Citation
Racial identification and preference in young children as a function of race and sex of the experimenter and child

Material Information

Title:
Racial identification and preference in young children as a function of race and sex of the experimenter and child
Creator:
Kirn, Katrine Geha, 1948-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 69 leaves. : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
African Americans ( jstor )
Analysis of variance ( jstor )
Child psychology ( jstor )
Children ( jstor )
Dolls ( jstor )
Philosophical psychology ( jstor )
Self image ( jstor )
Skin color ( jstor )
Social psychology ( jstor )
White people ( jstor )
African Americans ( lcsh )
Race awareness ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 60-63.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Katrine G Kirn.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
022669328 ( ALEPH )
ADA5222 ( NOTIS )
13987366 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text


















RACIAL IDENTIFICATION AND PREFERENCE
IN YOUNG CHILDREN AS A FUNCTION OF
RACE AND SEX OF THE EXPERIMENTER AND CHILD







By


KATRINE GEHA KIRN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE
COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


OF


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1973















DEDICATION


This study is dedicated to the day when no one asks which doll

is a nice color.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


The author extends sincere thanks to the kindergarten teachers

and the principals of Glen Springs, Rawlings, and Prairie View

Elementary Schools in Gainesville, Florida. Also, special thanks go

to Doug Freeman, Vicki Johnson, Karen Maitland, and Keith Williams

for their hard work as experimenters. Every committee member is

thanked for his help and interest, especially Marvin Shaw who overcame

considerable obstacles to offer his assistance.

And finally, to Steve, who lived with this study as well as his own,

and yet was able to serve as a fine critic and a calm source of support.















TABLE OF CONTENTS



Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS-------------------------------------- iii

LIST OF TABLES--------------------------------------------.......v

LIST OF FIGURES-------------------------------------------vi

ABSTRACT--------------------------------------------------vii

I. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY- -------------------------------1

Introduction---------------------------------------------------

Review of the Literature----------------------------------------2

Statement of the Problem and Hypotheses-----------------------20

II. METHOD------------------------------------------------------22

Subjects-------------------------------------------------------22

Experiments--------------------------------------------------22

Experimental Design------------------------------------------22

Procedure-----------------------------------------------------23

III. RESULTS------------------------------------------------------27

IV. DISCUSSION N---------------------------------------------------52

REFERENCES--------------------------------------------------60

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH---------------------------------------64













LIST OF TABLES


Page


1. Experimental Design -----------------------------------------24

2. Clark and Clark (1958) Data Compared with

Current Data ---------------------------------------------28

3. Results of Analysis of Variance on Initial

Preference Scores-----------------------------------------30

4. Results of Analysis of Variance on Preference

Scores, Condition I-----------------------------------------35

5. Results of Analysis of Variance on Preference

Scores, Condition II ---------------------------------------37

6. Choice of Pretty versus Not Pretty t-test Results ----------------39

7. Results of Analysis of Variance on Accuracy .-..----.-

Scores, Condition I --------------------------------------- 40

8. Results of Analysis of Variance on Accuracy

Scores, Condition II ---------------------------------------44

9. Results of Analysis of Variance on Self-

Identification Scores, Condition I ---------------------------47

10. Results of Analysis of Variance on Self-

Identification Scores, Condition II -------------------------- 49













LIST OF FIGURES


Page


1. Subject Race by Subject Sex by Experimenter

Sex, Initial Preference-----------------------------------31

2. Subject Race by Experimenter Race by

Experimenter Sex, Initial Preference----------------------32

3. Subject Sex by Experimenter Race by

Experimenter Sex, Initial Preference----------------------34

4. Subject Race by Subject Sex by Experimenter

Sex, Preference, Condition I------------------------------36

5. Subject Race by Experimenter Race, Accuracy,

Condition I ---------------------------------------------42

6. Subject Race by Subject Sex by Experimenter

Race by Experimenter Sex, Accuracy, Condition I-----------43

7. Subject Sex by Experimenter Race, Accuracy,

Condition II ---------------------------------------------45

8. Subject Race by Subject Sex, Self-Identification,

Condition I ---------------------------------------------48

9. Subject Race by Subject Sex, Self-Identification,

Condition II ---------------------------------------------51













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


RACIAL IDENTIFICATION AND PREFERENCE
IN YOUNG CHILDREN AS A FUNCTION OF
RACE AND SEX OF THE EXPERIMENTER AND CHILD


By

Katrine Geha Kirn

December, 1973



Chairman: Marvin E. Shaw, Ph. D.
Cochairman: Paul Satz, Ph. D.
Major Department: Psychology



A considerable amount of research concerning racial awareness,

identification, and preference in young children has been conducted

since 1939. The results of this research included the findings that

children were able to make racial discrimination as early as age three

and that a high degree of racial awareness was developed by age five.

It was also found that black children rejected black dolls and puppets and

photographs of blacks and attributed negative characteristics to blacks.

Black children identified themselves as white significantly more often

than they identified themselves as black, and they often became upset

when asked to make a racial self-identification. These results were








interpreted to mean that black children have a negative self-image.

The major purposes of the present study were to determine how recent

social changes have affected this self-image of black children and to de-

termine whether or not changes in the experimental situation (i. e. race

and sex of the experimenter) could affect experimental results.

Subjects were fifty-six black and fifty-six white children including

an equal number of males and females who had been enrolled in an inte-

grated kindergarten for almost a full academic year. A black female,

a white female, a black male, and a white male experimenter were used.

Each subject was presented with four identical dolls, two black with

black hair and two white with yellow hair. Subjects were first invited to

pick up any doll to play with. Then each subject was asked to give the

experimenter the doll he (she) would "like to play with, and the doll "that

is a nice doll, "that looks bad, "that is a nice color, "that looks like a

white child, "that looks like a colored child, "that looks like a Negro

child, "that looks like you. Subjects were then presented with a second

set of dolls identical to the first except that one black doll and one white

doll were dressed in clean, new smocks and one black and one white doll

were dressed in torn, dirty smocks to indicate a socioeconomic dif-

ference.

It was hypothesized that black subjects would prefer the black dolls

and identify themselves with the black dolls significantly more often

than in previous studies. It was also hypothesized that black subjects

would show a greater preference for the doll of their own race when the


viii








experiment er was of the same race. It was also expected that all sub-

jects would prefer the high status doll. No hypothesis could be made

regarding the effects of the interaction of race and sex of the experi-

menter and child.

The results supported the first two hypotheses. Several conclu-

sions were made on the basis of the results. A significant increase in

preference for black by black subjects was found in relation to a previous

study. Black subjects preferred black significantly more than white

subjects. White subjects identified themselves with the appropriately

colored doll significantly more often than black subjects. Racial pref-

erence, accuracy, and identification were found to vary in a complex way

as a function of the race and sex of the experimenter and child. It was

concluded that the results at least in part indicate the subject's response

to the experimental situation, since the results varied with changes in the

situation. Therefore, it would seem that conclusions regarding the self-

image of black children on the basis of such data must be made cautiously

and it should be kept in mind that generalizations on the basis of such

data may be tenuous.















