REGENT UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
DISCRIMINATORY AND NON- DISCRIMINATORY TENDENCIES AMONGST
UNIVERSITY STUDENTS.
JONATHAN BAAH
00980213
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY AND
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT, IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT
FOR THE AWARD OF A BACHELOR OF SCIENCE
(HONS) DEGREE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
AND PSYCHOLOGY.
June, 2017
i
DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICITY
I, Jonathan Baah, do hereby declare that except for references to other researchers’ works and
findings, which I had well-founded cause and reason to cite and duly acknowledge, this research
work is the upshot of my own research, and that this study has neither partially nor wholly been
presented for another degree elsewhere. Again, I agreeably declare that neither my supervisor
nor any other person but the researcher alone is responsible for all errors of commission and
omission that may be found in this research work.
STUDENT…………………………………
DATE…………………………
JONATHAN BAAH (MR.)
SUPERVISOR…………………………….
DATE………………….………
DR. FRANCIS ANNOR
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am most grateful to God Almighty for the granting me the gift of life, knowledge and mental
capability that has enabled me from the start to the completion of this research work. Not
forgetting the parental support that came in forms of spiritual and material resources that also
facilitated the start, progress and completion of this project. So I hereby, acknowledge the firm
support I received from my family.
Again, to I thank Dr. Francis Annor, my supervisor, who was able to come through to
supervise my work despite some barriers to physical proximity; he was still able to ensure
regular monitoring of this project to an ultimate success.
Finally, I want to extend my gratitude to all the student respondents or participants, mostly to
my Regent University colleagues and mates.
iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this research work to Almighty God and to my entire nuclear family.
iv
DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICITY .................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................... iii
DEDICATION........................................................................................................................................... .iv
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background to the Study ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Objectives of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Research questions/Hypothesis ........................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Significance of the Study .................................................................................................................... 5
1.7 Delimitation or Scope of the Study ..................................................................................................... 6
1.8 Limitations of the Study...................................................................................................................... 6
Definition of Terms……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..7
1.9 Organization of the Study ................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 9
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1 Social Identity Theory ................................................................................................................ 10
2.2.2 Inter-group ContactTheory (Contact Hypothesis) ..................................................................... 12
v
2.3 Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................................... 15
2.4 Review of Relevant and Related Studies .......................................................................................... 17
2.4.1 Cultural Awareness as A Means of Reducing Inter-group Discrimination................................ 17
2.4.2 Ageism or Discrimination Due To Age Differences….............................................................. 21
2.4.3 Gender Differences on Discrimination Tendencies ................................................................... 25
2.4.4 Discrimination Differences Amongst Racially Diverse College Students................................. 28
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 31
3.1 Research Design................................................................................................................................ 31
3.2 Population ......................................................................................................................................... 31
3.3 Sample and Sampling Techniques .................................................................................................... 32
3.4 Instrumentation ................................................................................................................................. 32
3.5 Validity ............................................................................................................................................. 34
3.6 Reliability.......................................................................................................................................... 35
3.7 Data analyses procedure ................................................................................................................... 35
3.8 Ethical Consideration ........................................................................................................................ 36
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .......................... 37
4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 37
4.2 Demographics ................................................................................................................................... 38
4.3 Data Presentation .............................................................................................................................. 40
4.4 Discussions ....................................................................................................................................... 43
vi
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... 48
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 48
5.2 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 48
5.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 49
5.4 Recommendation .............................................................................................................................. 49
vii
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 51
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................ 58
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.2.1: Showing Demographic Details of Respondents……………………………………38
Table 1: Summary of Independent T-test, means, SD of scores of males and females on nondiscriminatory inter-group relations……………………………………………………………..40
Table 2: Summary of One-way ANOVA F-test, SD, means of non-discrimination amongst the
four student nationalities…………………………………………………………………………41
Table 3: Summary of Independent T-test, means, SD scores of Ghanaians (In-groups) and
Foreigners (Out-groups) on inter-group discrimination…………………………………………42
LIST OF FIGURES
2.3 Conceptual Framework (Figure.1)…………………………………………………………...15
viii
ABSTRACT
This study assessed inter-group discriminatory and non-discriminatory tendencies amongst
multi-national students. The study entailed 120 students from Regent University College and
Central University College, collectively of four different national backgrounds (Ghanaians,
Nigerians, Togolese and Ivorians). A cross-sectional survey using a self–prepared questionnaire
called Collegiate Discriminatory Survey (CDS) was the main instrument the researcher used in
data collection. Participants included both sexes in the aforementioned institutions of ages
ranging from 17 to 30 years. An Independent T-test result revealed no gender differences on
inter-group non-discriminatory tendencies, also One-way ANOVA test revealed nationality
differences on level of non-discriminatory inter-group tendencies but that did not hold true for
other student nationality groups and finally, an Independent T-test result showed that in-group
(Ghanaian) students discriminate more than foreign or out-group students in course of intergroup relations. One implication of the findings general is that Ghanaian University students are
culturally less matured, show lower level of cultural sensitivity and competence (typical of ingroup members) than foreign students(out-group members).
Similar cross-cultural studies
should be conducted more in African, with tools relevant for its cultural and ethnic diversity
since Africa is sparsely racially diverse than Western nations where almost all related or similar
studies were conducted.
ix
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
We live in a world in which interacting with people is highly impossible to evade, from
prisons to incarceration camps and back to the free world. Right from the cradle to the grave, an
individual’s timeline, starting from infancy involves interactions with one’s immediate
environment even before they discover their ‘bodily me’- the awareness of an infant’s existence
in relation to their presence and environmental interactions. Infants interact with the people who
are present or closer and form strong attachment to their environment, initially with their firstclass family members and others through childhood, adolescence, adulthood right through old
age. Popular psychology often addresses the question of nature versus nurture; as some argue
that one’s environment has the ability to shape an individual’s lifestyles, personalities, selfconcept, etc.; while others believe that these things are inherent to us. These social interactions,
somehow someway, vis-à-vis culture begin to shape our personality (attitudes, cognitive make,
schemas behaviour, sets of prejudices) and a whole lot of unseen (unconscious) and conscious
aspects of our psychological make-up (Quappe & Cantatone, 2005). Although Genetic scientists
have proven time and over again that genetic determinism shapes personality, modern day
psychology embraces the idea of genetic and environment determinisms of personality as
originally posited by the Swiss Psychologist Jean Piaget (Bernstein & Nash, 2005). They also
uphold the idea of John Locke - tabula rasa -an absence of preconceived ideas or predetermined
goals at birth by likening the mind of an infant to scraped tablet on which the environment and
culture writes on (Flavell, 1996).
1
According to Maccoby (2000), personality is shaped by both genetic and environmental
influences, among the most important of the latter are cultural influences. However, in the stead
of focusing on environmental and social influences at the individual level, this work contextually
will be drifted towards group influence on its members and their interaction with others. A very
old yet persistent adage in our society is that we fear the unknown. Though fear may be a strong
word to describe the feelings one has when come across a novel situation, a certain level of
anxiety is to be expected. Social scientists have often attempted to describe the process that
people go through to familiarize themselves to new surroundings or other untried circumstances
through uncertainty reduction (Davis, 2008). Numerous scholars agree that once a person
becomes familiar with a particular condition, their anxiety level towards it is often considerably
reduced and this process has been applied to social interaction on countless occasions (p.1) and
also used to foster positive inter-group relations and reducing in-group discrimination. Culture is
transmitted through language and the modelling of behaviour when conditions permit humans to
communicate through shared language, by living in the same historic period, and when they are
sufficiently proximal to influence each other. Keesing, (1974) argues that culture enforce its
members with an implicit theory about how to behave in different situations and how to interpret
others' behaviour in these situations. He insists that culture is diffused in "its broad design and
deeper principles," but "that not every individual shares precisely the same theory of the cultural
code" (p.89). In accordance with his contention, members of various cultures learn the implicit
theories of their cultures when they go through the socialization process (Social Identity Theory).
Ghana has many universities that have become an educational honeypot for various
individuals, significantly from the West-African sub-region, who come to seek tertiary education
to enhance their chances in life and or for other purposes. Diversity in culture by virtue of
2
different nationalities in these universities means most probably, individuals will exhibit certain
behavioural and attitudinal tendencies that will not be the same, even if there are some cultural
similarities, such as the overly presupposed value to religiosity, spirituality and divine attribution
to almost all circumstances in life - a conspicuous construct well-known amongst (West)
Africans.
This work upholds Social Identity Theory, a theoretical framework underpinning this work,
posits that individuals categorize themselves into collective groupings and they gain their
individual identity through their membership to such group. The basic premise of social identity
theory is that individuals are motivated to maintain a positively valued social identity and
individuals may do so by creating or taking advantage of favourable comparisons with other
groups and as such individuals are more likely to discriminate against those who are not part of
their in-group or cultural group. The final theoretical framework to this work - Contact
Hypothesis, what later became Inter Contact Theory; a concept under social psychology, that
basically proves that the idea that discrimination, stereotypes and prejudice toward a group will
diminish as contact with a group outside one’s culture is increased, contact hypothesis proposes
the idea that if an in-group member has a close relationship with an out-group member can lead
to more positive inter-group relations thus reducing in-group discrimination.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
In this era, people still find it hard to tolerate and appreciate some aspects of cultural variances
of out-group members’ attitude, behaviours, perception, realities in relation to certain aspects of
daily human interactions and relationship. By virtue of the Ghanaian background of the
researcher, and to blatantly specify an instance relating to the just aforementioned, some
Ghanaians, if not most, bear this unguided commonplace perception about Nigerians, specifically
3
the Igbos of Nigeria as being mostly swindlers and ‘419’ fraudsters. This is a marked and typical
instance which is one of the various significant downsides of cultural affiliation- the formation of
sets of prejudices and discrimination against persons who are different from others culturally seeing others through cultural lens or filters. Based on the aforementioned instances, there are
most probably stronger tendencies for individuals from different cultural and national settings to
discriminate amongst themselves.
