How Professor Ethnicity and Email Tone Impact Student Emotionality: Possible Insight into Classroom Bias
Denise Friedman, PhD, Nicole Tramell, Gina Borelli, Lauren Thomason, Markia Beckwith, Roanoke College
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine effects of professor ethnicity and email tone on student recipient
emotionality. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four condtions. After reading an email scenario,
participants answered open ended questions as well as completed several questionnaires, including the PANAS, to
evaluate their emotional response. It was hypothesized that the emotion provoking email would receive a more
negative emotional response than the control email, that the emails sent by the American professor would have a
more positive emotional response than those sent by the Middle Eastern professor, and the emotional email sent by
an American professor would receive less negative affect than email received by the Middle Eastern professor. The
results of a 2x2 between-subjects ANOVA did not support these hypotheses; the emails sent by the Middle Eastern
professor provoked both more positive and more negative affect in participants than the emails sent by the American
professor. Students may recognize that they have some bias toward the Middle Eastern professor and may have
compensated with higher positive affect scores. Discussion of the results will include limitations, alternate
explanations, and the importance of understanding bias at multiple levels in the classroom.
Introduction
Emails are the preferred communication between students and professors in college today, but can be misconstrued
(Byron, 2008). Wording and ambiguity of the emails may elicit negative responses, especially if the content of the
email is perceived as emotionally charged. If there is a power dynamic and the authority is of a different ethnicity,
this could also add to the emotional affect. Stereotyping and discrimination against professors based ethnicity
occurs regularly (Bertrand & Millainathan, 2004). Research into these issues is necessary as email is a key
professional communication tool (Brown et al., 2014).
With email, misinterpretation may lead to mixed emotions (Katoet et al., 2007). More ambiguous emails may cause
more stress and anxiety because it is unclear what emotion the sender is trying to convey (Brown et al., 2014).
Research suggests recipients often interpret emotions even when they are not intended by the sender (Byron, 2008),
possibly because senders “lack awareness of their internal state but unconsciously ‘leak’ emotion to others” (p.322)
or because the sender expressed a different emotion than they were truly feeling, leading to misinterpretation.
Emotionality felt is not solely dependent on the e-mail, but characteristics of the individual are also important. The
ability to attend to social and status cues can lead to varied responses of anxiety, as can an individual’s unique initial
stress appraisal. Individuals respond differently to e-mail stressors because of varied personality traits, as well as
personal experiences and histories with quantity and quality of e-mail (Brown et al., 2014).
Discrimination against ethnic minorities has always happened in the workplace, even if that minority has the same
credentials as someone in an ethnic majority (Bertrand & Millainathan, 2004). When it comes to discriminating
against a professor based on his or her ethnicity, one reason may be in-group-out-group bias (Ruffle & Sosis, 2003).
This bias has been tested and shown in hundreds of both psychology and sociology studies (Hewstone et al., 2002).
Currently in the US and other Western cultures, prejudice against Middle Easterns exists (Nosek et al., 2007). In a
study examining fake job applications with a Swedish-sounding or an Arab-Muslim last name and identical
credentials, Swedish-sounding names received about fifty percent more callbacks for a job interview (Agerstrom et
al., 2007). Additionally, Agerstrom and Rooth (2008) found employers associated Arab-Muslim men more so than
native Swedish men implicitly with negative attributes and had “an explicit negative bias towards Arab-Muslims,”
associating them with low performing job attributes.
Before meeting a professor, students may judge them based on their name alone, making assumptions about
ethnicity. Anderson and Smith (2005) had students view a syllabus of a Latino or a White professors’ fictitious class
and rate the professor. Some professors had a lenient style teaching, while others had a strict style. Results showed
White strict teachers were thought to be warmer than Latino strict teachers, and White teachers were seen as more
competent overall than Latino teachers. This research shows students can discriminate against minority professors.
In the classroom, developing a rapport with students is important for learning (Grantiz et al., 2008). Discrimination,
implicit or explicit, can interfere with this rapport and negatively impact interactions inside and outside the
classroom. Students who feel more negatively about the professor are also likely to evaluate them negatively (Marsh
& Roche, 1997). This study sought to examine one aspect of that dynamic by determining whether professor
ethnicity and email tone effected student emotional response.
Method
Participants & Procedure
62 students, aged 18-22 (M=20.161, SD=1.611), from a small liberal arts college in the eastern US participated.
