Stereotype Change & Prejudice Reduction Cross-cultural Awareness Programme

8/2/2019 Stereotype Change & Prejudice Reduction Cross-cultural Awareness Programme

1/21

Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 11: 243262 (2001)

DOI: 10.1002/casp.629

Stereotype Change and Prejudice Reduction:Short- and Long-term Evaluation

of a Crosscultural Awareness Programme

MIRIAM E. HILL* and MARTHA AUGOUSTINOS

Department of Psychology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia

ABSTRACT

The present study reports an evaluation of an applied prejudice reduction intervention. Previous

research has indicated that such programmes achieve limited success. The programme evaluated

was an in-house anti-racist education programme aimed at reducing prejudice towards Aboriginal

Australians. The target audience were employees of a large public service organization. Knowledge

of, prejudice towards, and stereotyping of Aboriginal Australians were assessed before commencing

the programme to establish a baseline. Changes in these variables were assessed immediately after

completing the programme, and again 3 months after completing the programme. The programme

had pronounced effects immediately after completion: there was a signicant increase in knowledge

and signicant decrease in prejudice and negative stereotyping. However, 3 months later, there was

no signicant difference to baseline levels of prejudice and stereotyping. Knowledge remained sig-

nicantly higher than at baseline 3 months after completing the programme. High prejudice partici-

pants alone experienced a signicant, long-term decrease in old-fashioned racism. It is concluded

that further research must be done to develop more successful strategies of prejudice reduction

and stereotype change that are also applicable to `real world' contexts. Copyright # 2001 John

Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: stereotype change; applied prejudice reduction; evaluation; Aboriginal Australians

INTRODUCTION

Interventions aiming to change or to reduce prejudiced attitudes go by a variety of different

names andphilosophies.Programmes aimed at changing specic intergroup attitudes tend to

be cognitive in orientation (Duckitt, 1992). That is, they focus on the beliefs underlying pre-

judice by attempting to increase knowledge, awareness and understanding through the pro-vision of information. This information is typically proffered in a seminar or workshop style

group via readings, lms, and discussions on the target outgroup's history, achievements,


2/21

and contributions. Some programmes also incorporate an intergroup contact element, using

members of the target outgroup to administer the intervention.

Determining the effectiveness of these interventions is by no means easy. Prejudice

reduction interventions are widely used in personnel training in government organizations,educational institutions, and in multinational corporations (Day, 1983; Duckitt, 1992;

Landis et al., 1984). However, researchers appear to have been reluctant to make these

programmes the object of study. Given the interest of social psychology and the social

sciences more generally in prejudice, it is surprising to nd formal evaluations of such

programmes so difcult to locate. One of the reasons for the lack of enthusiasm among

researchers may be that such programmes tend to employ a mixture of `eclectic methods

and exercises aimed at producing change' (Duckitt, 1992, p. 259). This combination of

methods and goals makes designing and implementing empirical evaluations difcult

(Rossi and Freeman, 1993). In this paper, we report the evaluation of a workplace preju-

dice reduction intervention. At the same time, we remain aware of the methodological dif-

culties associated with conducting and reporting such an evaluation.

The social psychology of prejudice reduction and stereotype change

Social psychology has made considerable contributions to theories of prejudice reduction

and stereotype change and prejudice reduction programmes implicitly and explicitly draw

upon this knowledge. The most inuential and well-known social psychological method of

prejudice reduction has been the `contact hypothesis', which proposes prejudice reduction

via intergroup contact (Brewer, 1997; Cook, 1985; Hewstone, 1996; Hewstone and Brown,1986). Recently, however, social psychologists adopting a social cognitive perspective

have focussed on changing group stereotypes by providing stereotype-disconrming infor-

mation. These two perspectives, despite looking very different on the surface, offer sur-

prisingly similar frameworks for prejudice reduction. Indeed, Hewstone (1996) has

argued that work on stereotype change via stereotype disconrming information is simply

a cognitive analysis of the contact hypothesis.

In order for stereotype change to take place, social cognitive research has emphasized the

necessity for stereotype disconrmers to be otherwise typical of the target group (Hantzi,

1995; Hewstone etal., 1992; Hewstone etal., 1994; Johnston and Hewstone, 1992; Johnston

et al., 1994; Johnston and Macrae, 1994; Kunda and Oleson, 1995). The contact hypothesis,however, emphasizes the importance of generalizing from the contact situation to the group

as a whole, requiring the recognition by participants that the contact is intergroup as well as

interpersonal (Allport, 1954; Cook, 1985; Duckitt, 1992; Hewstone, 1996; Hewstone and

Brown, 1986). Research on both intergroup contact and stereotype change suggests that

when trying to change individual attitudes towards outgroups, highly structured environ-

ments are necessary to produce the conditions facilitating prejudice reduction.

