 10 focus group studies. The respondents were young teenagers. The teenagers were divided into two groups in five different American schools. White students were the majority in three schools, while in the remaining two, Middle Eastern students were the majority. This was done so as to determine how white teenage students spoke about other minorities while in the minority and in the majority. Kumar et al (2011) divulged that they chose focus groups because they would help student talk about sensitive matters with more ease, especially when in the presence of peers with whom they shared similar ideas and concerns, in lieu of one-on-one spotlight interview. In schools with the white majority, white teenage students showed some tendency to express prejudice towards their Middle Eastern counterparts. Nevertheless, they were less predisposed to highlighting their issues about their identity. Again, whiteness was less conspicuous by Caucasians students when in the majority setting as they focused their attention on the minority. In the minority setting, teenage Caucasian students were more prone to express their experiences which come with being white. It is important to note that both research undertakings by Adorno et al. (1950) and Kumar et al. (2011) engage the respondents in giving self-reports. This means that both teams obtain data that is given by the respondents about themselves in a subjective manner. The researchers therefore have obtained data or feedback that they could not have obtained independently. In light of the immediately foregoing, it is obvious that the findings of the two research studies are susceptible to demand effects. Simply put, the respondents might have been giving answers that are thought (by the respondents) to be socially acceptable to the interviewer and the general public. For Kumar and her colleagues, the fact that the respondents are teenagers and the subject of discussion borders on prejudice raises the risk of demand effect higher. A teenager is not developed enough in its personality to state its opinion without the fear of a backlash or social judgment upon taking on a stand that harshly against the grain. That Kumar’s respondents were less outspoken in the two schools in which they were the minority buttresses this suspicion. If the respondents are self-effacing in a situation where they are the minority, then it follows that they might have transferred their reticence onto their questionnaires (Cunningham & O’Leary, 2011). It is also noteworthy that both research studies involved the preparation of the questions prior to the interview or the filling in of the questionnaire itself. Kumar et al. (2011) admit this to be the case. Similarly, it is pointed out that the research study by Adorno and colleagues had revised its questions in order to outwit acquiescence bias. Both studies also involved the use of subsamples. For Kumar and her colleagues the subsamples were divided into the three major schools wherein Caucasian teenage students were the majority and the other two wherein the students were the minority. Ardono’s subsample was balanced between males and females and their high and low scores. Nevertheless, it is also important to appreciate the differences extant between the two research studies. In the research study by Kumar and colleagues and Adorno and colleagues, researchers are allowed to express their answers and follow them up with some explanation. This brings about an aspect of uniqueness in every answer that was given. This measure paved way for open-ended responses. Again, the research study that was done by Adorno et al (1950) and Kumar et al (2011) differ in the sense that while the former is quantitative, the latter is qualitative. The research data and results obtained by Adorno and his colleagues can be tabulated and analyzed numerically. The research study that Kumar and her colleagues conduct merely seek to identify social patterns and its data and results are non-quantitative. Kumar’s work is qualitative. Because of this, it follows that the research and sample design will have to be very different. PART 2 Identifying the Shortcomings in the Research Design Like many other research undertaking, there are shortcomings in the research design done by Adorno et al (1950). For one, independent researchers are categorical that the structure Adorno used was amenable to acquiescence responses. This means that the respondents would readily agree with an item (mostly a conclusion), simply because they have agreed with other items (premises). For instance, Adorno and his colleagues maintain that have an authoritarian streak are those who are: prone to show hostility towards the disobedient; predisposed towards treating juniors with contempt; likely to perpetuate own unacceptable aggressive and sexual impulses on minority groups; have an affinity with the mistreatment of an individual by his father, at his formative stage of life, as this leads to displacement and repression. While all these may be true of authoritarian personality, there is no one-to-one correlation between them and authoritarianism. There are usually other factors that may come into play between these factors and the acquisition of an authoritarian predisposition. For instance, children victims of abuse have grown up to become authoritarian or malleable because other factors came into play after the abuse. There are also other ethical issues that dogged Adorno’s research and findings. For one, it is pointed out that the interviewers had been privy to the research hypothesis and the test scores that the interviewees would bring. The research study by Kumar et al (2011) is also not without its shortcomings, especially in light of the research design chosen. Like Adorno, it is commendable that Kumar takes measures to protect the identity of the participants and that she and her colleagues used action research to collect data. Nevertheless, there is no way Kumar and her colleagues could totally obliterate the threat of demand effects and self-censorship. There is neither a formidable measure that Kumar and her colleagues could employ to have the respondents state their views unequivocally, nor do they use it. In respect to the immediately foregoing, it is very unlikely that Kumar et al (2011) could attain the research study’s saturation level. Since Kumar’s research study is a qualitative one, saturation level for her study can be fairly defined as the point at which the research question is adequately answered such that the introduction of any additional information will not alter the research findings. With the real threat of demand effects and self-censorship, it is obvious that there is a reality of different research results being obtained when new information or a different way of gathering information is used. PART 3 Reflection In spite of the aforementioned shortcomings of the research studies and findings by Adorno et al (1950) and Kumar et al (2011), their conclusions are credible. The credibility of both studies and their findings is strengthened by the believability of the study, its findings and the richness of the information gathered. It is beyond gainsay that when left unattended to, children victims of abuse are likely to experience maladjustment and being too authoritarian may thus come into play. Thus, Adorno and his colleagues’ findings are legitimate. Likewise, prejudice is a reality in human nature and its display is mostly communicated in a socially homogenous setting. Kumar and his colleagues’ findings are thus credible. References Adorno et al. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. American Jewish Committee. Cunningham, C. J. & O’Leary, B. J. (2011). Applied Psychology in Everyday Life. NY: Prentice Hall Kumar, R., Seay, N. and Karabenick, S. (2011). Shades of white: identity status, stereotypes, prejudice, and xenophobia, Educational Studies, 47 (4), 347–78. Meloen, J. D., Van der Linden, G. & De Witte, H. (2013). A Test of the Approaches of Adorno et al., Lederer and Altemeyer of Authoritarianism in Belgian Flanders: A Research Note. 34 (15), 805-940 Read More

