Volume 2 Number 1
January 1962

by Vernon D. Malan

The acceptance or rejection of ethnic groups may be assumed to reflect social values covertly associated with attitudes of prejudice. While discriminatory treatment of the ethnic minority is not always observed among prejudiced individuals, especially in areas where discrimination is unpopular, the degree of social distance offers a means of comparing individuals holding varying attitudes toward the ethnic group. If ethnic or social distance can be measured with some degree of accuracy, it is likewise possible to examine the association of other quantifiable variables with social distance in order to discover which factors appear to contribute most significantly to the attitudes of prejudice. Selected variables, such as religiosity, personality and social traits, have been found to be influential in studies of social distance. (1:9-39)

In order to systematically study the variables, which have pertinence in explaining prejudice toward an ethnic minority, it was necessary to propose a logical interrelationship of the variables in the form of a hypothesis. For the purpose of this investigation the following general hypothesis was basic: Prejudice toward Indians is associated in varying degrees with religiosity and selected social and personality variables. The most crucial personality trait is authoritarianism which tends to intervene between social distance and all the other variables. Very briefly, this hypothesis suggests that the authoritarian person tends to be prejudiced toward Indians. This factor tends to outweigh all other factors in causing individuals to express social distance toward ethnic groups.

The empirical evidence for this study was obtained from a questionnaire administered to a sample of church-attenders in a South Dakota city of about ten thousand people. The findings previously had been analyzed for studies of ethnic distance in which the Indians were lumped with other ethnic groups, (2, 3:666-672) but the data exclusively related to this ethnic group had not been sifted. While the sample may not be typical for any large segment of population in the United States, it was probably significant that the Indians were the only ethnic group on the list resident in South Dakota in any numbers, and they were unquestionably the group that was best known and thought to create the most problems for the people of the state. Generalization to larger populations, however, is limited by the fact that the respondents were not randomly selected from the state, community, or even from among those who attended church on a given Sunday.

For purposes of analysis the interrelated variables were categorized as follows: (1) the dependent variable was prejudice toward Indians measured on a scale of ethnic distance; (2) the independent variables were classified in three areas: (a) structural—education, socio-economic status, income and age; (b) religiosity—extrinsic belief, participation in church activities and orthodoxy; and (c) personality—authoritarianism, status concern, conservatism, anomia, withdrawal, and anti-social tendencies (2:23-27); and (3) the intervening variable—authoritarianism—was chosen because it was the personality dimension which appeared most closely associated statistically with ethnic distance.

The first step in analyzing the data was to determine the association between ethnic distance and each of the independent variables. An effort was made to discover which factors were significantly related to social distance and the relative contribution of the independent variables to the development of prejudiced attitudes. Education and socio-economic status were found to be positively related to ethnic distance, while income and age were not significantly related. The only element of religiosity which had a significant relationship to ethnic distance was extrinsic belief. Participation in church activities and orthodoxy were not significant. The related personality dimensions were authoritarianism, status concern, conservatism and anomia, while withdrawal and anti-social tendencies lack statistical significance (see Table 1).

Table 1

Variables Associated with Social Distance

Toward Indians

*Significant at the .05 level.

The variables measuring the greatest association with ethnic distance were education and authoritarianism. It seems reasonable that prejudice should tend to decrease as the individual receives more education. The contribution of the personality dimensions to prejudice are less clearly defined. The authoritarian syndrome may be closely related to some of the other dimensions, especially to status concern and conservatism, which were the dimensions of personality that followed authoritarianism in the degree of association with ethnic distance. Thus, the prejudiced person may exhibit personality traits in which the interaction of authoritarianism with these other personality dimensions cannot be easily untangled.

Since authoritarianism indicated the greatest statistical association with ethnic distance, an effort was made to carry the analysis another step. Considering authoritarianism as an intervening variable and utilizing the statistical device of the three-way table, the findings can be elaborated by studying the effect that the interjection of authoritarianism has on the relationship of each of the other variables to ethnic distance.

Education, Authoritarianism, and Ethnic Distance—The division of respondents into a trichotomous distribution of low, medium, and high ethnic distance was arbitrarily made in order to compare differences in education for these three groups. The mean years of education completed were 15.9 for those who indicated low prejudice, 14.2 for medium prejudice, and 13.2 for high. The distribution of responses of these three groups (see Table 2) for the various levels of educational achievement reveals that the majority of individuals in the sample had gone beyond high school, and college trained respondents were found predominantly in the medium and low prejudice categories.