However, although such highly structured environments optimize the possibility of

stereotype change, there is no evidence that long-term change will take place. No

follow-up assessments have been conducted to determine whether short-term change is

maintained in the long term.

244 M. E. Hill and M. Augoustinos


3/21

at attacking a different facet of prejudice. However, the greater the variety of methods

used, and the more widereaching the goals of such a programme, the more difcult it

becomes to design and execute a methodologically `sound' evaluation. As each individual

intervention can be made up of quite different components, it can also be quite difcult todetermine how useful the results of one evaluation are in assessing the success of such

programmes in general.

Duckitt (1992), for example, only briey reviews prejudice reduction interventions in

the nal chapter of his book. Commenting on such interventions generally, he notes that

the most successful prejudice reduction interventions are longer, emphasize intergroup

similarities rather than differences, and require the active participation of attendees. Even

so, he criticizes the lack of research on the long-term effects of such programmes.

Brislin (1993) and Cotton (1993) offer more practically oriented reviews of prejudice

reduction interventions. Reviewing work place programmes, Brislin argues that prejudice

reduction interventions must be structured in a particular way in order for the intervention to

be successful. Outgroup members should have higher status and power than ingroup mem-

bers, tasks set should require cooperation and interaction with in and out group members,

and the tasks should be directed towards the attainment of a superordinate goal. Thus, the

conditions for success are very similar to those required for successful intergroup contact.

Reviews of `in-school' programmes offer some interesting insights for workplace

applications. In particular, Cotton (1993) argues that such programmes must be integrated

into the school curriculum on a long-term basis, at as early an age as possible, and include

all children. One-off programmes are not successful, and may have negative effects in the

long term (Sanson et al., 1997). As with adults, co-operative tasks leading to the attain-ment of a common goal are an effective means of encouraging positive intergroup inter-

action.

Landis et al. (1984), offer a more ambivalent evaluation of cognitively oriented preju-

dice reduction interventions. Like Duckitt, Landis et al. note that prejudice reduction inter-

ventions draw on a variety of approaches in their aim to reduce prejudice. Consequently,

such interventions often lack clearly dened goals, or clearly dened means of measuring

whether these goals have been achieved. Under such circumstances, programme evalua-

tion becomes difcult, and highly problematic (Rossi and Freeman, 1993). Below, three

published evaluations of interventions are discussed.

The Cultural Awareness Programme, US. Neville and Furlong (1994) report on the

evaluation of a university-based Cultural Awareness Programme serving undergraduates,

the major goal of the programme being to increase awareness about racism on campus and

in society more generally. The programme consisted of six 2 hour workshops held over a

semester. The evaluation compared students attending this workshop with those attending

a personal development workshop and a control group who attended no workshop at all.

Results indicated that students completing the Cultural Awareness Programme were not

signicantly more positive in their attitudes towards people of other ethnic backgrounds

than those students taking a personal development programme or no programme. Nor did

they report more positive social interactions with people of other ethnic backgrounds. Theauthors speculate that this result was due to the high attrition rates in both the Cultural

Evaluation of a prejudice reduction programme 245


4/21

not complete the programme makes it impossible to draw rm conclusions about its

effects.

Shared Learning Programme, UK. Hewstone et al. (1994) evaluated a programmedesigned to increase interprofessional co-operation between doctors and social workers

(Shared Learning Programme). Adopting a workshop format, the programme included a

discussion of similarities and differences between social workers' and doctors' approach

to clients, the roles, duties, and requirements of both groups, and provided the opportunity

for members of both groups to work with each other in deciding the appropriate response

to a case study.

The programme was jointly presented by a doctor and a social worker and emphasized

the need to develop means of working together more co-operatively to provide better client

service. Hewstone et al. (1994) argue that such a programme is a real world application of

the contact hypothesis in that participants act as intergroup representatives. The pro-

gramme also emphasized the equal status nature of the interaction, and required members

of each group to work together to achieve a common goala course of action appropriate

to their case study.

Hewstone et al. (1994) found a signicant improvement in intergroup attitudes follow-

ing participation in the programme. Intergroup attitudes became more positive and ingroup

members were more willing to recognize ingroup and outgroup superiority on different

aspects of practice. In addition, ingroup knowledge of the outgroup increased between

pre- and post-course. Ratings of the programme indicated that participants felt they had

worked together successfully.Hewstone et al. (1994) argue that the similarities between research on stereotype

change and the outcome of this programme highlight the importance of typicality in

prejudice reduction interventions incorporating a contact element. They conclude overall

that the Shared Learning Programme did improve intergroup attitudes and knowledge.

