John Gonzalez, PhD

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. Multifaceted Spiritual Ancient Lazy Savage Noble Civilized Blood thirsty Sources of Images Books/Literature Magazines/Newspapers Television Motion Pictures Radio Internet Athletic Teams Native American Images

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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)

9. 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)

11. 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

12. 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

22. Fighting Sioux Controversy and Conflict • Prejudice and Discrimination? • Hostile environment? • Who is Affected?

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. Results • N=268: 87 males (34.50%), 152 females (60.30%), and 13 who omitted their gender (5.2%). • Mean age was 19.61 (SD=1.61). • 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

28. 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 ANOVA’s • Prejudice and discrimination ratings • Composite ratings • Intellect and aptitude, positive affect, aggressiveness

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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).

32. Results

33. 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

34. 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.

36. 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.

37. 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.

38. Cell sizes: keep = 193, neutral = 32, change = 10

39. 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.

40. Results • One-way MANOVA on Composite Scores • Only on Ratings of Native Confederate • Student Characteristics as IV’s • Academic Standing • # of Sports Followed • Type of Sports Followed • One-way ANOVA on # of Sports Followed • Participant NAME as IV

41. 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

42. 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.

43. 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

44. 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)

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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.

49. 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.