Chapter I

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY


Introduction



"In any society in which ethnic group membership carries some

connotation of inferiority or superiority, the social hopelessness of

those in a discredited minority group is transmitted to their children"

(Landreth, 1967, p. 291). An assumed inferiority of the Negro

certainly pre-dates the American society. In 1758, Linnaeus described

the African variety of man as being phlegmatic, indulgent, crafty, lazy,

and negligent (Borgatta and Lambert, 1968). Although knowledge of

racial characteristics has increased since the eighteenth century, some

beliefs about the inherited inferiority of the Negro still persist. Sev-

eral studies (Clark and Clark, 1939; Radke and Trager, 1950) have shown

that black children as young as four years of age seem to be aware of

the undesirable quality of their skin color. Black children preferred

white to black companions (Landreth and Johnson, 1953); they said a

white doll was prettier than the black one and they would prefer to be like

the white one (Radke and Trager, 1950).

However, in the years since the Supreme Court decisions making

integration compulsory in schools and other public places, much has









happened to the American Negro. Early civil rights sit-ins have pre-

sumably resulted in the development of the concepts of pride and

dignity in blackness. The notion of Black Power, "black is beautiful",

and the Afro-American movement have been aimed at improving both

the actual position and the self-image of the black. The most obvious

result of these efforts has been the acceptance of the preference to be

called black rather than Negro or colored. However, there is some ques-

tion as to whether or not the apparent changes in the self-attitudes of

blacks have yet been internalized. Have the self-images of black chil-

dren changed through the efforts to develop black pride? Do they no

longer reject the black doll, a behavior which has been interpreted as a

rejection of their own blackness?



Review of the Literature

The reality of color is an inescapable fact for the American Negro

in that it becomes an important part of the concept of the self. As

Seward pointed out, "color is inherent in the concept of 'self', as aware-

ness emerges in a race-conscious social context which assigns values to

the perception of color" (1956, p. 129). Allport (1954) and Proshansky and

Newton (1966) all considered the preschool and early elementary school

years (ages three to seven) as the crucial period for the development of

the child's feelings about himself and about those who are ethnically

different. During these years the child becomes aware of racial differences,







3

learns the labels, and learns the evaluative connotations of these labels.

Thus, the research on racial identification and awareness has largely

concentrated on these early years.

The awareness of racial differences has been found as early as age

three (Clark and Clark, 1958; Stevenson and Stewart, 1958; Morland,

1958; Stevenson and Stevenson, 1960). The degree of awareness increased

steadily until age six or seven; by this age, all children were able to make

accurate racial identifications (Clark and Clark, 1958; Morland, 1958).

While the ability to make racial discrimination has occurred as early as

age three, it was during the fourth year that a high awareness of race was

found (Goodman, 1952). Goodman (1952) found in a study of nursery

school children that a high degree of awareness of racial differences did

not occur before the age of four years, three months, while low aware-

ness did not occur in subjects older than four years, eleven months.

Clark and Clark (1958) also proposed that the time between four and five

years of age may be the crucial period in the development of racial

attitudes. Thus, it has been established that children are aware of racial

differences and can make racial discrimination by age five.

As Clark (1955) pointed out, the concept of racial awareness must

be considered conjointly with the concept of racial preference: "The

child... cannot learn what racial group he belongs to without being

involved in a larger pattern of emotions, conflicts, and desires which are

part of his growing knowledge of what society thinks about his race"

(p. 23). Thus, as the child learns racial labels, he also learns that







4
positive and negative values are attached to those labels. Research has

shown that black children apparently have learned the negative value of

their own racial identity and have assimilated this into their self-concepts.

Kenneth and Mamie Clark studied racial awareness and identifi-

cation in young children and the value attached to races through what

they termed the Dolls Test (Clark and Clark, 1958). Four dolls were

used, two black and two white with black and yellow hair respectively. The

dolls were clad only in diapers, so that there could be no sex identifica-

tion. Children were asked to give the experimenter the doll "that you

would like to play with, that is a nice doll, that looks bad, .

that is a nice color, that looks like a white child, that looks

like a colored child, that looks like a Negro child, .that looks

like you" in that order. Questions one through four were to indicate

racial preferences, questions five through seven racial awareness, and q

question eight self-identification. The preference questions were given

first, because it was found that once the child had identified himself with

a doll, he tended to show preference for that doll; the experimenters

postulated that in these cases they were not measuring racial preference,

but rather ego-involvement (Clark and Clark, 1958).

Black children of ages three through seven were tested with this

method; southern children were taken from segregated schools, northern

children from mixes schools. The results showed that ninety-four per-

cent of the children correctly identified the white doll, ninety-three per-

cent identified the colored doll, and seventy-two percent correctly chose







5

the Negro doll. Thus, it was concluded that the concept of race had been

formed. On the self-identification question, thirty-three percent of the

children identified themselves with the white doll, while sixty-six percent

of the children chose the black doll. The difference was significant and

the experimenters concluded that this indicated that some black children

wished to be white. The criticism has been made that some of the lighter

children were actually closer to the white doll in color; however, even

among the darkest children, only seventy-five percent identified them-

selves with the black doll. Thus, it is clear that among some children

there was a problem in racial self-identification. Furthermore, the chil-

dren were found to consistently reject the black doll and prefer the white

doll. There were more northern children who saw the black doll as bad

(seventy-one percent), while forty-nine percent of the southern children

saw the black doll as bad. Rejection of the child's own race was still the

norm. No testing was done with white children.

Although criticisms may be made of this study, the spontaneous com-

ments of the children in the testing situation left little doubt that the

research revealed some important facts about the self-image of black chil-

dren. In some cases, children ran out of the room crying when asked to

make the self-identification. There were numerous comments about black

being dirty and white being clean. Children tried to explain away their

blackness; one said he had burned himself that morning, another said he

had gotten suntanned on vacation.

In another study (Clark and Clark, 1950), a coloring test was used







6

to give children a wider range of responses. Children were given a sheet

of paper with drawings of a leaf, an apple, an orange, a mouse, a boy,

and a girl, plus a box of twenty-four colored crayons, including brown,

black, white, yellow, pink, and tan. Children were asked to color the

objects to det ermine whether or not they knew what color things really

were; children were then instructed to color the appropriate sex drawing

the color that they were and the opposite sex drawing the color that they

would like little girls or boys to be. Many of the children spent a long time

choosing the crayon for skin color, sometimes choosing one and then ex-

changing it for a lighter color. Some of the children who had been coloring

carefully, scribbled over the drawing representing themselves. A slight

majority of the children did not use brown or black, but rather used a

lighter color or some bizarre color such as red or green. This study also

indicated that black children were rejecting their skin color or feeling

some conflict over skin color.

Clark (1955) hypothesized a conflict between the need for self-esteem-

and the awareness that dark skin color is a basis for rejection by society.