Hewstone et al. (1994) argue that future programmes should include contact with multiple

typical outgroup members rather than just one or two.

PoliceSchools Liaison Programme, UK. Hewstone, Hopkins and colleagues report

the evaluation of the effect of a British PoliceSchools Liaison Programme on students'

attitudes towards and perceptions of, the police (Hewstone et al., 1992; Hopkins, 1994;Hopkins et al., 1992). In this programme, a police ofcer was placed in participating

schools on a full time basis. The ofcer's role was to provide positive intergroup contact

between the students and the police.

Hewstone and colleagues found that students rated the school police ofcer signi-

cantly more positively than they did the police in general. Findings indicated that the stu-

dents did not perceive their school police ofcer as typical of the police as a group, and

rated the ofcer as closer to the `caring and welfare' profession than to the police. The

intervention was `failing' because students simply did not perceive the school police of-

cer as a `typical' police ofcer. Hence, the positive effects of the interpersonal encounter

did not generalize to the intergroup context.The results of this evaluation make very clear the barriers to successful prejudice reduc-



5/21

problem then is this: for groups in conict, how do you provide positive intergroup contact

without it appearing so unusual as to effectively not be intergroup?

Summary: The effects of prejudice reduction interventions

The limited research that has been published has found the effects of prejudice reduction

intervention programmes to be mixed. While it is usually found that participants' knowl-

edge about the target group and related social issues increases, there is scant evidence that

the programmes produce a change in attitudes or behaviour. Moreover, even when effects

due to the programme are found, there has been no research as to how enduring these

effects are. Bearing these ndings in mind, let us turn now to a consideration of the pre-

judice reduction intervention evaluated here.

The Cross-Cultural Awareness ProgrammeThe Cross-cultural Awareness Programme is an anti-racist education course used in staff

training by the Courts Administration Authority (CAA) in South Australia and by several

Australian government agencies. The programme is marketed by Chip Morgan & Associ-

ates and was developed based on the work of Chambers and Pettman (1986). The latter,

working in an Australian context, drew on the work of Judy Katz (White Awareness, 1978),

but also on adult education techniques to develop their anti-racist approach.

Chip Morgan & Associates work with the organization involved to adapt the basic

structure of the programme to their particular needs, as well as train the organization's

chosen facilitators to administer the course. The broad aims of the programme are to

increase knowledge of indigenous history and culture and to reduce prejudice towards

Aboriginal Australians. Whilst Aborigines constitute only 2% of the Australian popula-

tion, their indigenous status makes them a highly salient social group within Australia.

Like most indigenous peoples throughout the world, they have experienced considerable

cultural and social dislocation. Not only are they the most socially and economically dis-

advantaged social group within Australia (Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in

Custody, 1991), but they are also the most stereotyped and discriminated against group

(Larsen, 1978, 1981; Walker, 1994).

The Cross-cultural Awareness Programme was instituted within the CAA in response to

Recommendation 96 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody con-ducted from 1987 to 1991. Finding that many of the representatives of the judiciary system

had little knowledge and understanding of Aboriginal culture, society, and practices, the

Commission recommended court personnel and judicial ofcers participate in educational

programmes concerning contemporary Aboriginal societies, cultures, and experience

(Johnston, 1991).

Background to the Cross-cultural Awareness Programme1

The Cross-cultural Awareness Programme is an anti-racist education programme, which

adopts a workshop format. At the time of this evaluation, the CAA had implemented

the Cross-cultural Awareness Programme as a 3-day staff training programme. The

programme had the strong support of the Executive committee of the Authority. The



6/21

programme was compulsory for all employees of the CAA in regular contact with the public

as part of their work, and voluntary for all others. Additionally, it was incorporated into the

induction programmes of Court orderlies and security staff. The programme was offered

every 6 weeks, to groups of up to 15 staff members from a variety of departments.

The programme's facilitators. Each course of the programme involved three facilita-

tors, one woman and two men. These facilitators were Aboriginal employees of the CAA,

who had volunteered to be trained as facilitators. Thus, the Cross-cultural Awareness Pro-

gramme utilized employees of the CAA who were also members of the target outgroup to

act as facilitators. This is done deliberately so that the facilitators are both members of the

target outgroup, but also members of a salient ingroupthe CAA. It was thus expected

that the information presented in the programme would be seen as coming from credible,

peer-group sources, but at the same time from members of the target outgroup. The facil-

itators themselves were of varying experience in the Australian public service, and occu-

pied medium-level positions.