They were predominantly female (75.8%) and Caucasian/non-Hispanic (77.4%). Participants provided consent and
were randomly assigned to one of four conditions where they read an email from a professor regarding class
attendance, completed open ended questions on their feelings, manipulation checks, the PANAS, a personality
inventory, the IAT, and demographics.
Results
30
20
10
0
Professor
Ethnicity
America
n
Middle
Eastern
19.548
25.651
Positive Affect
Negative Affect
A 2(email tone: emotional, control) x 2(professor ethnicity: American, Middle-Eastern) between-subjects ANOVA
was conducted. There was no significant main effect for email tone on positive or negative affect, p>.05. A
significant main effect for professor ethnicity on positive affect F(1,55)=5.010, p=.029 (see Figure 1), ƞ2=.083 and
negative affect F(1,56)=14.022, p=.001, ƞ2=.200 (see Figure 2) were found. There was not a significant interaction
effect between email tone and professor ethnicity on positive or negative affect, p>.05. The ANCOVA using IAT
outcomes produced the same results. Initial open-ended feelings were coded (see Table 1). No significant
differences on themed responses to scenarios were seen, χ2 (2) =1.038, p>0.05.
40
30
20
10
0
Professor
Ethnicity
Americ
an
Middle
Eastern
22.645
26.392
Discussion
This study showed that no matter the type of email students received, the Middle Eastern professor was seen more
emotionally (positive and negative) than the American professor. While not hypothesized, this could be due partially
to social desirability (Krumpal, 2011). Their negative affect could have been their true feelings (as 20% of the selfreport was accounted for by professor ethnicity vs. 8.3% of the positive affect), but they could have been trying to be
politically correct and socially desirable, resulting in significantly higher reports of positive affect as well. After
9/11, this particular sample may be more likely to discriminate against Arab-Muslims (Nosek et al., 2007) as well.
Even more so interesting, is that when first answering the open-ended questions, participants seemingly viewed all
email scenarios as negative, but when given the PANAS and actually having the emotion written out for them, they
showed significant positive affect as well as negative. This continues to show how social desirability was most
likely the reason why results showed a positive effect. As 75% of participants were Caucasian, this also supports an
in-group-out-group bias for why Middle Eastern professors were viewed with more negative affect.
Implications for teaching and learning are strong as digital communication is common and responses to one form of
communication can leak into other forms, especially when something is ambiguous (Bryson, 2008). If students are
reacting more negatively to their professors due to bias/stereotyping, this matter needs to be recognized and
addressed so rapport can be built. Medical schools are starting to work with students to recognize their implicit
biases that may affect patient treatment (Miller et al., 2013). Perhaps we need to be having these conversations in
our classrooms to enhance teaching and learning, but also to prepare students for the globalized world we live in.
References
Agerström, J., Carlsson, R., & Rooth, D. (2007). “Ethnicity and obesity: evidence of implicit work performance stereotypes in Sweden,” IFAU Working Paper:20.
Agerstrom, J., Rooth, D. (2008). Implicit prejudice and ethnic minorities: Arab-Muslims in Sweden. IZA discussion papers,3873.
Anderson, K., & Smith, G. (2005). Students’ preconceptions of professors: benefits and barriers according to ethnicity and gender. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27(2), 184-201.
Bavishi, A., Madera, J., & Hebl, M. (2010). The effect of professor ethnicity and gender on student evaluations: Judged before met. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3(4), 245-256.
Brown, R., Duck, J. & Jimmleson, N. (2014). Email in the workplace: The role of stress appraisals and normative response in the relationship between email stressors and employee strain. International Journal of Stress Management, 21(4), 325-347.
Byron, K. (2008). Carrying too heavy a load? The communication and miscommunication of emotion by email. Academy of Management Review, 33 (2), 309-327.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002) Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology,53, 575-604.
Kato, Y., Kato, S., & Akahori, K. (2007). Effects of emotional cues transmitted in e-mail communication on the emotions experienced by senders and receivers. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1894-1905.
Krumpal, I. (2011). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Springer Science & Business Media, 47. 2025-2047.
McConnell, A. R., and Leibold, J. M. (2001) Relations among the implicit association test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial attitudes. Journal of Experimental social Psychology, 37. 435-442.
Nosek, B., Frederick, S., Hansen, J., Devos, T., Linder, N., Ranganath, K...Banaji, M. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 1-53.
Ruffle, B, & Sosis, R. (2003). Cooperation and the in-group-out-group-bias: A field test on Israeli Kibbutz members and city residents. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60(2), 147-163.