Children assimilate prevailing social attitudes, see that they are identi-

fied with something which is rejected, and consequently reject themselves.

The result is a conflict about oneself quite early in development, as

early as three years. Older children were found to prefer light brown

over either black or white. Clark saw this as a compromise to resolve the

conflict of one's inevitable blackness. Clark continued to build his case

by stating that black psychiatric cases may have delusions of being white









or may deny their racial ancestry. Thus, Clark concluded that a self-

hatred develops which may result in aggression, delinquency, submissive-

ness, over-compensation in achievement, but always a general defeatist

attitude and lowering of aspiration.

Regardless of the theoretical explanations, some very specific con-

clusions can be made from the preceding studies. It was demonstrated

that children were able to correctly identify racial differences as early as

age three. In addition, black children rejected black and preferred white

as a skin color for dolls and for drawings. Finally black children some-

times became upset when asked to make racial self-identifications.

One may feel it is necessary to accept Clark's work with some caution

since he is black himself. However, other investigators also concluded

that there is a poor self-image among black children. Horowitz (1939)

studied racial preferences in a rural area using black children from

grades one through five. Children were given a group of photographs of

black, white, and Filipino boys and girls; they were asked to show the ex-

perimenter all those photographs of persons they would like to play with,

have for a cousin, sit next to at school, not be allowed to play with and so

on. Photographs of black children were consistently rejected and race

was found to be even more important than-sex in making choices; a white

boy would prefer a white girl as a playmate rather than play with a black

boy.

Johnson (1941) studied blacks between the ages of twelve and twenty,

living in the rural South. Subjects were given six racial categories and









were asked to use these categories to describe people in thirty value-

judgment situation. Johnson found that black was used disproportionately

for negative judgments. For instance, forty percent of the boys chose

black for the "ugliest girl you know, while eleven percent chose yellow,

and seven percent chose light brown. Forty-three percent of the boys and

twenty-three percent of the girls indicated black as the color of the "mean-

est boy (girl) you know. The experimenters reported spontaneous com-

ments by subjects such as "black is ugly, "black people are mean, "

"black people are evil. The conclusion was that the judgments made in

the experimental situations were based on stereotypes rather than actual

experience.

Radke and Trager (1950) and .Radke, Sutherland, and Rosenberg (1950)

found that black children showed a preference for white dolls and gave un-

desirable descriptions to photographs of blacks more frequently than did

white children, so that black children seemed to be attributing more nega-

tive value to themselves than did the white children. Goodman (1952)

found that nine percent of the black children in her sample expressed hos-

tility toward whites, while twenty-four percent expressed hostility toward

their own race; thirty-three percent of the white children expressed hostility

toward blacks, but none of the white children studied was hostile toward his

own race. Stevenson and Stewart (1958) found that black children

perceived other black children as aggressive, bad, and those "whom

other children fear" significantly more often than white children attributed

these characteristics to other white children. Both black and white










subjects in this study most often chose white children as "winners in a

game. Morland (1962) found that sixty percent of the black children

studied preferred to play with white children, while only ten percent of

the white children preferred to play with blacks.

Thus, it can be seen that other researchers in addition to the Clarks

have found that black children preferred white dolls and photographs and

rejected black dolls and photographs. Black children exhibited hostility

toward blacks and attributed negative characteristics to blacks, saying

they preferred to play with white children.

It was also found that children associate a socioeconomic class with

race. Radke and Trager (1950) asked five-to eight-year-old children to

choose a house for a white and a black doll, given a "good" house and a

"poor" house. Eighty-two percent of the white children and sixty-seven

percent of the black children gave the "poor" house to the black doll;, -

seventy-seven percent of the white children and sixty percent of the black

children gave the "good" house to the white doll. Thus, it would seem

that children of both races had assimilated and accepted the inferior-

social status of the black.

Landreth and Johnson (1953) found socioeconomic class to be a

major factor in children's racial attitudes. Five-year-old children were

invited to complete a picture of a person engaged in some activity by

adding one of three insets; the insets were identical except that the skin

color of the person was either white, brown, or black. Children of

professional parents showed no significant differences in choice of color.









Children of unskilled workers, both black and white, chose the white-

skinned inset significantly more often than the dark-skinned ones. The

experimenters concluded that value associated with color may depend

largely on experience; they determined that working class parents are

more likely to instill ethnic prejudice than are parents with more educa-

tion.

In summary, studies in the 1940's and 1950's have consistently

shown that black children rejected black images in the forms of dolls and

photographs. In addition, black children assigned themselves negative

personality attributes and associated black skin color with poor socio-

economic conditions. White children were also rejecting of black skin

color; however, some studies found white children less negative towards

blacks than the blacks themselves. One study found that children of

professional parents did not discriminate among skin colors, while both

black and white children of unskilled workers preferred white.

In the numerous attempts in the literature to explain the phenome-

non of negative self-images in black children, part of the problem has

been attributed to the experience of being poor and lower class. Sewell

(1961) found that healthy personality traits on the California Test of

Personality were more frequent in children of higher socioeconomic class.

However, Watson (1966) reported that children were unable to ascribe

class or class-related activities before the sixth grade; the inferior

status of the black could be detected by age four. A study of Amish chil-

dren found that they felt persecuted, inferior, and not as strong as other







11

children (Clark, 1955). Children of Italian-born parents demonstrated

a sense of inferiority and rejection, poor social adjustment, and emo-

tional instability (Clark, 1955). Lewin (1948) has reviewed the phenome-

non of self-hatred among Jews. It seemed that all minority children

suffered some damage -- a sense of inferiority, personal humiliation,

and confusion about self-worth (Clark, 1955). Of course, the situation

is especially acute for the black child, since he can never escape his badge

of inferiority.

In Lewin's (1948) theoretical system the black was the most extreme

case of self-hate resulting from belonging to a group. Belonging to a

socially underprivileged group may seem to be an impediment to reaching

some future goal; however, the individual is forced to remain a part of

that group by external forces. The individual may try to set himself apart

from the group; when he is unable to, self-hatred develops. The hatred

is a product of internalized values of the higher strata, including the low

esteem of the majority for the lower class group. Lewin interpreted the

problem to be pathological, but in persons of normal mental health he

accepted the problem as social psychological. Self-hate can be overcome

when the feelings of group inferiority and inequality are no longer a

reality. Lewin judged neurotic trends to stem from the lack of adjustment

to group inferiority.

Much of the self-hate and negative self-image among blacks appears

to have been learned from the family as well as from the outside white

world. A child builds his sense of self from responses made to him by







12

other people; he learns how others perceive him through their acts and

attitudes, and comes to perceive himself in the same way (White, 1964).

Many of the black families are disrupted; the mother or maternal grand-

mother is the dominant family figure. Children from broken homes

frequently feel unwanted, since they may well be a burden on the mother

and are often shuffled from place to place; these children develop an

insatiable need for reassurance (Kluckhohn and Murray, 1967). The black

home may often be fatherless because the father was unable to meet the

image of being a good provider and left out of desperation (Grossack, 1963).