A broad overview of the programme's structure. Each of the 3 days of the Cross-cul-

tural Awareness Programme focused on different issues. On the rst day, participants

examined Australian history and institutions from an Aboriginal perspective. This section

aimed to redress the lack of knowledge about the dispossession of Aboriginal Australians

following colonization in 1788. The rst day also introduced the concept of institutional

racism, and its place in Australia's history. The second day introduced participants to

research on attitudes, stereotyping, and prejudice, and encouraged participants to thinkabout and explore how stereotypes are formed and their effects on their targets. Partici-

pants were asked to examine their own beliefs and how they had developed. On the third

and nal day, participants used example incidents as a framework for discussion on racism

and discriminatory behaviour. They were encouraged to role-play how they would react as

witnesses to racist incidents of varying severity, and to think of anti-racist strategies that

could be used in their life and work. Throughout the 3 days, combinations of videos, small

group activities, and discussions encouraged debate and interaction between participants

and the facilitators.

Aims of the Cross-cultural Awareness Programme. The programme has four majorobjectives. Participants should: (1) develop a broader understanding of Aboriginal Austra-

lian cultures; (2) develop an appreciation of Aboriginal Australian cultures in the 1990s;

(3) develop an understanding of stereotypical attitudes and how to eliminate them; (4) have

any positive attitudes towards Aboriginal cultures and peoples reinforced. Broadly speak-

ing it hopes to reduce prejudice and stereotypical responses to Aboriginal Australians. The

Programme mounts a three-pronged attack on prejudice and stereotyping in particular,

involving: (1) contact with members of the outgroup, (2) the exploration of stereotype dis-

conrming information, and (3) activities designed to explore not only the beliefs asso-

ciated with prejudice, but also associated feelings and emotions. Thus, the importance

of exploring negative feelings as well as beliefs is emphasized within this course.



7/21

goals are met. In using a social-psychological approach to evaluating the programme as a

prejudice reduction intervention, we decided to assess its success in meeting three stated

objectives: changes in knowledge, attitudes, and stereotyping. We evaluated participants'

knowledge, attitudes and stereotypes before they commenced the programme (baseline-Time 1) and immediately after they had completed the programme (Time 2). Mindful

of the critiques of Duckitt (1992) and Landis et al. (1984), we also conducted a 3 month

follow-up (Time 3) of participants to see whether any changes in knowledge, attitudes, and

stereotypes were maintained.

Changes in knowledge, prejudice, and stereotyping. The programme aims to increase

participants' understanding of Aboriginal cultures and Indigenous issues in contemporary

Australia. We therefore expected a signicant increase in participants' knowledge imme-

diately following the course at Time 2, and for this increase to be maintained in the long

term at Time 3.

The programme also has as its main objective a signicant reduction in prejudiced atti-

tudes. We included two measures of prejudice by which to evaluate the success of the

intervention. This included a measure of modern racism and one measure of old-fashioned

redneck racism. We expected the programme to produce a signicant reduction in both

modern and old-fashioned racist attitudes at Time 2, and for these reductions to be main-

tained at Time 3.

Social psychological theories of reducing prejudice have focussed increasingly on

changing stereotypes and negative attitudes. Similarly, the Cross-cultural Awareness Pro-

gramme seeks to reduce negative stereotypical beliefs. Stereotypical beliefs about Abori-ginal Australians have however, been shown to have both positive and negative

components. Thus we undertook to explore any changes in both negative and positive

stereotypes (Augoustinos et al., 1994). Success of the Cross-cultural Awareness Pro-

gramme would be indicated by a decrease in the endorsement of negative stereotypes as

a result of participating in the course. This decrease would be maintained in the long term.

Similarly, there would be an increase in endorsement of positive stereotypes, also main-

tained in the long term.

Lastly, we explored perceived typicality, a variable that has been demonstrated to

contribute to prejudice reduction and stereotype change in laboratory-based research.

Hewstone and his colleagues, for example, have found in a number of studies that forstereotype change to occur, stereotype-disconrming information must be dispersed

among otherwise `typical' members of the target outgroup. Studies in the eld such as that

of Hewstone et al. (1992) have also emphasized the importance of typicality in stereotype

change. Thus we explored perceived typicality of the facilitators and its relationship to

prejudice and stereotype reduction. Consistent with previous research on typicality and

stereotyping, it was predicted that higher perceived typicality at Time 2 would be signi-

cantly associated with lower prejudice and negative stereotyping at both Times 2 and 3.

Higher Time 3 perceived typicality will be signicantly associated with lower prejudice

and negative stereotyping at Time 3.

As no one thus far has considered the relationship of perceived typicality and positiveaspects of a social stereotype, we also took the opportunity to explore this relationship



8/21

METHOD

Overview

Data were collected from six separate courses of the programme in a time period spanningAprilDecember 1994. A total of 62 participants across the six courses participated in the

evaluation. This included 39 women, and 23 men. The mean age of the total sample was

41.90 years (SD12.10). Ages ranged from 22 to 70 years. There was no signicant dif-

ference in age between women and men.