Thus there is an urgency to assess such in-group discrimination; the problem here is to assess
such discriminatory tendencies as that tends to accompany group categorizations and cultural
differences amidst inter-group relations.
1.3 Purpose of the Study
The primary concern of this research is to examine discriminatory and non-discriminatory
tendencies (that inherently accompany group categorizations and inter-group relations) in two
multi-national environments involving four different student nationalities namely Ghanaians,
Nigerians, Togolese and Ivorians.
1.4 Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the study are as follows:
1. To find out gender differences on non-discriminatory inter-group relations.
2. To find out for nationality differences on non-discriminatory inter-group relations
3. To find out inter-group discrimination difference between in-group and outgroup.
4
1.5 Research questions/Hypothesis
Research Questions
The research questions guiding this research are:
1. Will there be gender differences on of non-discriminatory inter-group relations?
2. Will there be nationalities differences on non-discriminatory inter-group relations?
3. Will there be inter-group discrimination differences between in-group and out-group?
Hypotheses
H1: It is likely that there will be gender differences on non-discriminatory inter-group relations.
H2: It is likely that there will be nationality differences on non-discriminatory relations.
H3: It is likely that in-group students will score higher on inter-group discrimination.
1.6 Significance of the Study
There is a constant transition from mono-cultural countries to multi-ethnic or multi-national
societies that has concurred with an increasing number of studies focusing on the impact of
ethnic and cultural diversity on in-group discrimination, bias and prejudices. Correspondingly,
the broader essence of this study is to assess inter-group discriminatory and non-discriminatory
tendencies as well as amplify and extend the urgent need for cultural awareness, cultural
competence as well as cultural sensitivity amidst inter-group interaction with out-groups persons
as o societies are constantly becoming culturally less homogenous. Also this work is to set the
precedence for further similar studies in African or Ghana Universities as all of related studies
5
were conducted in the western world. Thus to pave way to retest the underlying theories and
constructs significantly in African settings.
1.7 Delimitation or Scope of the Study
The scope of the study is concentrated on students of Regent University of Science and
Technology which is located McCarthy Hill and Central university students who were
approached by the researcher on their campuses at Mataheko, Accra. The participants are of an
age range of 17 to 30 years. The participants are of four nationalities involving 83 Ghanaians, 28
Nigerians, 5 Togolese and 4 Ivorians, with diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Survey
method was the underlying means of gathering relevant responses from the student respondents.
1.8 Limitations of the Study
The researcher faced some shortcomings that might reduce the generalizability of his work.
However, these limitations cannot entirely or solely underscore enough grounds to refute the
significance, generalizability and authenticity of his work.
The sensitivity of the information sought, student respondent may have provided sociallydesirable responses despite measures taken during data collection to ensure privacy and
confidentiality of the information shared by respondents. The instruments used by the researcher
to measure responses were not standardized as the researcher generated his own questionnaires.
Thus this may somewhat affect the generalizability of the result. However, upon, further analyses
and piloting of his questionnaires, the instrument had good reliability and validity co-efficients.
6
Definitions of Terms
The following definitions are provided to ensure uniformity and understanding of these terms
throughout the study.
Culture: Culture is the whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and
emotional features that characterize a society or a social group. It includes not only arts and
letters, but also modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being, value systems,
traditions and beliefs.
In-group individuals: These are individuals with whom we belong to the same cultural, or
racial or social group. Also contextually, in-group was mainly used to refer to the largest student
nationality group (Ghanaian Students) on the two university campuses.
Out-group individuals: These are individuals who are not part of one’s ethnic group, culture or
tribe; those who can be referred as ‘foreigners’ to another’s tribe or culture. In Context to this
body of work, it referred to all those student nationalities (Nigerians, Togolese and Ivorians)
apart from Ghanaian students on both campuses.
Attitude: Attitude is the tendency towards a particular cognitive, emotional or behavioural
reaction to objects or other cultural agents in one’s environment.
Perception: It is the process of interpreting and organizing the incoming information or situation
in order that individuals can understand it and react accordingly. (Stango, C, 2011).
Prejudice: It is an unfavourable or negative attitude towards a group of people upon insufficient
or incorrect knowledge about the group to whom it is directed - towards an identifiable group or
an identifiable member of group but not an isolated person(s).
7
Discrimination: It is the action that expresses the attitude of prejudice against an individual or
individuals who are not part of our culture or nationality.
Cultural Competence: It is the as the ability to work effectively across cultures and as an
approach to learning, communicating and working respectfully with people from cultures
different from one’s own (Olsen et al., 2006. p.3).
1.9 Organization of the Study
The dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter one is the introduction which comprises
of the background, statement of problem, research questions, objectives of study, statement of
hypotheses, significance of study, scope of the study, operational definition of terms and
structure of the dissertation. Chapter two focuses on theoretical framework and review of
relevant related studies. Chapter three tackles the methodology, specifically the research design,
population sample and sampling techniques, measures, validity, reliability, data analyses
procedure and ethical consideration. Chapter four entails the results or findings from the data and
discussion. Chapter five refocuses on summary, conclusions and recommendations underlying
the research work.
8
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This section outlines and expounds the aforementioned theories and important literatures and
empirical findings drawn from the works of other researchers, its relevance to this research work,
critical and supportive arguments, and finally how its guides that researcher in testing proposed
hypotheses.
Group membership is not something foreign or artificial which is bestowed onto everyone; it
is a factual, true and essential part of our existence (McLeod, 2008). Group membership however
presents a significant downside that cannot be overlooked – discrimination directed towards
individuals who are not from the same culture or nation as others. According to Social Identity
Theory (SIT), in-group members will discriminate against out-group members to enhance their
self-image over other cultural or racial groups. The central hypothesis underlying this theory is
that in-group members will seek out and amplify negative characteristics of an out-group, to
enhance their self-image. Tajfel and Turner (1979) suggested that stereotyping or categorizing
individuals into groups is based on a normal cognitive process of how in-group members
perceive themselves as being better or belonging to a better group than others.
Up to now, a plethora of studies have employed the constructs of group norms and group
identification to examine group influences on individuals in relation to inter-group interactions
and how to facilitate positive cross-group friendship, co-operation and very less in-group
discrimination (Allport, 1954, Desforges et al., 1997; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1999; Sherif, Harvey,
White, Hood, & Sherif, 1988). In general, most of the underlying researches relevant to this
work affirm and suggest Contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954), now known as Inter-group Contact
9
Theory can improve positive inter-group relations and foster non-discriminatory tendencies
within almost varied conditions, settings and situational context.
This work is strapped around two specific and subject–relevant theories germane to
sociological and social psychological researches and academia – Social Identity Theory (SIT)
and Intergroup Contact Theory (Contact Hypothesis).
2.2 Theoretical Framework
2.2.1 Social Identity Theory
This theory suggests that individuals categories themselves into collective groupings and they
gain their individual identity through their membership to such groups (Tagfel & Turner, 1979).
Such (cultural) associations enhance their self-esteem and they tend to perceive themselves as
belonging to the “best group”, such example can be as individuals taking pride in their
membership to a specific ethic group or social group and thus tend to discriminate against other
cultural, national or racial groups. The aim of ethnic, national or racial differentiation is to
maintain or achieve superiority over an out-group on some dimensions (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).
They posit that “opposed group interest in obtaining scarce resources promote competition
and positively interdependent (super-ordinate) goals facilitated co-operation. Conflicting interest
develops through competition then into overt social conflict” (p. 276). Similarly, Saul McLeod
stated on his online publication:
This is critical to understanding prejudice, because once two groups identify
themselves as rivals; they are forced to compete in order for the members to
maintain their self-esteem. Competition and hostility between groups is thus not
10
only a matter of competing for resources like jobs but also the result of
competing identities” (McLeod, 2008, para. 14).
However, it can also be said that conflicting interests amongst different groups can enhance
intra-group morale, cohesiveness and co-operative behaviour (Fiedler, 1967; Kalin & Marlow,
1968; Vinacke, 1964) (as cited in Tajfel & Turner, 1986, p.226). As such, real conflict of group
interests does not solely breeds inter-group antagonism but also significantly increase
identification and positive attachment to one’s in-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986, p.227). McLeod,
(2008) suggest that there are three cognitive processes that individuals use in appraising other
people as “us” or “them” (i.e. “in-group” and “out-group”). These processes occur in a specified
order.
The first is Social Categorization. In-group members classify those outside their group (outgroup) in order to recognize them; as they tend categorize other people including themselves in
order to comprehend the societal settings they come from words such as “Blacks, Whites,
Asians, Arabs, Christians, Muslim”, and so on are some specific examples of such social
categories. Such categorizations spells out how “in-group” perceive and understand out-group
persons and the existence and the functionality of these categorization makes social environment
more meaning and contextual as individuals can differentiate one group of people from the other.
Correspondingly, in-group members seek out for things or characteristics peculiar about
themselves by knowing what categories they belong to. Appropriate behaviours are spelt out by
reference to the norms of “in-group”; however, it is not possible until member in a group can tell
who can be part of the “in-group” or otherwise (para. 9).
11
The second stage, Social Identification, here, members of a cultural group or in-group
members internalize the uniqueness of the group and they exhibit those marked-out
characteristics that would differentiate us from the “out-group”. In-group members inherently
and subsequently develop an emotional significance and strong cognitive attachment to our
identification with in-group, and our self-esteem becomes strapped around our identification with
our in-group membership (para. 11).
In the final stage, there is Social Comparison. After members of a cultural group have
categorized themselves as part of an in-group and have identify with that group, they then tend to
compare that group with other groups (out-groups) outside of theirs. The in-group self–esteem is
then maintained if its members compare constructively with others (para. 13) and in-group
member tend to exhibit in-group bias and discrimination against groups that differ from them
being it racially, ethnically or nationally as well as on other dimensions (Tajfel and Turner, 1986,
p.281-289).These other dimensions can include group categorizations based on age groupings
and sexual orientations (Herek & Capitanio, 1996; McConatha et al, 2003; Alan & Johnson,
2009; Cherry & Palmore, 2008).