Even if the father is physically present, he is likely to be unimportant,

since the mother or mother-substitute serves as the dominant family figure.

For male children, there is no strong male figure to serve for sex role

identification. Furthermore, mothers consistently prefer their daughters

in these homes, leaving their sons to feel inferior. To overcome this,

boys may identify with the maternal authority and subsequently feel some

sense of inadequacy in terms of masculinity. The girls, in an attempt

to live up to their mothers' high demands, may show extreme conformity

to the maternal expectations (Kluckhohn and Murray, 1967). In addition,

parents serve as primary models for in-group identification. Black chil-

dren cannot see their parents as capable and powerful protectors; in the

face of white society the parents appear intimidated and impotent

(Shane, 1960).

Being black iii a black family and subculture, the child finds few

black leaders with whom to identify; the white culture has obvious







13

advantages. The development of a secure self-system in blacks is ob-

structed by the acceptance of the white value system, and thus the indi-

vidual and the group measured worth by closeness to white features. The

lighter the skin, the straighter the hair, the narrower the nose and mouth,

the more self-esteem the black once developed (Kluckhohn and Murray,

1967). A child who was black and very "African" in appearance may have

been looked upon with some scorn by family, friends, society at large,

and even by the child himself. This may have changed in the light of

black pride. However, in addition to a poor self-image and a disrupted

family, the black child is likely to live under marginal social conditions,

with a lack of privacy, limited opportunities to explore the outside world,

the lack of an aesthetically pleasing environment, and so on (Goldstein,

1967).

Thus, it can be seen that the poor self-image in black children de-

veloped for a variety of reasons. One suggested cause was the experience

of being poor and of the lower socioeconomic class; this experience was

found to have generated feelings of inferiority among Amish, Italian-

Americans, and Jews as well as blacks. Lewin (1948) hypothesized that

the black perceived himself as a member of a socially underpriviled

group and tried to set himself apart from that group. When this was im-

possible, the black internalized the values of the privileged majority and

self-hate developed. Black families have often been disrupted, with no

strong male figure for sex role identification. Black children saw their

families, especially fathers, as impotent in the face of white society, so







14

that in-group identification and pride was hindered. Finally, the black

child saw whites and those closer to being whites as having more social

and economic advantages.

The black child may react to these factors in ways other than self-

hate or a poor self-image. For some, the result has been extreme

submissiveness, playing a passive and servile role. However, passive

acceptance of the role dictated by the white society is a poor adjustment.

A report by the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (1957) sug-

gested that the compliant behavior merely masks anger, fear, and re-

sentment. In studying Thematic Apperception Test responses, Mussen

(1953) found that white boys saw the world as a friendly place, while

black boys saw it as hostile and threatening. Palermo (1959) found black

children in the fourth to the sixth grades expressed more anxiety than

white children. Kardiner and Ovesey (1962) reported denial and dis-

tortion of reality evidenced in the Rorschach protocols of black adults.

Another reaction to the frustration of the situation has been an attempt

to escape through drugs or alcohol (Drake, 1965). The light-skinned

black sometimes completely escaped his group by "passing" as white

(Drake, 1965). Another means of dealing with rejection has been aggres-

sion against the out-group; Clark (1955) asserted that aggression through

crime has been the black's way of rejecting white society. This seems

to ignore the fact that crime is generally associated with poverty.

Nevertheless, delinquency and crime are not uncommon in black neigh-

borhoods.










The problems of the black child have been seen initially in the

schools. The child comes to school with poor verbal skills, the one

ability which is extremely important in our education system.

Goldstein (1967) reported that low-income blacks came to the first grade

well-dressed and eager; by the fourth grade they were exhibiting problems

in behavior and attitude. The child goes to school having experienced

only punishment as discipline and is unaccustomed to the middle class

system of social rewards. The child quickly learns that bad behavior brings

punishment and is his only way of getting the teacher's attention. Other chil-

dren get special privileges from the teacher, while the black child may

be rejected and denied privileges because of his poor behavior, his

clothes, his dialect, or perhaps his skin color. Thus, the child's self-

image worsens, he becomes aggressive and eventually wants to quit school

(Davis and Dollard, 1940). The teacher may expect the child to be a

poor student and this expentancy has been demonstrated to increase the

probability of failure (Janis et al., 1969). And so, a developing child

who already has a poor sense of self-worth is put into a school situation

which continually shows him that he is not as good as middle class white

children; the black child becomes caught in a whirlpool of failure, re-

jection, and feelings of inferiority.

And so, the reactions to being black and a member of an under-

privileged minority may include passive acceptance of an inferior role,

anxiety, and distortion of reality. There may be an attempt to escape

through alcohol, drugs, or by "passing. Aggression in the form of crime







16

may result. Such reactions may lead to a further worsening of the self-

image.

One of the assumptions underlying school desegregation was that

it would improve the position of the black child by providing better educa-

tion; it was also expected that interracial contact would improve race

relations. One might also assume that good relations with white students

would decrease inferiority feelings among black children. Williams and

Byars (1970) found trends toward increased self-esteem among black

eleventh-graders after integration. However, there has been no con-

sistent evidence to show that integration has improved racial attitudes;

simple interracial contact has apparently not brought about greater toler-

ance or acceptance in the schools (Carithers, 1970). Thus, while one

study may find increased self-esteem among black children through white

acceptance and positive experience with desegregation, another study

might just as easily find decreased self-esteem or no change as a result

of integration. Therefore, it is difficult to determine as yet just what

effect desegregation has had in relation to self-image among blacks.

Thus, the question remains of what effect the social changes of

recent years have had on the self-image of black children. Findings of

recent studies have been somewhat inconsistent and contradictory.

Butts (1963) reported that the misperception of skin color correlated

with low self-esteem; children high in self-esteem did not incorrectly

identify their skin color. In a replication of the Dolls Test, Gregor

and McPherson (1966) found black children rejecting the black doll.







17

Greenwald and Oppenheim (1968) added a Mulatto doll and found that more

black children were able to correctly identify themselves than in the

Clark studies, which used only black and white dolls. However, the ma-

jority of the children still rejected the black (and brown) dolls; moreover,

the experimenters were white and the Clark questions were changed, mak-

ing this an inexact replication. Using puppets and slightly different ques-

tions, Asher and Allen (1969) also found that black children preferred

white and rejected black. Crooks (1970) also replicated the Clark studies

and found essentially identical results; however, when children who had

been in an interracial pre-school were tested, black children showed a

greater preference for black than did children who had not been in any pre-

school. Blakely and Somerville (1970) questioned children in grades one

through twelve concerning their preference of racial names; most blacks

preferred Negro or Afro-American to black. Sciara (1971) asked black

males in the fourth grade to assign photographs of light, medium, and

dark-skinned individuals to low and high status jobs; results were highly

significant with light-skinned persons being assigned high status jobs and

dark-skinned persons low status ones.