Thirty-one of the 62 participants returned the longitudinal 3 month follow-up question-

naire for a return rate of 50%. Mean age of this sample was 41.26 years old (SD12.19).

The returner sample consisted of 18 women and 12 men. There was, again, no signicant

difference in the age of women and men.

Design. As this was a workplace programme, it was not possible to conduct a rando-mized experiment. The study design was a quasi-experimental prepost design, with a sec-

ond post test conducted 3 months after completing the programme. While there are

obvious weaknesses to this prepost design, it remains one of the most popular designs

for conducting evaluation research (Mohr, 1988).

The evaluation questionnaire

The core of the evaluation questionnaire comprised the instruments assessing knowledge,

modern racism, old-fashioned racism and endorsement of stereotypical descriptors of

Aboriginal Australians. Although the order in which these questionnaires were presentedto participants was not varied, the items within each questionnaire were presented in a ran-

dom order for each presentation (pre, post, and 3 months after completing the course) to each

of the six groups of participants. These core questionnaires were preceded by questions that

assessed participants' overall perception of the course as an education and training pro-

gramme, the results of which are not reported here. The questions measuring perceived typi-

cality of the facilitators were embedded within these programme quality questions.

Knowledge: the general knowledge questionnaire. We measured the change in parti-

cipants' level of knowledge of Aboriginal cultures and history by constructing a 14-item

questionnaire that drew directly on information presented during the programme. Partici-pants received two marks for every correct answer and no marks for every incorrect

answer. Scores could therefore range from 0 to 24.

Prejudice. Two measures of prejudice were included in the questionnaire. One mea-

sure was the Australian version of the Modern Racism Scale (MRSAugoustinos et al.,

1994), adapted from McConahay et al.'s (1981) original scale. The second was a measure

of old-fashioned, redneck racism: Walker's (1994) Attitudes towards Aborigines Scale

(ABS). Whereas the MRS contains items that are not conventionally racist, the ABS con-

tains items that tap traditionally racist attitudes that focus on social distance, dislike, and

beliefs about `racial' superiority.Two measures of prejudice were included because we thought it possible that the



9/21

Augoustinos et al. (1994) obtained internal consistency alpha reliability coefcients of

0.85 (study 1) and 0.82 (study 2) for the Australian version of the MRS. In the present

study this scale obtained an alpha reliability coefcient of 0.83 at Time 1. Pedersen and

Walker (1997) have reported good internal consistency reliability alphas for the ABS(Walker, 1994, 0.88; Pedersen and Walker, 1997, 0.89). In the present study, the

ABS obtained an alpha reliability coefcient of 0.76 at Time 1.

The scoring procedure for the MRS was as follows: Participants were asked to select the

number on the scale best reecting their opinion in response to each of the seven items.

The ve-point rating scales on which participants responded ranged from 1 (agree

strongly) to 5 (disagree strongly). This scale was scored 2 to 2, with lower scores indi-

cating lower prejudice. The MRS thus had a potential range of 14 (low prejudice) to

14 (high prejudice).

The 11-item ABS was scored similarly to the MRS. Participants were asked to select

the number on the ve-point rating scale that best reected their opinion. The scales on

which participants responded ranged from 1 (agree strongly) to 5 (disagree strongly). This

scale was scored 2 to 2, with lower scores indicating lower prejudice. The ABS thus

had a potential range of22 (low prejudice) to 22 (high prejudice).

Stereotyping. We undertook to explore any changes in stereotyping using an abbre-

viated list of the negative, and positive adjectives developed by Augoustinos et al.

(1994). These included 12 positive adjectives (artistic, caring, easy-going, independent,

loyal, musical, proud, self-assured, spiritual, talented, respect the land, wise) and 12 nega-

tive adjectives (aimless, bludgers,2 demanding, dirty, drunken, hostile, inferior, lazy, trou-

ble-makers, unemployable, unreliable, wasteful). The reliability coefcient alphas at Time

1 in the present study were 0.81 and 0.87 for the positive and negative scale respectively.

Participants were asked to indicate on ve-point rating scales ranging from 1 (agree

strongly) to 5 (disagree strongly), the extent to which they believed each stereotypic adjec-

tive accurately described Aboriginal Australians. The individual items were summed and

divided by the number of items in each scale to form indices of positive and negative

stereotype endorsement. Scores on each of the stereotyping scales could thus range from

0 to 4 with higher numbers indicating higher stereotype endorsement.