2.2.2 Inter-group Contact Theory (Contact Hypothesis)
Inter-group Contact Theory is one of the very relevant and well-founded frameworks that is
associated with issues of cultural diversity, in-group discrimination and prejudice reduction and
improving inter-group contact and relations. This framework has long been deliberated to be one
of psychology’s most effective approaches for improving inter-group relations and curtailing ingroup discrimination. For about half a century, Contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954, 1958; Amir,
1969; Cook, 1985; Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000; Watson, 1947; Williams, 1947)
12
has represented a possibly viable and standard tactic for plummeting inter-group bias,
discrimination and negative contact reactions (as cited in Dovidio et al., 2003). Gordon Allport is
highly credited with the propounding of this theory and he hypothesized in The Nature of
Prejudice (Allport, 1954) that prejudice (unless deeply rooted in the character structure of the
individual) may be reduced by equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the
pursuit of common goals. The effect is greatly enhanced if this contact is sanctioned by
institutional supports (i.e., by law, custom or local atmosphere), and provided it is of a sort that
leads to the perception of common interests and common humanity between members of the two
groups’’. Consequently, positive behavioural interactions may invite greater inter-group approval
as a result of reduction inter-group relation anxiety thus aiding to rationalize this type of
interaction with the other group (Miller & Brewer, 1986). Thus the higher expectations of ingroup discrimination by out-groups (Kahn, 2013; Biasco, Goodwin & Vitale, 2001) can be
This hypothesis proposes that simple contact between groups is not automatically sufficient to
improve inter-group relations and lead to a reduction in in-group discrimination. Rather, for
contact between groups to reduce bias successfully, certain prerequisite features must be presentthe five facilitating factors - Equal status, common goals, inter-group co-operation, support of
authorities or customs and personal interactions are the five prerequisite conditions that Allport,
(1954) identified as critical for contact to successfully improve inter-group relations and can
curtail in-group discrimination.
After a study, Pettigrew and Tropp, (2000) reported the findings of a meta-analytic review of
tests of the Contact Hypothesis; it involved 203 research works comprising over 90,000 sample
size of participants. Across these studies, inter-group contact reflecting the factors proposed in
13
the Contact Hypothesis was significantly related to decrease inter-group biases an in-group
discriminatory tendencies (as cited in Dovidio et al., 2003, p.8).
The relevance of this framework to this work is that its helps in the understanding the
necessary conditions under which in group biases and discrimination can be reduced (Dovidio,
Gaertner, Kawakami, 2003, p.8-14) leading to good and positive inter-group relations in multicultural, multi-national or racially diverse environments.
14
2.3 Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework showing the relationship between Contact Hypothesis to inter-group
contact and positive inter-group relations as well as Social Identity Theory to negative intergroup relations between in-group persons and out-group person.
Figure.1
DISCRIMINATION
SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION (SIT)
IN-GROUP PERSONS
OUT-GROUP PERSONS
CONTACT HYPOTHESIS
NON-DISCRIMINATORY
INTER-GROUP RELATIONS
Source: The Researcher
15
Fig.1 demonstrates a relationship between social categorization (Social Identity theory) to
discriminatory tendencies between in-group and out-group persons as well as how Contact
Hypothesis or inter-group mingling or cross-national friendship can influences nondiscriminatory tendencies by facilitating positive inter-group relations between in-groups and out
groups.
Social categorization by virtue of Social Identity Theory – here in-group members categorize
themselves as the ‘best’ group; and tend to categorize others negatively just to enhance their selfesteem. Thus it limits their likelihood for cross-group mingling and positive contact with outgroups leading strained and discriminatory inter-group relations. The aims of ethnic, racial or
national categorizations by in-group members are to maintain or achieve superiority over outgroups on some social dimensions including such as excessive in-group pride (Tajfel & Turner,
1986). Invariably, it places a robust barrier to non-discriminatory inter-group relations amongst
in-groups and out-groups in society leading to higher discrimination directed towards the outgroups or minorities in society. According to Contact Hypothesis, now Inter-group Contact
Theory, extended contact between in-groups and out-groups can enhance positive inter-group
relations leading to significantly high non-discriminatory tendencies amongst different and
diverse groups in society (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Hopkins & Kahani-Hopkins, 2006).
16
2.4 Review of Relevant Related Studies
2.4.1 Cultural Awareness as A Means of Reducing Inter-group Discrimination
In their online article, Quappe and Cantatore, (2005) posit “cultural awareness as the
foundation of communication and it involves the ability of standing back from ourselves and
becoming aware of our cultural values, beliefs and perceptions”. They suggest that it becomes an
essential component when individuals find themselves in multi-cultural settings and on such
situations they tend to realize that people evaluate things differently, interpret some or same
stimuli partly or completely differently from us, there is no objectivity of appropriateness on
certain instances cross-culturally. The two researchers address the fact that misinterpretations
occur when individuals are not aware or conscious of our nominal actions on out-group
individuals. “In absence of better knowledge we tend to assume instead of finding out what a
behaviour means to the person involved” (p.1). Adler (1991), approves of the above assertion
that when individuals extend the idea that all other persons are similar to them, it could
invariably lead to misinterpretations. Upon such unguided knowledge individuals tend to act
incongruously, and due to that, it is best they view all persons as different until proven otherwise.
Their work concludes on the note of how individuals can manage amidst cultural diversity
harmoniously without and prejudices and discriminating against other persons (p.336).
Also Moloi and Bam’s (2014), article describes cultural competence from a sociological
perspective. Their work was meta-analytic in nature. They review several literatures that posits
that cultural competence – “the ability to work effectively across cultures; it is an approach that
enables one to learn to communicate and work respectfully with people whose cultures differ
from one’s own” was need to control discriminatory and prejudicial inter-group relations. Given
17
the diversity in all aspects of life in South Africa the researchers argue that mastering cultural
competence could address many of the misunderstandings that normally occur among people of
different cultures. They posit that misunderstanding may occur when individuals deploy their
own meanings in trying to make sense out of others’ worldview and reality; thus there is an
urgent need to be aware of such behavioural mannerism of other individuals, and by that,
reducing misunderstandings (p.334). The two researchers urged the need to establishments
including organizations and workplaces to develop cultural competence including emotional
maturity as well as the establishment of policies and ideals that will ensure better cross-cultural
interactions between individuals from different cultures. When individuals lack awareness of the
nuances of others’ culture, several problems including in-group discrimination and bias can arise.
In light of the above, they stated in their work:
In the white South African culture, slaughtering animals for any purpose other
than food is considered evil and an abominable act. Some black South Africans,
on the other hand, slaughter animals because they believe certain parts of the
animal can enhance their masculinity or improve their love life and it is also
regarded as an offering to please their ancestors (p.334).
They concluded that “respect for people” from varied cultures depicts a level of cultural
competence and “emotional intelligence” and “maturity” - that if people were to appreciate
each other’s backgrounds, there would be fewer misunderstandings and discrimination and
people would be able to live together in harmony without discriminating against individuals from
diverse backgrounds.
18
By implication, the inability of individuals to understand the differences in realities and shades
to cultures foreign to such person can create room for in-group bias and discrimination against
out-group persons; since an individual may perceive his cultural mannerisms as absolute
actualities as well as better than “others”. Thus there is unconstructive “Social Comparison”
(Tajfel and Turner, 1986, p.281-289) that can lead to prejudice and in-group discriminatory
tendencies.
Correspondingly, Stephan and Stephan, (1984) postulate that lack of cultural awareness and
cultural sensitivity promotes inter-group discrimination, prejudice or negative contact. Similarly,
Pettigrew(1998), proposed that learning about others is an essential process to improving nondiscriminatory inter-group relations. In same accordance, Dovidio et. al., (2003) states
“increasing what people know about others can reduce bias” as well in-group discrimination as
through three ways. First, when individuals gain adequate information about others, they tend to
group them through personalized lenses without stereotyping and discriminating against others.
Individuals tend to have a very good chance to build “new” non-stereotypical and nondiscriminatory association with out-group members (Kawakami, Dovidio, Moll, Hermsen &
Russin, 2000). Secondly, enough knowledge about others may reduce uncertainty about how to
interact with others which in turn reduces the situation whereby individuals deprive themselves
from inter-group contact and it also may decrease discomfort that may arise from such contact
(Cosby, Bromley & Saxe, 1980) (as cited in Dovidio, et.al 2003). Finally, “enhanced intercultural understanding” in terms of increased cultural sensitivity to the mannerisms of out-group
persons may cut down bias by recognizing of injustice (Dovidio, et.al 2003, p.10).
LeBaron (2003) is of the view that by virtue of different cultural orientations and
backgrounds, varied cultural, racial or national groups are instilled with the idea of what is
19
normal, appropriate and expected. When others do not meet our expectations, it is often an
indication that our cultural expectations are different. What is common to one group may appeal
as strange, “counterintuitive” (para. 5) or unacceptable to another group. This same researcher
also suggests cultural messages shape understanding of how to manage and control conflict as
well as inter-group harmony that are ever present in multi-cultural interactions and contact.
Basically, all the aforementioned researchers insist on an urgency on the part of individuals to
be culturally aware and sensitivity amidst their inter-group relations, as this will deprive any
chance of making incomplete judgements and misguided perceptions that can lead to
discriminatory and prejudicial cross-group interactions between persons who come from
dissimilar cultural or national backgrounds.
Quappe & Cantatore’s, (2005) work was more experiential in nature , they gave account of
their experiences and expect knowledge that guide their work, however conducting a survey or a
longitudinal study or a field research would have been better to gain more insight about their
topic rather than based on their own observation and account. Also, Moloi and Bam’s (2014),
work reviewed and drew conclusion based on the work of other researchers, they could have also
retested those findings of the underlying literatures in their work using a survey, or a quasiexperimental study or other studies that would have help them draw conclusion based on their
own quest rather than from others account.