Only two recent studies have shown a positive change in racial pref-

erence. Using a perfect replication of the Clark (1955) method, Hraba and

Grant (1970) found significant differences between their results and those

of the Clark study. At all ages tested, black children preferred the black

dolls and identified themselves with the black doll. The researchers

stated that the race of the experimenter was found to be unimportant, but







18

they did not specify how this was determined. Hraba and Grant viewed

their findings with some limitations, since the only testing was done in

Lincoln, Nebraska; they pointed out that the city may be somewhat unique.

Also, the city had just completed a long black pride campaign, suggesting

that such programs might have a positive effect for some time period.

The researchers did find that light children were just as likely as darker

children to choose the black doll. Similar findings were reported by

Harris and Braun (1971). Using puppets and slightly different questions

and order of questioning, they found that black children chose the black

puppets regardless of sex or socioeconomic class. The experimenter was

a black female and research was conducted in the Philadelphia, Penn-

sylvania area. Thus, on the basis of these two studies, it might be con-

cluded that a complete reversal of racial preference has occurred in black

children. However, variations in methods and geographical areas may

have had some effect.

To summarize the research of the 1960's and early 1970's, several

studies have found that black children prefer white dolls or puppets, while

two studies found that black children prefer black. In one study, more

children were able to correctly identify themselves by skin color when a

brown doll was added to the black and white dolls; however, on preference

questions the black children still preferred the white doll. Children who

had been in an integrated pre-school indicated a slightly higher preference

for black than children who had not been in any pre-school. Black chil-

dren associated photographs of dark-skinned people with low status jobs.







19

Variations in method, including stimulus materials, questions asked, sex

of the child, and race and sex of the experimenter, combined with incon-

sistent results across experiments make conclusions on the basis of this

more recent data somewhat difficult.

Recent research on the effects of race and sex of the experimenter

on experimental results has led to the conclusion that this can be an im-

portant factor. In a study involving imitation of television models,

Nicholas et al. (1971, a) found that white girls modeled adult males of both

sexes, while black girls imitated black females. Nicholas et al. (1971, b)

also found that black subjects imitated female models less than white sub-

jects; no race-sex interactions were found. Doll, Fagot, and Himbert

(1971) in a study of sex-role preference and black and white lower class

males, found a significant interaction between sex of the experimenter and

race of the child. Strickland (1972) reported that black children were

significantly more willing to delay receiving a reward from a black ex-

perimenter than they were with a white experimenter; white children pre-

ferred the delayed reward regardless of experimenter race. These -

studies clearly indicate that the race and sex of the experimenter can have

a significant effect on experimental situations. Although these studies do

not deal with racial identification and preference, the indication is that

some experimenter effect can be expected.

In summary, the research of the last thirty years has established

some facts in the area of racial identification and preference in young chil-

dren. Children as young as three years old were able to make racial










discrimination; by five years a high degree of racial awareness had

developed. Children had also learned the values attached to races, so

that black was associated with mean, ugly, poor houses, and low status

jobs. Black children rejected dolls with black skin, photographs of

black children, and black puppets and preferred white; only two recent

studies found black children preferring black. Black children often become

upset when asked to identify themselves in relation to race; a significant

number of black children identified themselves as white. Recent studies

in areas other than racial preference have found that race and sex of

the experimenter had a significant effect on experimental results; but this

variable was not examined systematically in relation to racial identifi-

cation and preference. In addition, recent research in the area has

varied the methodology used to study racial identification and preference,

so that it is difficult to make comparisons with earlier research.


Statement of the Problem and Hypotheses

The present study had two major purposes. The first purpose was

to further examine the self-image of black children in order to determine

whether social changes have affected this self-image. To this end, an

exact replication of the Clark and Clark (1958) study was conducted so

that a measure of change could be made. The second major purpose was

to determine how the experimental situation could affect the results, since

the results of previous studies have been taken to be an indication of self-

image. To examine experiment er effects, male and female, black and

white experimenters were used. To further study how changes in the







21

experimental situation could affect the results, the test questions were

asked a second time with the dolls dressed to indicate high and low socio-

economic class. An equal number of white children were tested so that

a comparison of black and white responses to the experimental situation

could be made.

The following hypotheses were offered as alternatives to the null

hypothesis:

1. Black subjects will prefer the black doll and

identify themselves with the black doll more

often than subjects in the Clark and Clark (1958)

study.

2. Black subjects will show a higher preference for

the black doll than will white subjects.

3. Subjects will show a higher preference for dolls of

their own race when the experiment er is of the

same race.

4. All subjects will prefer the high status doll which is

of the same race preferred during the first set of

questions.

No predictions could be made regarding the effects of sex of the experi-

menter or the interactions of race and sex of the experimenter and child.















CHAPTER II

METHOD


Subjects


Subjects were fifty-six white and fifty-six black children enrolled

in three Gainesville, Florida, elementary schools which have attempted

to maintain a racial balance. All subjects were in the kindergarten,

five years old, and had been in an integrated school environment for ap-

proximately one academic year.


Experimenters


Four experimenters were used -- a black female, a white female,

a black male, and a white male. All experimenters were first-year

graduate students, except for the black female who was a senior in the

undergraduate college. Each experimenter tested twenty-eight children

(seven black females, seven white females, seven black males, and

seven white males). Each experimenter was given written instructions

regarding the procedure; no information concerning experimental hy-

potheses was given.


Experimental design

A 2X2X2X2 factorial design was used, with seven subjects in each







23

cell (see Table 1). Scores measuring four dependent variables were as

follows:

(1) Initial Preference -- number of children picking

up the black doll during the Initial Preference

condition.

(2) Preference Score -- number of times the black doll

was chosen in response to questions one, two and

four plus the number of times the white doll was

chosen in response to question three.

(3) Accuracy Score -- number of correct responses to

questions five, six, and seven.

(4) Self-Identification -- number of subjects choosing

the correct doll for their race.

Data were always examined from the viewpoint of preference for

black except when accuracy was involved.


Procedure


Experiment ers were introduced to the children by the classroom

teacher, who explained that the children would be going with one of the ex-

perimenters one at a time to play a short game. The experimenter took

each child to a corner of the school library, where they sat at a table and

four dolls were laid out in front of the child. The dolls were identical

except for skin color; two were brown-skinned with black hair and two

were white-skinned with blond hair. The dolls were clad in a flannel















Table 1

Experimental Design


Black Subject White Subject
Male Female Male Female

Black Male 7 7 7 7
Experimenter Female 7 7 7 7

White Male 7 7 7 7
Experimenter Female 7 7 7 7










blanket during Condition I; no sex identification could be made. Dolls

were placed in front of the child in a randomly varied order, either

black-white-black-white or white-black-white-black. The child was told

that he could play with one of the dolls while the experimenter prepared

recording sheets and got ready to "play the game. As an attempt to

obtain a purely behavioral measure of preference, the experimenter re-

corded whether the child picked up a white doll, a black doll, or both;

this was termed initial preference.