Perceived typicality of facilitators. The perceived typicality of the facilitators was

assessed at Times 2 and 3. Participants were asked to indicate on a ve-point rating scale

ranging from 1 (not at all typical) to 5 (very typical), how typical they thought their facil-

itators were of most Aboriginal Australians. This scale was recoded and scored from 0 to

4, with higher numbers indicating higher perceived typicality.

Procedure

Pre-course and post-course. Participants were welcomed by the facilitators as they

entered the room. Participants were approached individually by the rst author and asked

if they would be willing to participate in an independent evaluation of the programme.

They were then given an information sheet, consent form, and the rst questionnaire pack-

age. It was emphasized both verbally and in writing that their participation was voluntary,



10/21

were free to withdraw from the study at any time. Participants were encouraged to ask any

questions that arose either before, during, or after, completing the questionnaires. They

then lled out the rst questionnaire before the commencement of the course. All com-

pleted questionnaires were collected by the rst author. At the end of the nal day ofthe programme, the second questionnaire was administered, with a verbal reminder that

their participation remained voluntary and that they were free to withdraw from the eva-

luation. Across the six courses from which data were collected only one participant

declined to participate in the evaluation.

Longitudinal follow-up. The longitudinal follow-up questionnaire was posted to par-

ticipants at their work place, 3 months after they had completed the programme. Another

informed consent form was enclosed, again stressing that their participation was voluntary

and that they could withdraw at any time. Once again, the condentiality of all information

supplied was emphasized. Participants were asked if they could return the completed ques-

tionnaire within 1 month. A stamped, addressed envelope was included to facilitate this

return. After 1 month, reminders were sent to those participants who had not returned

the questionnaire, stressing the value of their answers, and asking them to return the com-

pleted questionnaires by a set date.

RESULTS

The immediate effects of the programme, that is change between Time 1 (pre-course) andTime 2 (immediately post-course), are presented rst. These ndings are based on the

responses of all 62 participants. These are then followed by the results for those 31 parti-

cipants who participated in the longitudinal follow-up (Returners).

Time 1 and Time 2

Before commencing the primary analyses, participants' responses were examined for dif-

ferences by gender, age group, and any of the prejudice or stereotyping variables. A med-

ian split was used to divide the 62 participants into two age groups: older (participants 41

years of age or older) and younger (participants less than 41 years of age). There were no

signicant differences between these two age groups. There were no signicant gender

differences. Missing data were excluded from the analysis on a pairwise basis. Mean

scores, standard deviations and ranges of the variables under consideration are displayed

in Table 1.

Knowledge. As predicted, there was a signicant increase in scores on the General

Knowledge test between Time 1 and Time 2 [t(60)15.51, p1tailed< 0.001].

Prejudice

(1) Modern Racism Scale (MRS). The mean modern racism score at Time 1 was 4.18(5.68), which tends towards the low prejudice end of the scale. There was a signicant



11/21

prejudiced sample, even before commencing the programme. There was a signicantdecrease in old-fashioned racism as measured by the ABS between Time 1 and Time 2

[t(58)2.91, p1-tailed< 0.005].

Difference in prejudice. Given that we had two measures of prejudice towards Abori-

ginal Australians, it is of interest to compare the levels of modern racism in the sample

with those of old-fashioned racism. Participants' displayed signicantly higher levels of

modern racism than old-fashioned racism (ABS) at both Time 1[t(59)4.85,

p1 tailed< 0.001], and Time 2 [t(60)2.66, p1tailed< 0.01].

Stereotyping. As can be seen from the descriptive statistics in Table 1, participants

commenced the programme with low mean levels of negative stereotype word endorse-

ment, and moderate levels of positive stereotype endorsement. There was a signicant

decrease in negative stereotyping between Time 1 and Time 2 [t(59)6.08,

p1 tailed< 0.001]. There was a signicant increase in positive stereotyping between Time

1 and Time 2 [t(61)4.36, p1tailed< 0.001].

Typicality. At Time 2, participants on average, perceived facilitators as moderately

typical of most Aboriginal Australians (M2.67, SD0.89). Pearson's correlations were

performed to explore the predicted relationships between prejudice, stereotyping, and per-ceived typicality. As predicted, greater perceived typicality of the facilitators at Time 2

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and ranges of the variables in the study (N62)

Variable N Mean Median Standard deviation Possible range Actual range

Knowl1 61 12.20 12.00 5.83 224

028Knowl2 62 21.52 22.00 4.30 1028Typical2 61 2.67 3.00 0.89 04 14MRS1 62 4.18 3.50 5.68 14 to 8

14 to 14MRS2 62 7.21 7.00 4.94 14 to 4ABS1 60 11.27 12.00 6.06 22 to 1

22 to 22ABS2 61 12.84 13.00 6.56 22 to 3PST1 62 2.63 2.50 0.56 1.253.67

04

PST2 62 2.89 2.83 0.52 1.673.83NST1 60 1.72 1.71 0.65 0.083.0804

NST2 62 1.17 1.33 0.76 0.002.75

Key to variable abbreviations: General Knowledge Test (Knowl); how typical the facilitators are perceived asbeing of MOST Aboriginal Australians (Time 2Typical2). Modern Racism Scale (MRS); Attitudes towardsAborigines Scale (ABS); Positive Stereotyping (PST); Negative Stereotyping (NST). The numeral `1', `2', or `3'

attached to the variable name indicates whether variable is from Time 1, Time 2, or Time 3 assessment.