20
2.4.2 Ageism or Discrimination Due To Age Differences
Tajfel and Turner (1979 & 1986), research works can be used to expound ageism
discrimination, as their works emphasize on group affiliation and self-identity within all social
environments. With respect to Social Identity Theory, individuals inherently belong to an ingroup and it is to this same group they strap our self-esteem- as such in-group persons turn to
ascribe positive attributes to their group affiliation and negative terms to out-group persons. This
process helps to boost the self-esteem of in-group members so as to discriminate and perpetrate
in-group bias against out-group persons. When this idea is applied to aging; group membership is
stratified between the “young” group (in-group) and the “old” group (out-group).
McConatha et al, (2003), conducted a comparative analysis research that focused on attitudes
of young adults from Germany and the United States. Specifically, the purpose of the study was
to evaluate similarities and differences in the anxiety associated with four measurable
dimensions associated with ageism: fear of old people, psychological concerns associated with
aging, concern over changes in physical appearance as a result of aging, and fear of losses
associated with aging. The second purpose of the study was to evaluate the age at which young
adults from these two countries might consider themselves to be “old.” Their findings indicated
significant country and gender differences across the dimensions. German participants tended to
view aging much more negatively than American participants did. However, Americans
considered themselves to be “old” at a much younger age than Germans participants. Gender
differences indicated that women in both countries were more concerned with age-related
changes in their physical appearance than were men. Analyses of their results were discussed in
relation to the influence of ageism and negative cultural stereotypes of aging on people's selfimage across the life span. The given age range across to their studies was 47-57, a range that
21
most would perceive as “middle” age rather than “old” age. So this goes on to verify differences
in nationality expectations on how early or late older persons (out-groups) should expect
discriminations from ‘younger’ persons (in-groups) based on their ‘old age’ or growing ‘older’.
Ageism, or prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory practices toward older adults (Butler, 1980),
has been found to be widespread around the world.
Also, Alan and Johnson (2009) examined attitude towards the elderly by assessing 113
university students on negative and discriminatory tendencies as well as anxiety towards the
aged. The purpose their study was to provide evidence about the potential value of improving
knowledge about aging and the elderly as a way of reducing discrimination and towards the
aged. Their findings revealed that university students tend to hold negative attitudes and
discriminate against the elderly. Findings from their work also revealed that men are more likely
and consistent on displaying negative attitude and discrimination tendencies towards the aged
than women.
A study by Cherry and Palmore (2008) involving 314 members of a university community,
both older and younger undergraduates from across four states in the U.S. They used the
Relating to Older People Evaluation (ROPE), a 20 item questionnaire that measured positive and
negative (discrimination) ageist behaviours that individuals may engage in daily lives. Their
findings show that both younger and older adults engage in equally same level of ageist
discriminations. However, analyses on gender differences towards ageist discrimination revealed
that females are very less likely to engage in such negative behaviours (p.850-859).
Harwood, (2007) posits that affiliates of the “young” group may embrace discriminatory,
negative stereotypes, bias, and or attitudes towards the “old” group, which encourages a more
22
advantageous or favourable perception of their in-group. The membership of the “young” group
is strengthened as being superior, and with the increasing consumer culture and commercialism
promoting and ascribing enormous value on youthful exuberance and attractive physical looks as
against senility and physical blemish that accompanies aging. In such cultural settings,
individuals (out-group or ‘older’ persons) are discriminated against and “not judged by how old
we are, but how young we are not” (Twigg, 2004, p.61).
Barret and Robbins, (2008) conducted a research which proves that females aging anxiety is
linked to psychological distress and there is a positive relationship between anxiety and distress.
The strongest predictor of anxiety was not the health problems and complications associated
(including senility) with aging but rather was more anxious about the decline in their physical
attractiveness and they fear ageism or discrimination based on the fact that they are look ‘older’
or they are aging. As such they expect higher discrimination and in-group bias from younger
adults (in-group) and even including ‘older’ ones.
A review of these about literature has made it bear that ‘younger’ adults who are in-group
(because they perceived themselves to be in the best group) by virtue of their ‘attractiveness’ and
‘exuberance’, by using the ideological model prescribed by Social Identity Theory, they
perceived their youthfulness as a source of pride to discriminate against the aged or ‘older’
adults, engage in more ageist discrimination towards the aged who fall into out-group (by virtue
of their ‘decline’ in physical attractiveness and senility).’Younger’ adults tend to hold negative
attitudes and discriminate against the ‘elderly’ (Alan & Johnson, 2009; Harwood, 2007; Twigg,
2004).
23
However, Cherry and Palmore (2008) prove that both the ‘younger’ (in-group members) and
‘aged or ‘elderly’ (out-group members) tend to show same levels of ageism or discrimination
towards the ‘aged’ or based on an individuals’ age group. These researchers (Alan & Johnson,
2009; Cherry & Palmore, 2008) prove gender differences towards ageism or age-group
discrimination; they reveal that females are very less likely to engage in such negative
behaviours or in-group discrimination. Alan and Johnson (2009) prescribe that to curb such
discrimination by in-group members or ‘younger’ adults toward the ‘aged’ or ‘elderly’, is it is
thus necessary to improve knowledge (contact hypothesis) about aging (out-group members) as a
way or social intervention of reducing discrimination towards the ‘aged.
And more importantly, unlike the nature of other researchers’ work, McConatha et al, (2003)
studies reveals nationality differences on the rate at which younger adults will perpetrate ageist
discrimination against older adults. Although the above works are based on ageism, it still helps
to understand by virtue of Social Identity Theory why in-group persons may choose to
discriminate against out-group persons. Also, Barret and Robbins (2008) proves that female in
outgroup( those ‘aged’ or ‘older looking’) dread in-group discrimination more than males and
thus females expect higher discrimination based on their age and decline in attractiveness than
their male counterpart in out-groups.
The generalization of these aforementioned reviewed works is quite questionable, and limited
based on the fact that they all engaged in survey-based studies that could have affect the honesty
of responses from their respondents as sociable and pleasant answers might have been given or
simply by nature of the sensitivity of the underlying research quests.
24
The overall essence of these reviewed works under ageism is to help understand
how(cognitive appraisal) (Tajfel & Turner, 1986, p.227) in-group members, using the model and
main ideas of Social Identity Theory, tend to discriminate against out-group members, based
on their perceived ideas on several comparative dimensions such as social outlooks , social class,
majority status etc.
2.4.3 Gender Differences on Discriminatory Tendencies
Hughes and Tuch (2003) employed the General Social Survey (GSS) data, as racial attitudes
were examined amongst White males and females. Their study assessed differences between
white men and white women across a-26 broader spectrum of racial attitudes with more diverse
national samples than were employed previously, including the 1988-2000 General Social
Surveys and the 1988-1994 American National Election Studies. Their findings reveals that
White females are more poised than white males in helping segregated and poor Black
communities including funding their educational establishments as well as they exhibit stronger
“feelings of sympathy and admiration toward blacks” (p.393). Their findings also show that
white women hold more favourable racial attitudes in the presence of controls. However, they
posit that such gender differences are not so significantly huge (p394). Their findings are
consistent with the views (Blumer, 1958) that white women's and white men's racial attitudes are
rooted in what Blumer (1958, p.3-7) refers to as their shared “sense of group position” and that
gender-differentiated value socialization plays only a small role in racial attitude formation;
gender differences in racial attitudes are small, inconsistent, and limited mostly to attitudes on
racial policy.
25
Their findings is inconsistent with previous studies (Beutel & Marini 1995; Cross & Madson,
1997; Johnson & Marini 1998) of gender differences in orientation toward others, as these
studies found that women are more strongly concerned than men with affective processes and are
more likely to be other-focused, while men tend to be more instrumental and more self-oriented.
Differences in gender can influence individuals’ cultural attitudes in many significant ways.
These researchers extended their finding to include gender differences in racial attitudes and ingroup discriminatory tendencies, and reports that women also are more favourable than men in
their racial outlooks Kahn, (2013) and McCollum and Kahn, (2006) posit that both sexes have
been found to trail after different goals in life. Males are more inclined to chase goals of
superiority and supremacy (increased social status) as according to a comparative study on social
goals Also females are more poised to go after social responsibility statuses and intimacy aims
and targets more often than men.
Similarly, Malaney and Berger, (2005) conducted research to examine the effect of racially
diverse students’ entry characteristics, pre-collegiate environments and activities and 3
democratic outcomes that served as potential indicators that served factors of new collegiate
entrants readiness to indulge in non-discriminatory cultural and racial diversity. Data were
collected from 1 of 10 public colleges that took part in 2001 national study that sought to assess
how diversity affects inter-group relation including discrimination. The demographics and
responding rates were as follows: White = 2503 (88.0%), Latino/Hispanic/Chicano = 85
(64.9%), Asian/Pacific Islander = 246 (84.5%), African American/Black = 73 (55.3%), Multiracial/ethnic = 67, American Indian/Alaskan Native = 6 (35.3%) and Unreported = 26. One of
their findings reveals that female college students tend to exhibit stronger motivational levels for
social change and with greater levels of readiness to engage in social action than males and also
26
females are very less likely to discriminate against other social group than males. In parallel, the
pursuit of these differing social goals can impact gender differences in relation to how both sexes
interact with out-group persons and how they perceive issues such as cultural differences and
their tendencies to perpetrate in-group discrimination.
McClelland and Linnander, (2006) also posit that females tend to have lower propensity levels
of contemporary racism and discrimination tendencies than males. According to them, these
gender differential findings on the gender propensity to discriminate may be related to gender
issues such as females’ likeliness to be more relational oriented than males, females’
socialization toward more pro-social goals, females’ tendency toward nurturance, and males’
tendency toward individual success and competition.
Similarly, Taylor, (1998) findings indicates that female students are two to three times more
culturally opened as compared to males in their first two years of college. He attributed his
findings have been attributed to the females’ pre-college socialization experiences, the effects of
collegiate experiences and the impact of the higher moral development of females Inversely,
males were found to have little to no significant adjustment to cultural openness levels during
their first two years of collegiate experiences.