The child was then asked the following questions, which are identi-

cal to those used by Clark and Clark (1958):

1. Give me the doll that you would like to play with.

2. Give me the doll that is a nice doll.

3. Give me the doll that looks bad.

4. Give me the doll that is a nice color.

5. Give me the doll that looks like a white child.

6. Give me the doll that looks like a colored child.

7. Give me the doll that looks like a Negro child.

8. Give me the doll that looks like you.

The dolls for Condition I were then removed and the dolls for Condition

II were laid out. These four dolls were identical to the first four except for

dress. One black and one white were clad in a clean new smock which were

trimmed with lace, while one black and one white dollwere clad in smocks

which were torn and smeared with dirt. Thus, a socioeconomic status of

the dolls was implied. Dolls in the new smocks were termed Pretty (P) and
I







26

dolls in the torn smocks were termed Not Pretty (NP). The procedure

using this second set of dolls was identical to the procedure of Condition I;

the same set of eight questions were asked.

Throughout the testing, spontaneous comments made by the children

were recorded in writing by the experimenters. Children were thanked

and returned to their classroom when testing was completed.















CHAPTER III

RESULTS


Two of the four hypotheses were partially supported by the

results. In addition, some new information was obtained.

Hypothesis 1: Black subjects will prefer the black doll and iden-

tify themselves with the black doll more often than in the Clark and

Clark (1958) study.

In order to compare the current results with the Clark and Clark

(1958) data, percentages were computed for the response to each question;

percentages for questions one through four were based on the number of

times the black doll was chosen and percentages for questions five through

eight were based on the number of accurate responses. The Test For

Significance of Difference Between Two Proportions (Bruning and Kintz,

1968) was computed for each question (see Table 2). The only significant

differences in the results of the two studies were in response to question

one, "Give me the doll you would like to play with, and question two,

"Give me the doll that is a nice doll.." The present study showed a sig-

nificant increase in the preference for black on these two questions. On

the remaining preference questions (three and four) there was an increase

in the preference for black, but the difference was not significant. There

was not a significant increase in self-identification with the black doll.















Table 2


Clark and Clark (1958) Data Compared with Current Data

Clark Current Current
Preference: Study Black White

1. like to play with 32% 54%* 29%**

2. a nice doll 38% 48%* 35%**

3. ---a bad doll 59% 57% 53%

4. --- a nice color 38% 43% 34%


Accuracy:

5. --- a white child

6. --- a colored child

7. --- a Negro child

Self-Identification:

8. --- you


94%

93%

72%


89%

91%

66%


89%

89%

72%


65% 69% 91%

*Significantly Different from Clark
**Significantly Different from Current Black









Clark and Clark used only black subjects; percentages for the current

white subjects are given in Table 2 for the purpose of comparison.

Whites identified with the appropriate color doll significantly more often

than black subjects.

Hypothesis 2: Black subjects will show a higher preference for the

black doll than will white subjects.

Results of Analysis of Variance on the Initial Preference scores are

shown in Table 3. Subject race was the only main effect found to be sig-

nificant, with black subjects choosing the black doll more often than white

subjects (Black mean = 2. 07, White mean = 1. 41). Three second order

interactions were significant. The interaction of Subject Race by Sub-

ject Sex by Experimenter Sex (Figure 1) showed that Black subjects did

not differ significantly with a Male or a Female Experimenter. White sub-

jects, however, showed a greater preference for the black doll when the

experimenter was of the opposite sex.

The significance of the Subject Race by Experimenter Race by Ex-

perimenter Sex interaction revealed that the response evoked by a White

Female experimenter and a Black Male Experimenter was essentially the

same; this was also true for the response evoked by the Black Female

experimenter and the White Male experimenter (see Figure 2). All sub-

jects showed the same preference for the black doll with a Black Female

or White Male experimenter; Black subjects, however showed consider-

ably greater preference than White subjects with the White Female and

Black Male experimenter. Subject Sex by Experimenter Race by












Table 3


Results of Analysis of Variance

S Race

S Sex

E Race

E Sex

S Race by S Sex

S Race by ERace

S Sex by E Race

S Race by E Sex

S Sex by E Sex

E Race by E Sex

S Sex by S Race by

ERace

S Race by S Sex by

E Sex

S Race by E Race by

E Sex

S Sex by E Race by

E Sex

S Sex by S Race by

E Race by E Sex


PC


.05,
.01,


on Initial Preference Scores
F
8.15**

1.72

0.01

0.15

0.05

0.15

0.48

0.15

3.72

0.01




1. 34




5.01*




5.01*




5. 72*




1.34


F> 3. 94
F 6.90






























2. 0


Mean Number
of Times
Black Chosen


- a ~


Black Female S


White Male S
Black Male S




% White Female S


Figure 1 Subject Race by Subject
Sex by Experimenter Sex,
Initial Preference





























2.0.


Mean Number
of Times
Black Chosen


1.0.


S. Black Female E
-- White Male E


White
Black


Black S


Female E
Male E


White S


Figure 2 Subject Race by Experimenter
Race by Experimenter Sex,
Initial Preference










Experiment er Sex interaction also shows that subjects responded dif-

ferently to different experimenters (see Figure 3). When the experi-

menter was Black, responses of Male and Female subjects were

essentially the same regardless of experimenter sex. However, when the

experimenter was White, subjects showed a higher preference for black

when the experimenter was of the opposite sex.

Results of the analysis on Preference scores for Condition I are

reported in Table 4. The main effect of subject race was again signifi-

cant with Black subjects preferring the black doll more often than White

subjects (Black mean = 1. 89, White mean = 1. 32). The interaction of

Subject Race by Subject Sex by Experimenter Sex was significant at the

.05 level (see Figure 4). Black Female subjects were most likely to pre-

fer the black doll, while White Male subjects showed a greater preference

for black when the experimenter was Male. Black Male subjects were

especially affected by experimenter sex, showing almost as high a

preference for the black doll as Black Female subjects when the experi-

menter was Male, but decreasing in preference with a Female experi-

menter so that only White Male subjects had lower preference scores.

No significant differences were found among preference scores for Con-

dition II; results are reported in Table 5.

Hypothesis 3: Subjects will show a higher preference for dolls of

their own race when the experimenter is of the same race.

This hypothesis was not supported by the data, which are reported

above. The interactions of race and sex were found to have more effect




























2.0


Mean Number
of Times
Black Chosen


1.0


Male E
Female E
Male E


Female E


Male S Female S


Figure 3 Subject Sex by Experimenter
Race by Experimenter Sex,
Initial Preference







35






Table 4

Results of Analysis of Variance on Preference Scores,

Condition I

F
S Race 4.94*

S Sex 1.24

E Race 0.02

E Sex 2.78

S Race by S Sex 0.69

S Race by E Sex 0.48

S Race by E Race 1.56

S Race by E Sex 0.31

S Sex by E Sex 0.31

E Race by E Sex 3.26

S Race by S Sex by E Race 0.02

S Race by S Sex by E Sex 4.94*

S Race by E Race by E Sex 0.94

S Sex by E Race by E Sex 0.48

S Race by S Sex by E Race

by E Sex 0. 17


*p < .05, F > 3.94
#p < .01, F > 6.90





























2.0.