12/21

Summary. The ndings above indicate that the Cross-cultural Awareness Programme

has considerable effect in the short term. Between commencing and completing the pro-

gramme there was a signicant increase in knowledge of Aboriginal Australians and Aus-

tralian history, there were signicant decreases in both modern and old-fashioned racismand in negative stereotyping, and there were signicant increases in positive stereotyping.

In the short term then, the Cross-cultural Awareness Programme achieves its aims of

decreasing negative attitudes and increasing and/or reinforcing existing positive attitudes.

Three month follow-up: Time 2 to Time 3

Of the 62 participants who lled out questionnaires at Time 1 and Time 2, only 31 returned

the longitudinal follow-up questionnaire at Time 3 for a return rate of 50%. This attrition is

not unusual in a longitudinal study, and is a particular weakness of the pre-post test design

used here (Mohr, 1988). Variables were examined to establish if there were any signicantdifferences between those 31 participants who returned the 3 month follow-up question-

naire (Returners) and those 31 who did not (non-Returners). Returners were signicantly

higher in Time 2 knowledge (M22.58) than were non-Returners (M20.45)

[t(60)2.00, p1tailed0.05]. Returners also showed signicantly greater change in

ABS (old-fashioned racism) (M3.27) between Time 1 and Time 2 than did non-Retur-

ners (M0.48) [t(57)2.20, p1tailed< 0.05]. There were no other signicant differ-

ences between Returners and non-Returners of the 3 month follow-up questionnaire.

Analysis. Mean scores, standard deviations and ranges of all measures are presented in

Table 2. There were no signicant differences among these variables due to gender or agegroup. Data were analysed using t-tests to determine whether there were signicant differ-

ences between Times 1, 2, and 3. Unless otherwise indicated all t-tests are one-tailed. To

Table 2. Returners (N31) descriptives

Variable N Mean Median Standard deviation Possible range Actual range

Knowl1 31 12.77 12.00 5.16 222Knowl2 31 22.58 22.00 3.91 228 1428Knowl3 31 20.13 20.00 4.79 828

Typical2 31 2.84 3.00 0.73 04 24Typical3 30 1.97 2.00 1.03 04MRS1 31 3.29 3.00 4.59 14 to 5MRS2 31 7.10 7.00 4.09 14 to 14 14 to 1MRS3 31 3.84 3.00 4.56 14 to 4ABS1 30 9.93 10.00 5.45 22 to 0ABS2 31 13.19 14.00 5.52 22 to 22 21 to 1ABS3 30 11.90 14.00 6.14 22 to 1PST1 31 2.68 2.50 0.56 1.583.67PST2 31 2.96 2.92 0.51 04 1.923.83PST3 29 2.84 2.75 0.51 2.003.75NST1 30 1.73 1.83 0.60 0.333.00

NST2 31 1.19 1.33 0.73 04 0.082.25NST3 30 1.57 1.58 0.70 0.173.17



13/21

avoid the chances of obtaining a signicant result due to chance alone, the signicance

level used for each group of t-tests was corrected using the Bonferroni method (Darling-

ton, 1991). As three comparisons were conducted within each variable (Time 1 vs. Time 2;

Time 2 vs. Time 3; Time 1 vs. Time 3), using an alpha level of p1tailed< 0.05, the cor-rected signicance level was p1tailed< 0.017. Unless otherwise indicated, all signicant t-

tests were signicant at the corrected signicance level of p1tailed< 0.017.

It was expected that any effects of the course between Time 1 and Time 2 would decline

somewhat between Time 2 and Time 3, as the immediate impact of the programme waned.

However, for the programme to be successful in the long term, the predicted effects would

be expected to remain signicantly different between Times 1 and 3. As such, all of our

predictions are one-tailed.

Knowledge. There was a signicant increase in scores on the General Knowledge test

between Time 1 and Time 2 [t(30)13.28]. Between Time 2 and Time 3 there was a

signicant decrease in scores on the General Knowledge test [t(30)4.55]. However,

despite this decrease, scores on the General Knowledge test at Time 3 remained signi-

cantly higher than those at Time 1 [t(30)8.04].