In contrast to the above assertions posited by the aforementioned researchers, Kahn (2013)
revealed a contrary result showing males’ affectiveness (feelings), openness and sensitivity to
positive inter-group relations increased as whilst females’ decreased significantly, thus males are
less likely to discriminate against other cultural groups.
A recap of the above related works depicts a general agreement that gender differences do
exist in relation to inter-group hostility and discrimination. However, except for Kahn (2013), all
27
the other researchers’ work proves on the fact that females are very less likely to indulge or
exhibit inter-group discrimination.
2.4.4 Discrimination Differences Amongst Racially Diverse College Students.
Biasco, Goodwin and Vitale, (2001) conducted a study of college students' attitudes toward
racial discrimination among 520 students who attended The University of West Florida. The
students were randomly selected and were stratified by gender. They were asked to complete an
instrument containing 21 statements that were related to racial discrimination on campus.41% of
Euro-American, 66% of African American, 61% Hispanic American and 61% Asian American
students reported that minority students experienced racial discrimination on campus. The
students as a whole reported that African American students were most likely to experience
racial discrimination. Again the their findings reveal that 40% of African American students
perceived discrimination against them as compared to 27% of Hispanic Americans and Asian
Americans and 11% percent of Euro-American students. Their findings also show that students
of European tend to hide their intense racist and discriminatory tendencies more but in actuality
are they are very selective amidst inter-group relations.
Correspondingly, Bonilla-Silva and Forman (2000) conducted a Social Attitudes of College
Students Survey involving sample of undergraduate students at four universities survey research
on Whites’ attitudes and discriminatory tendencies. These matters were examined by collecting
survey and interview data from college students in three universities. The main findings were
that White respondents appear to be more prejudiced in the interviews than in the survey, use a
new race talk to avoid appearing ‘racist’ and discriminative have a - they possess a "hidden
28
reservoir of racial animosity and suspicion" beneath a "veneer of antiracist attitudes". And they
tend to hide behind non-discriminatory aura to appear non-racist (p.50-78).
Saenz (2010) also agrees that students of European descent are less probable to be willing to
involve themselves with diversity in college environments. They are also very selective and
discriminate as to who they tend to sit and mingle with. They are mostly found with in-group
members as well as share same rooms with them. They also indicate on questionnaires that they
support miscegenation but they prove otherwise when they are been personally interviewed.
Kahn, (2013) found out that most studies about racial attitudes of students of Africa descent
tend to emphasize how much they feel discriminated against (p.27). According to him, African
American student expect higher discrimination from students of European descent however the
tendencies of college students of varied cultural or racial backgrounds to cultural openness to
depends on their levels of pre-college openness to diversity. He suggested that students who
were higher pre-collegiate openness to cultural diversity were less likely to be perpetrating ingroup discrimination (p.74-86).
LaSure, (1993) conducted a study at five undergraduate colleges in California, he found out
that students of African descent experienced higher racial discrimination than those of European
descents. Reid and Radhakrishnan, (as cited in Kahn, 2013) put it out that “students of African
descent report that they are not taken seriously as students, that they did not get adequate
advising or mentoring and reported being less self-confident than students of European descent”.
Generally what these researchers are saying is that students who happen to be in the majority
or in-group are more liable to perpetrate discriminatory tendencies towards college students who
are in minority or in the out-group, who are at the same time very expectant of being victims of
29
discrimination. This assertion is understandable in the face of what is being proposed by the
Social Identity Theory, as in-group members are more liable to being discriminatory than outgroup members or individuals in minority.
30
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design
This study was a descriptive and survey-based research which involved the collection of data
in order to test hypotheses or answer questions concerning the status of the subject of the study.
Three main purposes of research are to describe, explain, and validate findings. Description
emerges following creative exploration, and serves to organize the findings in order to fit them
with explanations, and then test or validate those explanations (Krathwohl, 1993). A selfprepared questionnaire was generated by the researcher to collect subjective and relevant
responses from 120 university students. The reason for using a self-prepared data collection
instruments was guided by the specificity and the unique situation(as most related works had
standardized instruments meant for cultural diversities along racial lines unlike the ethnic
diversity and
mono-racial settings underlying this work).Upon further analysis, the two
instruments had a stronger reliability and validity. The data collected were analysed
quantitatively using descriptive statistics.
3.2 Population
The study population comprised of students of both Regent University of Science and
Technology and Central University College at McCarthy Hill and Mataheko respectively. They
represent the entire group of individuals upon whom a study’s findings will be generalized or
they represent the group of interest for the researcher.
31
3.3 Sample and Sampling Techniques
The sample for the study consisted of students of four different nationalities (Ghanaians,
Nigerians, Togolese and Ivorians). The study sample consisted of students of both Regent
University of Science and Technology and Central University College at McCarthy Hill and
Mataheko respectively. The total sample size was (n = 120). Student respondents of Central
University College were 60 in all and student respondents from Regent University of Science
and Technology were also 60 in total.
Simple random sampling is a sampling technique where individuals or respondents or
participants are selected from a (larger) population whilst each individual is chosen entirely by
chance and each member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample.
This it was done to ensure so as to ensure equal chance of representation amongst respondents
across the four nationalities.
3.4 Instrumentation
A self–prepared questionnaire called Collegiate Discriminatory Survey (CDS) was the main
instruments the researcher used in data collection. Questionnaires essentially are structured
technique for collecting primary data and it is generally a series of written questions for which
the respondents has to provide the answers (Bell, 1999). Or better still ,questionnaire as
consisting of a list of questions or statements relating to the aims of the study, the hypotheses and
research questions to be verified and answered, to which the a respondent is required to answer
by writing his or her response or circling, ticking ,underlining ,inter alia the right responses
(Amedahe & Gyimafineh, 2005).
32
Section A, contains the demographic information of respondents. It included items such as
respondent’s Age, Gender, Nationality and Ethnic group. Data was obtained on Inter-group NonDiscriminatory Tendencies (Section B) and Inter-group Discriminatory Tendencies (Section C).
The questionnaire was measured on Likert scales of a continuum ranging from 0 to 4 on an
eighteen question item in total; Section B having 7 of them and Section C bearing 11 question
items.
Section B measured Inter-group Non-Discriminatory Tendencies. It includes 7 items measured
on a 5-point Likert scale labelled from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. The scales was
awarded as follows 0 = Strongly Disagree, 1 = Disagree, 2 = Not Sure, 3 = Agree and 4 =
Strongly Agree. Higher scores mean there is there is lower discrimination tendencies amidst
inter-group relations and vice versa Some of the Items on the scale includes: Your Interactions
with out-group members influence your perception and attitude about their culture leading to
more positive inter-group relations”, “Your contact with out-group persons has helped you to
work co-operatively with them.”, “Your contact with out-group persons has made you cautious
and sensitive when interacting with them ; thus respecting their culture.
Section C measured Inter-group Discriminatory Tendencies. These 11 question items were
measured on a 5-point Likert scale labelled from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The scales
was assigned as follows 0= strongly disagree, 1= disagree, 2= not sure, 3= agree and 4= strongly
agree. Some of the items on the scale include, I would prefer not marrying any outgroup
individual whom your culture prejudice against”, “If I am to be an employer, I will always
choose in-group persons over out-group persons, both of same qualifications”, “I always believe
people from my tribe or culture have outstanding physical qualities than other out-group
33
persons. Higher scores, on the items of the above items will imply a dominant existence of
intense discrimination amidst inter-group relations and vice-versa.
Due to technicality of some of the words or terms that appeared in the questionnaires, Section
D was made to contain operational definitions of words such as In-group individuals, Out-group
individuals, Discrimination, Prejudice, Perception, Cultural Sensitivity, and Inter-group contact
and Attitude. Instructions were visible on the first page of the questionnaires to direct
respondents to view the operational definitions before they proceeded to respond to the items in
the questionnaires. This was to ensure uniformity of understanding to the content of the
questionnaires.
A pre-test of the questionnaire was carried out with 50 students on the campus of Regent
University of Science and Technology. This was to evaluate the logical and sequential order of
the items and the clarification of the choice of words of the questionnaires, the viability of the
design procedure for data processing analysis and any potential problems that might be faced by
the researcher or the participants. The pre-testing revealed the reactions of respondents towards
questions related to sensitive concerns such as out-group stereotyping in-group bias tendencies,
prejudice and discrimination. Their reactions and responses were taken into considerations in the
concluding stages of designing the tools and procedures for the study.
3.5 Validity
The validity of an instrument concerns what the test measures and how well it does so”
(Anastasi & Urbina, p.113). The adapted instrument used to measure Inter-group NonDiscriminatory Tendencies has a good content, with validity coefficients ranging from .54 to .75.
34
On the other hand, the adapted instrument used to measure Inter-group Discriminatory
Tendencies also has very good content with validity coefficients ranging from .53 to .79.
3.6 Reliability
According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2003), reliability refers to the consistency of the scores
obtained; that is, how consistent they are for each individual from one administration of an
instrument to the other, and from one set of items to another. Therefore, an instrument can only
be classified as reliable when it produces the same results whenever it is repeated even by
another researcher.
The reliability of the instrument used to measure Inter-group Non-Discriminatory Tendencies
has a Cronbach alpha of 0.77. Again, the instrument used to measure Inter-group Discriminatory
Tendencies has a good internal consistency with a Cronbach alpha of 0.71.
3.7 Data analyses procedure
The researcher used descriptive statistics to analyse the demographic data. The demographic
data were represented indicating the percentages using IBM Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0. The hypotheses were tested using specific statistical tests which
are provided below.
The first hypothesis which suggests that “It is likely that there will be gender differences on
non-discriminatory inter-group relations” was analysed using the Independent T-test since the
researcher was interested in finding the difference that existed between two groups, that is, males
and females on non-discriminatory inter-group relations.