Mean Number
of times
Black Chosen


1. 0


Male E


< Black Female S


White Female S

Black Male S
White Male S


Female E
Female E


Figure 4 Subject Race by Subject Sex
by Experimenter Sex,
Preference, Condition I















Table 5


Results of Analysis of Variance on Preference Scores,

Condition II

F
S Race 0.28

S Sex 2.49

E Race 0. 28

E Sex 1.73

S Race by S Sex 1. 11

S Race by E Race 1. 11

S Sex by E Race 0.28

S Sex by E Sex 0.07

S Race by E Sex 3.39

E Race by E Sex 1.73

S Race by S Sex by E Race 1.11

S Race by S Sex by ESex 0.62

S Race by E Race by E Sex 0.69

S Sex by E Race by E Sex 0.62

S Race by S Sex by E Race by E Sex 1.73


p < .05, F > 3.94
p-< .01, F> 6.90









than race alone. In fact, the highest performance scores were found

when the experimenter and subject were of different races. For Black

subjects, the highest preference for black was found with a White Female

experimenter; for White subjects the highest preference for black was

found with the Black Female experimenter. While the highest preference

was found with a Female experimenter of the opposite race as the subject,

the lowest preference was found with a Male experimenter of the opposite

race.

Hypothesis 4: All subjects will prefer the high status doll which is

of the same race preferred during the first set of questions.

This hypothesis was not supported. In examining the results of Con-

dition II, t-tests were performed on the data for each subject group to

determine whether subjects chose Pretty (P) or Not Pretty (NP) dolls more

often. None of these t-tests was significant except for Black Female sub-

jects (see Table 6). Black Female subjects preferred the Pretty doll at

the 05 level of significance. Therefore, it was decided that P and NP

dolls did not constitute an important difference and P and NP dolls of each

color were considered together.

No hypotheses were formulated regarding the effect of sex and the

interactions of race and sex of the experimenter and child. It was found

that both race and sex interacted to form an important factor. Effects on

preference are cited above. The effects were seen especially in the

analysis of accuracy. Results of the analysis using accuracy scores for

Condition I are reported in Table 7. No main effect was significant















Table 6

Choice of Pretty versus Not Pretty t-test Results

White Male subjects t = 0. 489

White Female subjects t = 0. 740

Black Male subjects t = 0. 023

Black Female subjects t = 2. 504*



*p. 05, df=54














Table 7


Results of Analysis of Variance on Accuracy Scores,

Condition I
F
S Race 0.89

S Sex 0.89

E Race 0.89

E Sex 3.20

S Race by S Sex 0.36

S Race by E Race 5.69*

S Sex by E Race 3.20

S Sex by E Sex 0.09

S Race by E Sex 0.09

E Race by E Sex 0.09

S Race by S Sex by E Race 0.80

S Race by S Sex by E Sex .1.42

S Race by E Race by E Sex 0.36

S Sex by E Race by E Sex 0.*36

S Race by S Sex by E Race by E Sex 7.20**


*p < .05, F > 3.94
**p< .01, F 6.90









The interaction of Subject Race by Experimenter Race was significant

at the 05 level (see Figure 5). Subjects were more accurate when the

experimenter was of the same race. The interaction of Subject Race

by Subject Sex by Experimenter Race by Experimenter Sex was signifi-

cant at the 01 level (see Figure 6). With White experimenters, the

subject groups which were most and least accurate did not vary with the

experimenter sex. With White experiments, White Female subjects were

most accurate, followed by Black Females, White Males, and finally

Black Males. With a Black Male experimenter, White Male subjects were

least accurate. With a Black Female experimenter, Black Males were

most accurate and White Female subjects were least accurate. Overall,

the least accurate group was the Black Male subjects with the White

Female experimenter. The most accurate groups were White Male sub-

jects with a Black Male experimenter, White Female subjects with a

White Male experimenter, and Black Male subjects with a Black Female

experimenter.

The analysis of the accuracy scores for Condition II are reported

in Table 8. Two main effects were significant. The effect of subject

race was significant at the 01 level with White subjects more accurate

than Black subjects (White mean = 0. 91, Black mean = 0. 696. The effect

of subject sex was significant at the 05 level with Female subjects more

accurate than Male subjects (Female mean = 0. 88, Male mean = 0. 73).

In addition, the interaction of Subject Sex by Experimenter Sex was signi-

ficant at the 05 level (See Figure 7). Female subjects were equally

























2.0

Mean number of
Correct
Responses

1.0


White S

>< Black S


Black E White E


Figure 5 Subject Race by Experimenter
Race,
Accuracy, Condition I





















2. 0


Mean Number of
Correct
Responses


1.0


- -


Black Male S

Black Female S
White Female S
White Male S


Black
Male E


2. .


Mean Number of
Correct
Responses


1.0


Black
Female E


White Female
Black Female
White Male

Black Male


White
Male E


White
Female E


Subject Race by Subject Sex
by Experimenter Race by
Experimenter Sex,
Accuracy, Condition I


Figure 6


I


"q" -














Table 8


Results of Analysis of Variance on Accuracy Scores,

Condition II
F
S Race 9. 00**

S Sex 4.00*

E Race 2.25

E Sex 1.00

S Race by S Sex 2.25

S Race by E Race 0.00

S Sex by E Race 4. 00*

S Sex by E Sex 2.25

S Race by ESex 0.25

E Race by E_ Sex 0.00

S Race by_S Sex by E Race 0.25

S Race by S Sex by E Sex 1.00

S Race by E Race by E Sex 0.25

S Sex by E Race by E Sex 0.25

S Race by S Sex by E Race by E Sex 1.00


*p < .05, F> 3.94
**p< .01, F 7 6.90





























2.0.

Mean Number of
Correct
Responses
1.0.


Female S
Male S


Black E White E


Figure 7 Subject Sex by Experimenter
Race,
Accuracy, Condition II










accurate regardless of the race of the experimenter. However, Male

subjects were less accurate with Black experimenters than with White

experimenters.

The effects of race and sex were also seen in the analysis of the

self-identification question. The results of the analysis of Self-

Identification in Condition I are reported in Table 9. Two main effects

were significant at the 01 level. White Males were more accurate on

Self-Identification than Black Males (White mean = 0. 89, Black mean =

0. 50). In addition, Female subjects were more accurate in Self-Identifi-

cation than Male subjects (Female mean = 0. 82, Male mean = 0. 57). The

interaction of these two variables, Subject Race by Subject Sex, was also

significant at the .01 level (see Figure 8). White subjects were equally

accurate whether Male or Female; Black Female subjects were more ac-

curate than Black Male subjects.

The analysis of Self-identification for Condition II is reported in

Table 10. Three main effects were significant at the 01 level. Subject

race had a significant effect, with White subjects more accurate in Self-

Identification than Black subjects (White mean = 1.91, Black mean = 1. 50).