The influence of education appeared to be especially significant in the case of individuals who stated that they would accept Indians into close kinship by marriage. The results appeared to indicate that as education increased, authoritarianism and subsequently ethnic distance tended to decline. The evidence was not as conclusive for those who indicated medium or high levels of social distance, although the direction of change supported the idea that education tends to reduce prejudice even among individuals exhibiting authoritarian personality traits.

Table 2

Education and Social Distance

Socio-Economic Status, Authoritarianism and Ethnic Distance—A second structural variable which was found to be significantly related to ethnic distance was the individual's socio-economic: status. In this case, however, the authoritarian personality traits exerted greater influence to produce prejudiced attitudes. The introduction of authoritarianism as an intervening variable was significant for low, medium, and high expressions of ethnic distance, and it tended to increase the association more definitely among the highly prejudiced. This evidence supports the popular contention that those who seek higher socio-economic status are more likely to be indoctrinated with authoritarian attitudes which are reflected in greater prejudice toward ethnic minorities.

Income Authoritarianism, and Ethnic Distance—Income and ethnic distance were not significantly related in the original test. The mean annual income for the low ethnic distance group was somewhat lower ($5,500) than for the medium group ($6,400) and higher than for the low group ($4,100). The income distribution of the respondents is compared with their answers on the ethnic distance scale in Table 3. Extremely low income (less than $2,000 annually) may contribute to more prejudiced attitudes, but at high income levels the trends are not clearly defined for this sample.

Table 3

Income and Social Distance

Authoritarianism greatly increases the association between income and prejudice at the low end of the ethnic distance scale, suggesting that it is an important intervening variable. While there is a slight decrease among the medium group, and a slight increase for the high group, the intervention of authoritarianism, creates an overall increase that is statistically significant. Thus it may be surmised that the income level of the correspondent was not as significant in reducing attitudes of prejudice as was the absence of authoritarian personality traits. The unprejudiced individual might as likely come from a low as a high income category if he were not authoritarian in viewpoint.

Age, Authoritarianism and Ethnic Distance—While age was not significantly related to ethnic distance in the first determination, there was some likelihood that young adults were more frequently low in prejudice toward Indians. The distribution of responses by age groups in Table 4 revealed that nearly 70 percent of the low ethnic distance group were between 20 and 50 years of age; the average age of the unprejudiced was 38.9 years. In the medium group about 55 percent were between 20 and 50, and the average was 40.9 years. High ethnic distance had about 60 percent in the 20 to 50 age grouping, and the average age was 47.8 years.

Age and low ethnic distance were significantly related when authoritarianism was introduced as an intervening variable. This fact implies that the unprejudiced are more likely to be younger individuals lacking well-developed authoritarian personalities. The pattern here is much the same as was found for income, except that in the final analysis the increase caused by bringing authoritarianism into the picture was not sufficient to be significant.

Religiosity, Authoritarianism, and Social Distance—The religiosity of the respondents was measured by three dimensions, the extrinsic use of belief, participation in church activities, and orthodoxy. Extrinsic belief was originally related significantly to social distance, and appeared to contribute more to prejudice than the other two dimensions. When authoritarianism was introduced as an intervening variable, the relationship between extrinsic belief and ethnic distance increased for those who were least prejudiced, but decreased for the medium and high prejudice categories, and authoritarianism increased the value of C when the three groups were combined (Table 5).

These findings suggest that the individual who is searching for protection from a threatening world in religious experiences, forms and ceremonies are less likely to be prejudiced toward Indians if they are low in authoritarianism, but more likely to be prejudiced if they are high in authoritarianism. While the evidence was not conclusive, it may be that the more the individual participates in church activities, the less likely he is to be prejudiced if he is low authoritarian. Finally, the more orthodox the authoritarian individual's belief, the higher his ethnic distance. Since the original relationship between participation or orthodoxy and ethnic distance was not significant, it appears that authoritarianism is an intervening variable causing the individual to express more social distance, no matter how much he participates or how orthodox his belief.

Table 4

Age and Social Distance

Personality, Authoritarianism, and Social Distance -Personality dimensions found to be significantly related to social distance were status concern, conservatism and anomia, listed in the order of the degree of association. The introduction of the authoritarianism variable increased the relationship between ethnic distance and each of these personality variables, indicating that it was an intervening factor probably encompassing aspects of these personality dimensions in the prejudiced individual:

The summary of the statistical results given in Table 5, analyzing the interrelated variables investigated in this study of prejudice toward Indians, leads to these conclusions:

Table 5

The Influence of Authoritarianism on the Relationship Between

Selected Variables and Social Distance Toward Indians

*Significant at the .05 level.