35
Hypothesis two states “It is likely that there will be nationality differences on nondiscriminatory relations”. This was also analysed using One-way ANOVA to check differences
on non-discriminatory relations amongst the four students’ nationalities of both universities.
The last hypothesis states “It is likely that in-group students will score higher on inter-group
discrimination” was analysed using the Independent T-test since the researcher was interested in
finding inter-group discrimination differences between the two in-groups (the biggest student
nationality group each on the campuses of both universities).
3.8 Ethical Consideration
Permission was obtained from all the students’ participants. Students were prior informed to
seek assistance from the researcher if they needed better clarity about the nature, content ,
diction or any misunderstanding concerning the how to respond to the questionnaires. Again, the
researcher eschewed the use of any deception prior to seeking their consent. No incentives were
given to student participants and also, they were assured of confidentiality, no harm and as such,
questions were anonymous. The researcher also incorporated the works of other researchers to
buttress his analyses, guide and direct the nature and scope of his research literature, thus, such
researchers were accordingly cited and acknowledged both in-text and in reference.
36
CHAPTER FOUR DATA: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the data analysis and results of this research work. The analysis was
based on self-reported data by respondents, (N=120). Demographics of respondents were
analysed with descriptive statistics. The IBM SPSS 22.0 was used in analysing the data.
Descriptive statistics and inferential statistical test were used to analyse the four hypotheses
underscoring this research work. Findings acquired from this work have been summarised into
tabular representations as well as the interpretations of the tables has also been detailed.
37
4.2 Demographics
Table 4.2.1: Showing Demographic Details of Respondents (N=120)
Variables
Central University
Gender:
Frequency
Male
30
50%
Female
30
50%
48
80%
Nationality: Ghanaian
Regent University
Gender:
Nigerian
7
11.7%
Togolese
3
5%
Ivorians
2
3.3%
Male
30
50%
Female
30
50%
35
58.3%
Nigerian
21
35%
Togolese
2
3.3%
Ivorian
2
3.3%
Male
60
50%
Female
60
50%
83
69.2%
Nigerians
28
23.3%
Togolese
5
4.3%
Ivorian
4
3.3%
17 – 23
90
75%
24 – 30
30
25%
Nationality: Ghanaian
Total
Gender:
Nationality: Ghanaians
Age:
Percentage
38
From the above table, 120 student respondents made up the total sample size drawn from both
Regent University College of Science and Technology and Central University College.
Respondents ranging from 17 to 23 years were 90 or 75% of the entire sample size whilst
respondents ranging from 24 to 30 years were 30 or 25% of the entire sample size. Gender-wise,
the male and female respondents drawn from Central University were 30 apiece, same for
Regent University. Male were 50% and females were also 50% of the entire sample size drawn
from both Universities. The sample included 48 Ghanaians or 80%, 7 Nigerians or 11.7%, 3
Togolese or 5% and 2 Ivorians or 3.3% of the entire student respondents drawn from Central
University College. The sample also included 35 Ghanaians (58.3%), 21 Nigerians, (35%) 2
Togolese (3.3%) and 2 Ivorians (3.3%) of the total sample size drawn from Regent University
College of Science and Technology.
39
4.3 DATA PRESENTATION
Hypotheses Testing
Hypothesis 1: It is likely that there will be gender differences on non-discriminatory intergroup relations.
This was analysed with the independent t-test because researcher was comparing two
independent groups (males and females) on positive inter-group relations.
Table 1: Summary of Independent T-test, means, SD of scores of males and females on
non-discriminatory inter-group relations.
Variables
N
mean
SD
Males
60
20.20
3.583
Females
60
20.05
df
t
p
118
0.191
.849
4.935
The table above indicates that no significant difference between males (M=1.0769;
SD=2.29104) and females (M=.1029; SD=.52233) when it comes to non-discriminatory intergroup relations. Comparing the p value [t (118) = 0.191; p=.849]. From the table, it is indicates that
both sexes will not differ in their openness, sensitivity, affectiveness and willingness to engage in
non-discriminatory and constructive inter-group relations. Therefore, the hypothesis which stated
that “It is more likely that there will be gender differences in the measure of positive inter-group
relations” was not supported.
40
Hypothesis 2: It is likely that there will be nationality differences on non-discriminatory
inter-group relations.
This was analysed with One-way ANOVA to check for differences non-discriminatory intergroup relations.
Table 2: Summary of One-way ANOVA F-test, SD, means of non-discrimination amongst
the four student nationalities.
Variables
N
mean
SD
Ghanaians 83
19.39
4.729
Nigerians
28
21.86
2.649
Togolese
5
22
2
Ivorians
4
21
1.414
df
F
(3,116) 2.84
p
.041
A one-way ANOVA between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the impact
of nationality on levels non-discriminatory inter-group relations. Participants were divided into 4
groups according to their nationalities. There was a statistically significant difference at the p <
.05 level on non-discriminatory inter-group relations scores for the four student groups: F (3,
116) = 2.84, p = .041. Despite reaching statistical significance, the actual difference in mean
scores between the groups was quite small. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test
indicated that the mean score for Ghanaians ((M = 19.39, SD = 4.729)) was significantly
different from Nigerians (M = 21.86, SD = 2.649). However, Togolese (M = 22, SD= 2) did not
differ significantly from Ghanaians, Nigerians and Ivorians. As well as Ivorians (M = 21, SD =
1.414) did not differ significantly from all the other student nationality groups. Therefore, the
41
hypothesis which stated “It is likely that there will be nationality differences on nondiscriminatory relations” was not entirely supported.
Hypothesis 3: It is likely that in-group students will score higher on inter-group
discrimination.
This was analysed with the independent t-test because the researcher was comparing two
independent groups (Ghanaians and foreigners).
Table 3: Summary of Independent T-test, means, SD scores of Ghanaians (In-groups) and
Foreigners (Out-groups) on inter-group discrimination.
Variables
N
mean
SD
Ghanaians 83
21.86
2.440
Foreigners 37
19.39
df
t
p
118
-3.656
.004
4.729
The table above indicates a significant difference between the Ghanaians (in-groups) of both
universities (M=21.86; SD=2.440) and the foreigners (out-groups) of both universities
(M=19.39; SD=4.729) as pertaining to inter-group discrimination. Comparing the p value [t (118)
= -3.656; p=.004]. From the table, it is revealed that Ghanaians or the in-groups of both
universities recorded higher score for inter-group discrimination than foreign students or the outgroups of both universities. Therefore, the hypothesis which stated that “It is likely that in-group
students will score higher on inter-group discrimination” was supported.
42
4.4 Discussions
This work was aimed at assessing the effects of cultural processes (group identity) on
discriminatory and non-discriminatory inter-group relations, based on responses from
participants from a two similar multi-cultural environment. The objectives of this study were to
find out gender differences on non-discriminatory inter-group relations, to find out for
nationality differences on non-discriminatory inter-group relations and finally to find out
discrimination difference between in-group and out-group.
Result from the study failed to support the hypothesis that stated that it is likely that there will
be gender differences on non-discriminatory inter-group relations. The no difference in gender
tendencies to non-discrimination inter-group relations may be due to the sameness in precollegiate openness to cultural diversity as Kahn (2013) posits. The possible reasons for the
difference in result in by comparing the findings of the aforementioned researchers’ to that of
this work may be attributed to the contextual differences in upbringing such as pre-collegiate
and socialization experiences, the effects of collegiate experiences and the impact of the higher
moral development as Taylor (1998) posits. Environmental and demographical differences could
have also accounted for the reason why the researcher got a different finding unlike that of the
reviewed researchers’ works. This could be due to the fact that the aforementioned researchers’
conducted their works in a rather more racial diverse environments that tend to have higher rates
of inter-group tension and higher discrimination - due to the marked and significant differences
that exist amongst various collective groups in such societies (Saenz, 2010; Matlock, 1997;
Smith et. al., 1998; LaSure, 1993; Reid & Radhakrishnan, 2003) ; unlike the (West) African
43
setting embodying this work with much lesser racial difference. And besides there are more
stances of cultural commonalties amongst the four student nationalities who incorporated this
work than the significant racial and group differences that exist between racial groups in the
western world – were most of the reviewed works were conducted. It could also be that
difference in the findings of this work might be due to the fact that dishonest responses were
given by the respondents or the differences in how much exposure and level of inter-group
contact both genders involved in this work and that of the reviewed works have to persons in
out-group or individuals from differing racial or national backgrounds
However, McCollum and Kahn, (2006); Malaney and Berger (2005); Bowman, (2010),
Taylor, (1998), and finally, McClelland and Linnander, (2006) generally posit that females show
higher cultural sensitivity, openness and affection to inter-group relations than males. Also
Cherry and Palmore (2008) females are very less likely to engage in such discriminatory
behaviours (p.850-859) Inversely, to the above findings, Kahn (2013), reveals through this work
that cultural affectiveness, openness and sensitivity to positive inter-group relations increases
whilst females’ decreases.
With all the above been said, it can be firmly said that there is no gender differences on the
levels of positive inter-group relations.
The second hypothesis suggested that it is likely that there will be nationality differences on
non-discriminatory relations. However, the researcher’s result did not entirely support the
hypothesis. Various literatures have consistently proven that varied racial and ethnic groups or
simply majority and minority groups exhibit different tendencies of inter-group discrimination
and prejudice (Hopkins & Kahani-Hopkins, 2006; Shelton, 2003; Troop, 2006) including
44
McConatha et al; (2003) studies that reveal differences on the rate at which in-group members
will perpetrate ageist discrimination against out-group members.
According to a study by Saenz, (2010), students of European descent (in majority or in-group)
are less likely to engage themselves with college diversity environments; they tend to choose
who to sit it or they are more inclined to mingle other in-group (European descent) students, as
well as share abodes with them and finally they disapprove inter-racial marriages or
miscegenation (Bonilla-Silva & Forman, 2000)). Shelton, (2003) and Troop, (2006) also posit of
minority groups as more likely to presuppose and be expectant of higher prejudice and
discrimination against them from members of majority groups. As such, based on the higher
expectancy of prejudice and discrimination against out-groups, and the higher likeability of ingroup members mingling with themselves more than with out-group members, it means there
would be intense discrimination from the in-group or the biggest student nationality than those in
out-groups (Saenz, 2010).
