Pride and prejudice in high school gang members

Adolescence, Summer, 1994 by Alvin Y. Wang

TABLE 1. Mean RAAC scores (positive, negative and overall ratings) as a function of subject background and ethnicity of target group. (Note: C= Caucasian, AA= African-American).

                              C                       AA
Subject:    C      C-      Overall   EA     AA-     Overall

Caucasian
(nongang)   48.8   -61.1   -12.3     28.6   -73.6   -45.0

Caucasian
(gang)      36.9   -54.7   -17.8     25.9   -61.8   -35.9

AA
(nongang)   24.8   -58.7   -33.9     36.7   -44.6   - 7.9

AA
(gang)      19.6   -52.3   -32.7     33.1   -49.9   -16.8

Racial Attitudes

Table 2 shows the mean RAAC scores (positive, negative, and overall) as a function of Race of Subject, Race of Target, and Condition (gang vs. nongang). A 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA on overall RAAC scores revealed a highly significant interaction between Race of Subject and Race of Target, F(1, 151) = 29.18, [MS.sub.e] = 1017.63. Inspection of Figure 1 suggests that all students exhibited greater negative stereotyping toward their outgroup than to their own racial group. A Fisher's LSD = 19.95, p [is less than] .05 indicated that Caucasian students have significantly more negative stereotyping of African-Americans compared to their own racial group. A corresponding pattern was found for African-American students: they displayed significantly greater negative stereotyping toward Caucasians compared to their own racial group. This cross-over interaction replicates the results of other research using the RAAC (Wooten & Brown, 1990). No other Fs reached statistical significance.

Role Models

Each student was asked to name the three people they most admire. The total number of times and a breakdown by profession are shown in Table 3. A 2 x 2 ANOVA was performed on the total number of models named with Race of Subject and Condition (gang vs. nongang) as the two factors. Only a marginally significant effect of Condition was obtained indicating that gang members (M = 1.9) could name fewer role models compared to their nongang peers (M = 2.4), F(1, 123) = 3.44, p [is less than] .07.

TABLE 2. Mean positive, negative, and overall self-esteem ratings as a function of ethnicity and gang membership.

                         Positive      Negative      Overall
Subject                  Self-esteem   Self-esteem   Self-esteem

Caucasian (nongang)          1.88         1.23          .64

Caucasian (gang)             1.21         1.60         -.38

Afr. Amer. (nongang)         1.94         1.18          .76

Afr. Amer. (gang)            1.76         1.68          .08

Separate 2 (Race of Subject) x 2 (Condition) ANOVAS were performed on the three categories of role models shown in Table 3. The classification of role models into categories was rather straightforward (e.g., Michael Jordan as a sports figure, or "my mom" as a parent). These analyses revealed that, as predicted, Caucasian students were more likely to name Caucasian role models than were their African-American peers; the same ethnocentrism was evident for the African-American students, F(1, 123) = 35.45, [MS.sub.e] = .87. However, African-American students were more likely to claim a sports figure as a role model compared to Caucasian students, F(1, 123) = 5.50, [MS.sub.e] = .86.