The teenagers were divided into two groups in five different American schools. White students were the majority in three schools, while in the remaining two, Middle Eastern students were the majority. This was done so as to determine how white teenage students spoke about other minorities while in the minority and in the majority. Kumar et al (2011) divulged that they chose focus groups because they would help student talk about sensitive matters with more ease, especially when in the presence of peers with whom they shared similar ideas and concerns, in lieu of one-on-one spotlight interview.

In schools with the white majority, white teenage students showed some tendency to express prejudice towards their Middle Eastern counterparts. Nevertheless, they were less predisposed to highlighting their issues about their identity. Again, whiteness was less conspicuous by Caucasians students when in the majority setting as they focused their attention on the minority. In the minority setting, teenage Caucasian students were more prone to express their experiences which come with being white.

It is important to note that both research undertakings by Adorno et al. (1950) and Kumar et al. (2011) engage the respondents in giving self-reports. This means that both teams obtain data that is given by the respondents about themselves in a subjective manner. The researchers therefore have obtained data or feedback that they could not have obtained independently. In light of the immediately foregoing, it is obvious that the findings of the two research studies are susceptible to demand effects.

Simply put, the respondents might have been giving answers that are thought (by the respondents) to be socially acceptable to the interviewer and the general public. For Kumar and her colleagues, the fact that the respondents are teenagers and the subject of discussion borders on prejudice raises the risk of demand effect higher. A teenager is not developed enough in its personality to state its opinion without the fear of a backlash or social judgment upon taking on a stand that harshly against the grain.

That Kumar’s respondents were less outspoken in the two schools in which they were the minority buttresses this suspicion. If the respondents are self-effacing in a situation where they are the minority, then it follows that they might have transferred their reticence onto their questionnaires (Cunningham & O’Leary, 2011). It is also noteworthy that both research studies involved the preparation of the questions prior to the interview or the filling in of the questionnaire itself.

Kumar et al. (2011) admit this to be the case. Similarly, it is pointed out that the research study by Adorno and colleagues had revised its questions in order to outwit acquiescence bias. Both studies also involved the use of subsamples. For Kumar and her colleagues the subsamples were divided into the three major schools wherein Caucasian teenage students were the majority and the other two wherein the students were the minority. Ardono’s subsample was balanced between males and females and their high and low scores.

Nevertheless, it is also important to appreciate the differences extant between the two research studies. In the research study by Kumar and colleagues and Adorno and colleagues, researchers are allowed to express their answers and follow them up with some explanation. This brings about an aspect of uniqueness in every answer that was given. This measure paved way for open-ended responses. Again, the research study that was done by Adorno et al (1950) and Kumar et al (2011) differ in the sense that while the former is quantitative, the latter is qualitative.

The research data and results obtained by Adorno and his colleagues can be tabulated and analyzed numerically. The research study that Kumar and her colleagues conduct merely seek to identify social patterns and its data and results are non-quantitative. Kumar’s work is qualitative.

Read More