The result generally showed significance differences (.041) on levels of non-discriminatory
inter-group relations or cross-group friendship. The in-group (Ghanaian students) recorded the
lowest mean of 19.39 on non-discriminatory tendencies in-group relations, and the various outgroups scored relatively higher means. The second largest minority (Togolese students) scored
the highest mean of 22 on non-discriminatory tendencies, followed by Nigerian students (largest
minority) with a mean of 21.86 and finally Ivorian students (smallest minority) with a mean of
21. Clearly Ghanaian students engaged in less positive cross-group friendships and interactions
than the various out-groups or minorities. However, the result showed a statistical significant
difference (.040) of non-discriminatory tendencies exists between Ghanaian and Nigerian
students. Correspondingly, Nigerians scored a higher mean on non-discriminatory tendencies
45
than Ghanaians. Thus, in short, it can be said Ghanaian students do not engage in college
diversity any more than students of Nigerians do and the latter is more non-discriminatory than
the in-group or Ghanaian students. Again, the research can posit based on his findings that
Ghanaian students were more ‘choosy ‘as to whom to mingle and interact with or they exhibited
higher tendencies of in-group bias than minorities students, hence their relatively lower score for
non-discriminatory
tendencies.
Correspondingly,
despite
the
higher
expectations
of
discrimination perceived by the out-groups, higher mean scores on positive inter-group relations
were thus recorded. It could be that by virtue of their higher expectancy of discrimination from
Ghanaians students or the in-group, they, thus, mingled amongst themselves more and more than
they engaged in an extended contact with the majority group students (Ghanaians).
The result proves that Ghanaian and Nigerian students significantly differ on nationality levels
of non-discriminatory tendencies, proving that the second hypothesis was not fully supported
Since Togolese and Ivorian students showed no significant differences to both Ghanaian and
Nigerians on levels of non-discriminatory tendencies. Yet still the result still proved a nationality
difference amongst the two biggest nationality groups – Ghanaians and Nigerians.
In light of the above, it is not entirely likely that there will be nationality differences on nondiscriminatory relations.
The last hypothesis suggested that it is likely that in-group students will score higher on intergroup discrimination. The result shows a very statistical significant difference of .004 in between
the joint in-group and joint out-group of both universities on levels of positive inter-group
relations. 83 Ghanaian students of both universities (in-groups) being in majority as against the
37 foreign students (out-groups) comprising of Nigerians, Togolese and Ivorians. Findings from
46
the results attest to the findings of these researchers (Biasco, Goodwin & Vitale, 2001), who
believed in-group persons bear greater feelings of hostility beneath a frontage of anti-racist and
discriminatory tendencies. Also, Saenz, (2010) posits that in-group or students of majority ethnic
or racial groups are less probable to be willing to involve themselves with diversity in college
environments and they tend to choose to sit and mingle with their in-group members as well as
share same rooms with them. LaSure, (1993) also found out that, student of minority groups
experienced higher racial discrimination or ethnocentrism than those in in-groups.
The above finding is in harmony or consistent with the result obtained by the aforementioned
researchers (Tagfel & Turner, 1979; LaSure, 1993; Saenz, 2010, Kahn, 2013; Bonilla-Silva &
Forman, 2000; Biasco, Goodwin & Vitale, 2001; Reid & Radhakrishnan, 2003) whose various
works reveal higher discriminatory tendencies from in-group members. Correspondingly, 83
Ghanaians who form the majority (69.2%) student respondents of both universities recorded
relatively higher on discriminatory tendencies relations as compared to the 37 foreigners or
minorities (30.8%) student respondents of both universities. In light these findings, and in
relation to the scope of SIT, the researcher can reasonably posit or in-group members are more
discriminatory than the out-groups. In relation to this work, Ghanaian students or in-group
members have lower cultural sensitivity, openness and competence than the foreign students or
the in-group (Dovidio, Gaertner & Kawakami 2003; Quappe & Cantatore, 2005; Adler, 1991;
Moloi & Bam 2014; Stephan & Stephan, 1984).
In light of the above finding, it is likely that in-group students will score higher on inter-group
discrimination than those in out-group.
47
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This chapter summarizes the research problem and brings the research work to a close. It also
makes suggestions for further research on the results or the findings of this work.
5.2 Summary
The problem under study was to find out the impact or to assess inter-group discriminatory
and non- discriminatory tendencies amongst university students amongst the students of both
Regent and Central Universities. Descriptive statistics was used to analyse the demographic data,
and inferential statistical method using Independent T-test analysis on two independent samples
was used to calculate the difference of means between male and female students on nondiscriminatory inter-group tendencies. The researcher discovered the incidence of no gender
difference on the construct that was measure although several researchers’ work proved
otherwise.
The study also revealed that there are some nationality differences to inter-group nondiscriminatory tendencies, as One-way ANOVA test result showed significant difference
between only Ghanaian and Nigerian students but not between the other nationalities in relation
to any of the aforementioned two student nationality groups. The finding was not entirely
consistent with the findings of some underlying researchers to this works.
And finally, in-group (Ghanaian students) were found to be more discriminatory in their intergroup relations than out-group (foreign students). This finding was largely consistent with the
results and assertions of several reviewed literatures in this work.
48
5.3 Conclusions
Cultural affiliation is something inherent on all individuals and thus it consciously and
unconsciously affects the way we interact and related with others, but we cannot overlook some
of the problems cultural diversity possesses on modern societies. Such problems are misguided,
and incomplete or utterly misguided information about others. If individuals perceive their
culture as better than others that can lead to discrimination and negative inter-group relations.
Thus there is the need for person to understand cultural nuances - be culturally sensitive and
competent as well to help curtail inter-group discriminatory tendencies that is still pervasive in
modern day societies. When individuals engage in extended contact with persons from different
racial, cultural or national backgrounds, the anxiety and barrier to constructive inter-group and
cross-cultural friendship weakens, thus lending way for non-discriminatory inter-group relations.
Respect for individuals from diverse cultures and nationalities is crucial as it depicts higher
levels of cultural competence and emotional intelligence and maturity- individual need to
appreciate each other’s backgrounds, there would be fewer misunderstandings and
discrimination and people would be able to live together in harmony without discriminating
against individuals from diverse backgrounds.
5.4 Recommendations
Future or further related or similar studies should be longitudinal in nature as they strengthen
confidence in the value and potency of inter-group contact as a social intermediation in curbing
and reduction inter-group discrimination relations.
More future related studies should be conducted in African setting where there varied ethnic
diversities, since if not all, most of studies on cultural, racial and ethnic diversity effect on inter49
group relations were conducted in the western world. Also instruments must be design to meet
up with the demographic characteristics of African settings since the continent is sparsely
racially diverse unlike the western world. Thus one that can be used in similar researchers for
ethnic or cultural diversity since if not all , most related studies were conducted along racial
lines rather than ethnic or national differences.
50
REFERENCES
Adler, N.J. (1991). International Dimensions of Organisational Behaviour. (2nd ed.) Boston,
MA: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.
Allan, L. J., & Johnson, J. A. (2008). Undergraduate attitudes toward the elderly: The role of
knowledge, contact and aging anxiety. Educational Gerontology, 35(1), p.1-14.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. p. 28-46.
Allport, G. W. (1958). The nature of prejudice, Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Amedahe, F.K. & Asamoah Gyimah, E. (2005). Introduction to educational research. AccraNorth: Mercury Press (Centre for Continuing Education of the University of Cape Coast.
Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological bulletin, 71(5), p.319.
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). New York: Macmillan. p.113
Barrett, A. E. & Robbins, E. (2008). "The multiple sources of women's aging anxiety and their
relationship with psychological distress." Journal of Aging and Health 20.1: p.32-65.
Bell, J. (1999) Doing Your Research Project. (3rd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bernstein, D.A, & Nash, P.A. (2005). Essentials of Psychology, (3rd ed.): Boston, Houghton
Mifflin Company, p. 325.
Beutel, A. M. & Marini, M. M. (1995). "Gender and Values." American Sociological Review 60:
p.436-480.
51
Biasco, F., Goodwin, E.A., & Vitale, K.L. (2001).College students’ attitudes toward racial
discrimination. College Student Journal, 35(4), p.523-528.
Blumer, H. (1958). "Race Prejudice As a Sense of Group Position." Pacific Sociological Review
1: p.3-7.
Bonilla-Silva, E., & Forman, T. (2000). “I am not racist, but ...’’: Mapping White college
students’ racial ideology in the USA. Discourse & Society, 11, p.50–78.
doi:10.1177/0957926500011001003.
Bowman, N. A. (2010). College diversity experiences and cognitive development: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, 80 (1), p. 4-33.
Cherry, K.E. & Palmore, E. (2008) relating to older people evaluation (ROPE): A measure of
self-reported ageism. Educational Gerontology, 34(10), p.849-861.
Cook, S. W. (1985). Experimenting on social issues: The case of school desegregation. American
Psychologist, 40(4), p.452.
Crosby, F., Bromley, S., & Saxe, L. (1980). Recent unobtrusive studies of black and white
discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 87, p. 546-563.
Cross, S. E. & Laura M. (1997). "Models of the Self: Self-Construals and Gender."
Psychological Bulletin 122: p.5-37.
Davis, Y, 2008. The Parasocial Contact Hypothesis: Implications For Changing Racial, p.1-2.
Desforges, D. M., Lord, C. G., Pugh, M. A., Sia, T. L., Scarberry, N. C., & Ratcliff, C. D.
(1997). Role of group representativeness in the generalization part of the contact
hypothesis.