Prejudice. Table 3 summarizes the results for this section.

(1) Modern Racism Scale. There was a signicant decrease in modern racism between

Time 1 and 2. Modern racism signicantly increased between Time 2 and Time 3, and

there was no signicant decrease in modern racism between Time 1 and Time 3.

Overall, there was no signicant long-term decrease in modern racism.(2) Attitudes towards Aborigines Scale. There was a signicant decrease in old-fashioned

racism as measured by the ABS between Time 1 and Time 2. There was no signicant

change in ABS between Times 2 and 3. There was no signicant decrease in ABS

between Times 1 and 3. Overall, therefore, there was no long-term decrease in old-

fashioned prejudice as measured by the ABS.

Difference in prejudice. Consistent with the ndings for the whole sample, Returners

scored higher in prejudice on the MRS than on the ABS at Time 1 [t(29)4.35], Time 2

[t(30)2.46], and Time 3 [t(29)4.87]. All t-tests were signicant at p1tailed< 0.05.

Stereotyping. As can be seen in Table 3, there was a signicant decrease in negative

stereotype endorsement between Times 1 and 2. There was a signicant increase in nega-

tive stereotype endorsement between Times 2 and 3. However, there was no signicant

decrease in negative stereotype endorsement between Times 1 and 3. Overall, there was

no signicant long-term decrease in negative stereotype endorsement.

Table 3. Summaries of t-tests for prejudice and stereotype measures

Scale Time 1Time 2 Time 2Time 3 Time 1Time 3

MRS t(30)5.90* t(30)6.41* t(30)0.85ABS t(29)3.87* t(29)1.98 t(28)1.55



14/21

There was a signicant increase in positive stereotype endorsement between Times 1

and 2. However, there was no signicant increase in positive stereotype endorsement

between Times 2 and 3, or between Times 1 and 3. Overall, there was no signicant

long-term increase in positive stereotype endorsement.

Typicality. There was a signicant decrease in the perceived typicality of the facilita-

tors between Time 2 (M2.87) and Time 3 (M1.97) [t(29)3.35, p1tailed< 0.05].

Descriptives for this variable are presented in Table 4. Pearson's correlations were per-

formed to assess the relationships between prejudice, stereotyping and typicality. Consis-

tent with predictions, perceived typicality at Time 2 was signicantly associated with

lower Time 3 old-fashioned racism (0.37) and negative stereotyping (0.41). However,

contrary to prediction, it was not signicantly associated with modern racism or positive

stereotyping. At Time 3, contrary to prediction, perceived typicality was not signicantly

associated with lower prejudice or negative stereotyping. It was however, weakly asso-

ciated with higher Time 3 positive stereotyping (0.32). Correlations are signicant at

p1tailed< 0.05.

Time 1 to Time 3: low and high prejudice groups

While the results for the Returners group as a whole were not very revealing, we suspected

that changes might be more visible if high and low prejudice Returners were considered

separately. The following section briey considers the results of this analysis.

Returners were divided into high and low prejudice groups on the basis of a mediansplit of their Time 1 modern racism scores. The MRS was used as the basis for the division

because, as reported above, ndings point to it as less reactive than old-fashioned prejudice

scales. The median Time 1 modern racism score for Returners was 3.00. Participants

were placed in the low prejudice group (N17) if they had a modern racism score of less

than or equal to 3.00, and into the high prejudice group (N14) if they had a score of

greater than 3.00. As in the previous section, all t-tests are one-tailed unless otherwise

indicated.

High prejudice group (N14). Results for the t-tests are summarized in Table 4. The

Bonferroni correction was employed to guard against ination of alpha due to multiplecomparisons. The corrected alpha level was again p1tailed< 0.017.

As can be seen from Table 4, there were few signicant long-term changes for high

prejudice Returners. Three months after completing the Cross-cultural Awareness

Programme, high prejudice Returners showed a signicant increase in knowledge from

Time 1 levels, and a signicant decrease in ABS (old-fashioned racism) from Time 1

levels.

Table 4. Summary of results of t-tests for high prejudice Returners (N14)

Scale Time 1Time 2 Time 2Time 3 Time 1Time 3

Knowl t(13)8.65* t(13)3.80* t(13)4.98*MRS t(13)5.75* t(13)4.48* t(13)2.28



15/21

Low prejudice group (N17). Results for the t-tests are summarized in Table 5. The

Bonferroni was employed to guard against ination of alpha due to multiple comparisons.

The corrected alpha level was again p1tailed

Stereotype Change & Prejudice Reduction Cross-cultural Awareness Programme

Documents

Transcript of Stereotype Change & Prejudice Reduction Cross-cultural Awareness Programme