Basic
and
Applied
Social
10.1207/s15324834basp19023
52
Psychology,
19,
p.183–204.
doi:
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. (1999). Reducing prejudice: Combating intergroup biases. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 8, p.101-105.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. & Kawakami. K. (2003). "Intergroup contact: The past, present, and
the future." Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 6.1. p. 5-21
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). The effect of inter-group competition on group member adjustment.
Personnel Psychology, 20(I), p.33-44.
Flavell, J. H. (1996). Piaget's legacy. Psychological Science, 7(4), p. 200-203.
Fraenkel, J.R. & Wallen, N.E. (2003). How to design and evaluate research in education. (6th
ed.) New York: McGraw Hill Companies Inc.
Harwood, J. (2007). Understanding communication and aging: Developing knowledge and
awareness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of My Best Friends" Intergroup Contact,
Concealable
Stigma,
and
Heterosexuals'
Attitudes
Toward
Gay
Men
and
Lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), p. 412-424.
Hopkins, N., & Kahani‐Hopkins, V. (2006). Minority group members' theories of intergroup
contact: A case study of British Muslims' conceptualizations of Islamophobia and social
change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 245-264.
Hughes, M., & Tuch, S. A. (2003). Gender differences in Students of European Descents’ racial
attitudes: Are women’s attitudes really more favorable? Social Psychology Quarterly,
66(4), p.384 - 401.
Johnson, M. K. &
Marini,
M. M. (1998). "Bridging the Racial Divide in the United States:
The Effect of Gender." Social Psychology Quarterly 61:2. p. 47-58.
53
Kahn, D. A. (2013). Assessing
the Effectiveness of Gordon
Allport's Contact Hypothesis
Ability to Increase Cultural Openness in First Year College Students. p.8, 27-28 & 74.
Retrieved on May 10, 2017, from http://www.scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/827.
Kalin, R., & Marlowe, D. (1968). The effects of intergroup competition, personal drinking habits
and frustration in intra-group cooperation. In Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention
of the American Psychological Association (APA), 3, p. 405-406.
Kawakami, K., Dovidio, J. F., Moll, J., Hermsen, S., & Russin, A. (2000). Just say no (to
stereotyping): effects of training in the negation of stereotypic associations on stereotype
activation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(5), p.871.
Keesing, R. (1974). Theories of culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 3, p.73-97.
Krathwohl, D.R (1993). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated
approach. New York: Longman.
LaSure, G. E. (1993). Ethnic differences and the effects of racism on college adjustment. Paper
presented at the American Psychological Association, Toronto.
LeBaron, M. (2003). Culture and conflict. Beyond Intractability. Retrieved on April 3, 2017,
from http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/culture_conflict.
Maccoby, E. E. (2000). Parenting and its effects on children: on reading and misreading behavior
genetics. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51:1–27.
54
Malaney, G. D. & Berger, J. B. (2005). Assessing how diversity affects students’ interest in
social change. Journal of College Student Retention, 6(4): p443-460.
Matlock, J. (1997). Student expectations and experiences: The Michigan study. Diversity Digest,
Summer. Retrieved on October 3, 2000, from http://www.inform.umd.edu/DiversityWeb.
McClelland, K., & Linnander, E. (2006). The role of contact and information in racial attitude
change among Students of European descent. Sociological Inquiry, 76(1), p.81-115.
McCollum, D.L., & Kahn, M.M. (2006). Gender Differences in Student's Social Goals.
Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10(4), p.188-192.
McConatha, J. T., Schnell, F., Volkwein, K., Riley, L., & Leach, E. (2003). Attitudes toward
aging: A comparative analysis of young adults from the United States and Germany. The
International
Journal
of
Aging
and
Human
Development,
57,
p.203–215.
doi:10.2190/K8Q8-5549-0Y4K-UGG0
McLeod, S. A. (2008). Social Identity Theory. Retrieved on April 5, 2017, from
http://www.simplypsychology/org/social-identity-theory.html.
Miller, N., & Brewer, M. B. (1986). Social categorization theory and team learning
procedures. The social psychology of education: Current research and theory, p.172-198.
Moloi, C., & Bam, M. (2014). Exploring Cultural Competence from a Sociological Point of
View. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(3), p.332-337.
Olsen, L., Bhattacharya, J., & Scharf, A. (2006). Cultural competency: What it is and why it
matters.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), p.65-85.
55
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent metaanalytic findings. Reducing prejudice and discrimination, p. 93-114.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact
theory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90(5), p.751.
Quappe, S., Cantatore, G. (2005). What is Cultural Awareness, anyway? How do I build it? ,
Curiosity.com, pg. 1- 4.
Reid, L. & Radhakrishanan, P. (2003). Race matters: The relation between race and general
campus climate. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 9(3), p.263-275.
Saenz, V. B. (2010). Breaking the segregation cycle: Examining student precollege racial
environments and college diversity experiences. The Review of Higher Education, 34,
(1), p.1-37.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1988). The Robbers Cave
experiment: Intergroup conflict and cooperation. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University
Press.
Smith, D.G., Gerbick, G. L., Figueroa, M. A., Watkins, G. H., Levitan, T., Moore, L.C.,
Merchant, P. A., Beliak, H. D., & Figueroa, B. (1998). Diversity works: The emerging
picture of how students benefit. Retrieved on April 3, 2017, from http://www.aacuedu.org/Publications/featuredmono.html.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1984). The role of ignorance in intergroup relations. Groups
in contact: The psychology of desegregation, p. 229-255.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social
psychology of intergroup relations? pg.33, 47.
56
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior, p.226-289.
Taylor, S. H. (1998). The impact of college on the development of cultural openness. NASPA
Journal, 35(4), p. 281-295.
Twigg, J. (2004). The body, gender, and age: Feminist insights in social gerontology. Journal of
Aging Studies, 18, p. 59 – 73. doi:10.1016/j.jaging.2003.09.001
Vinacke, W. E. (1964). Intra-group power relations, strategy, and decisions in inter-triad
competition. Sociometry, p.25-39.
Watson, G. (1947). Action for unity. New York: Harper Williams.
Williams, R. M., Jr. (1947). The reduction of intergroup tensions. New York: Social Science
Research Council.
57
Appendix
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
I am Mr. Jonathan Baah, a final year student of Regent Of university .I am conducting this
survey(Assessing Inter-Group Discriminatory And Non- Discriminatory Tendencies
Amongst University Students) as part of my dissertation for my four-year study of Human
Development and Psychology .
I, hereby, seek your consent and honest response as a voluntary participant in this survey and
subsequent interview.
Your participation will involve answering structured and questions about your relations with
out-group individuals or how you relate with persons outside your culture. Your anonymity and
confidentiality will be ensured as I will uphold all the ethical principles governing this project.
You can free withdrawal upon perceived or actual inconvenience of any shade to you.
Thank you.
Agreement
I have read and understood this informed consent and hereby agree to voluntarily participate in
this survey.
Signature ……………………………..
Date ……. /……/…….
58
The Collegiate Discriminatory Survey (CDS)
SECTION A
DEMOGRAPHICS
1. Age ………..
2. Gender……………
3. Nationality…………………………………………..
4. Ethnic group………………………………………..
PLEASE FLIP TO THE LAST SHEET TO VIEW OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS
BEFORE YOU RESPOND TO THE ITEMS IN THIS SURVEY.
SECTION B
Inter-group Non-Discriminatory Tendencies
Kindly tick ✔ within the box that applies to you.
CULTURAL VARIABLES
0
Strongly
Disagree
1
Disagree
1. Your Interactions with outgroup members influence
your perception about their
culture leading to more
positive intergroup relations.
2. Your contact with outgroup persons has helped you
not to discriminate against
them.
3. Your contact with outgroup persons has enabled
you to accept their reality
59
2
Not Sure
3
Agree
4
Strongly Agree
4. Your contact with out-group
persons has helped you to work
Co-operatively with them.
5. Your culture guides you on
the kind of cultural outgroup to
attach or associate with.
6 .Your contacts with out-group
persons has made you cautious
and sensitive when interacting
with them; thus respecting
their culture.
7. Your Contact with outgroup
persons has reduced your bias
towards them.
SECTION C
Inter-group -Discriminatory Tendencies
Kindly tick ✔ within the box that applies to you.
0
Strongly
Disagree
1. My cultural membership enhances your
feeling of superiority over out-group persons.
2. I would prefer not marrying any outgroup
individual whom your culture prejudice
against.
3. If I am to be an employer, I will always
choose in-group persons over out-group
persons, both of same qualifications.
4. I always believe people from my tribe or
culture have outstanding physical qualities
than other out-group persons.
60
1
Disagree
2
Not
Sure
3
Agree
4
Strongly
Agree
5. My cultural affiliation often enhances my
self- esteem and self-importance over outgroup persons believed to be in the minority.
6. I don’t see it necessary to get acquainted
with a presupposed inferior outgroup culture.
7. I always feel a very strong sense of social
identity when I am in-group members than
the otherwise.
8. I often have negative stereotypical ideas
about outgroup persons I meet.
9. I prefer my circle of friends mostly being ingroup individuals.
10. My self-esteem is sometimes boosted because
I see my culture as very superior to others’
11. I will stereotype any outgroup individual who
seems to exhibit in-group bias.
61
SECTION D
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS
●Inter-contact: The action of communicating or meeting, and interaction with individual of
various cultures.
● In-group individuals: These are individuals with whom we belong to the same cultural, or
racial or social group.
● Out-group individuals: These are individuals who are not part of one’s ethnic group, culture
or tribe; those who can be referred as ‘foreigners’ to another’s tribe or culture.
● Attitude: Attitude is the tendency towards a particular cognitive, emotional or behavioural
reaction to objects or other cultural agents in one’s environment.
● Perception: Perception is the process of interpreting and organizing the incoming information
or situation in order that we can understand it and react accordingly.
● Cultural Sensitivity: Cultural sensitivity is as an awareness of the difference of one’s own
and other cultures.
● Prejudice: It is an unfavourable or negative attitude towards a group of people based on
insufficient or incorrect information about the group to whom it is directed.
● Discrimination: It is the action the expresses the attitude of prejudice
62