Subject sex also had a significant effect, with Female subjects more ac-

curate than Male subjects (Female mean = 1. 82, Male mean = 1. 59).

Finally, the effect of sex of the experimenter also had a significant effect,

with more accurate Self-Identification being made with a Male experimen-

ter than with a Female experimenter (Male mean = 1. 80, Female mean =

1. 61). The interaction of Subject Race by Subject Sex was also significant














Table 9

Results of Analysis of Variance on Self-Identification Scores,

Condition I


Race

Sex

Race

Sex

Race by S Sex

Race by E Race

Sex by E Race

Race by E Sex

Sex by E Sex

Race by E Sex

Race by S Sex by E Race

Race by S Sex by E Sex

Race by E Race by E Sex

Sex by E Race by E Sex

Race by S Sex by E Race by E Sex


*p .05,
**p< .01,


F
27.92**

11.31*

0. 23

0.92

11.31*

0. 23

0.23

0.92

0.00

0.92

0. 23

0.92

0.92

0.92

0.00


F> 3.94
F> 6.90





























2.0-

Mean Number of
Correct
Responses
1.0 Black S

White S





Male S Female S


Figure 8 Subject Race by Subject Sex,
Self-Identification, Condition I







49










Table 10

Results of Analysis of Variance on Self-Identification Scores.

Condition II

F
S Race 35.36**

S Sex 11.27**

E Race 1.66

E Sex 8.07**

S Race by S Sex 15.00**

S Race by E Race 1.67

S Sex by E Race 0.07

S Sex by E Sex 1.67

S Race by E Sex 0.60

E Race by E Sex 0.60

S Race byS Sex by E Race 0.60

S Race by S Sex by E Sex 0.07

S Race by S Sex by E Sex 0.60

S Sex by E Race by E Sex 0.60

S Race by S Sex by E Race by E Sex 0.07


*p < .05, F 7 3.94
**p< .01, F7 6.90









(pee Figure 9). White subjects were not affected by sex of the experi-

menter, while Black subjects made more accurate Self-Identification

responses with the Female experimenter than with the Male experimen-

ter. These results are consistent with those of Condition I.

A chi-square was performed on the responses to "Give me the

doll that is a nice doll" and "Give me the doll that looks like you" to see

if children preferred and identified with the doll of the same color. It

had been assumed that a child who prefers one color and identifies with

a different color doll is revealing a poor self-image based on skin color.

No relationship was found between the responses to these questions (chi-

square = 5. 984, df = 9). Therefore, it can be concluded that the re-

sponses to these two questions should not be used as a measure of a

child's self-image.

Finally, none of the spontaneous comments made by the children

had to do with their color or the color of the dolls. In fact, the children

said very little, but they were extremely cooperative in "playing the

game". No children cried, left the situation, or refused to participate.




























2.0.
Mean Number of
Correct
Responses

1.0 White S
Black S





Male S Female S


Figure 9 Subject Race by Subject Sex,
Self-Identification, Condition II







52







CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION


There are some very definite conclusions which can be made

from the present study.

1. There has been a significant increase in preference for

black by black children over the Clark and Clark (1958)

data.

2. Black subjects preferred black significantly more than

White subjects.

3. There was no significant difference in response to the

self-identification question in comparison with the Clark

and Clark data, while White subjects were significantly

more likely to identify themselves with the doll of their

color.

4. Racial preference, accuracy, and identification were found

to vary in an unpredicted and complicated way as a func-

tion of the interaction of race and sex of the experimenters

and subjects.

5. The current data (and previous data) indicate a response

to the experimental situation, in that changes in the situation

resulted in different responses.






53

In a direct comparison with the Clark and Clark (1958) data it is

interesting to note that there has been a significant increase in the pre-

ference for black on two of the four preference questions. This could

lead to the conclusion that the social changes of the past few years have

in fact improved the way blacks see themselves. There was no signifi-

cant difference in self-identification, however, so that it would seem

that the black child is still rejecting his own color. When comparing

the data of black and white subjects of the current study in the same

fashion, it can be seen that whites and blacks differ significantly on the

same two preference questions as those which differ from the Clark data.

It is clear that Black subjects did show a greater preference for black,

further supporting the conclusion that black self-image may have im-

proved. The White subjects were significantly more likely to identify

themselves with the doll of their own color, which may also indicate

that response of Black subjects in the self-identification question does in-

dicate self-rejection. All of the three groups were equally accurate in

racial identification. Although this data supports some hypotheses, it

should be considered with some caution, given the major results of this

study. It can be accepted that Black subjects showed an increased pre-

ference for black over the Clark data with no increase in self-identification

with black; however, it must be kept in mind that variables in the situation

did significantly affect the responses of the subjects.

Given the choice of picking up any doll (Initial Preference), Black

subjects did choose the black doll significantly more often than did White







54

subjects. The three interactions which were significant are complex and

difficult to interpret. It does appear that Black subjects were not affected

by experimenter sex, while White Male subjects showed a greater pre-

ference for black with Female experimenters, and the same is true for

White Female subjects with Male experimenters. This result may be re-

lated to the fact that blacks often only have a maternal figure in the home

and are not socialized in the same way to sex roles as are whites. Un-

fortunately, in the Subject Race by Experimenter Race by Experimenter

Sex interaction, Black and White subjects respond in the same way to Black

Female and White Female experimenters; Black subjects, however, show

a high preference for Black with the White Female experimenter and

Black Male experimenter, while White subjects show a low preference

with the same experimenters. Regardless of whatever dynamic explanation

may be attempted, it is clear that something as simple as picking up a doll

can be affected by the interaction of race and sex of the experimenter

and child.

On the preference questions in Condition I, Blacks again showed a

higher preference for black than did Whites, as was hypothesized. Also,

it is no surprise that White Male subjects least preferred the black doll

and Black Female subjects showed the greatest preference for the black

doll. Black girls are simply the most likely to play with black dolls. All

subjects preferred black more with a Male experimenter in this condition.

Black Male subjects in particular showed a radical decrease in preference

for black with a Female experimenter. It could be that the black boy's









environment has such a dearth of male role models, that the result was

an extremely positive response to Male experimenters. By simply

adding another variable to the situation in Condition II (i. e., dress of the

dolls), the significant effects of Condition I preferences were wiped out.

Thus, it can be concluded that the response of racial preference in this

situation is sufficiently delicate as to be affected by external variables.

Therefore, although it cannot be denied that there are differences in the

preference scores, one must be very cautious in making conclusions from

this study and similar racial preference data. It appears that the child's

response to the immediate situation is being measured in addition to

racial preference.

This is true to such an extent that even accuracy was affected by the

situation. No main effects had a significant effect on accuracy in Con-

dition I. This is to say that White subjects were not more accurate than

Black subjects, nor Males than Females. However, the interaction of

subject race with experimenter race did affect accuracy. Subjects of each

race were more accurate with an experimenter of their own race. This

may be attributed to the effect of modeling or social desirability. It is

important to remember also that children were less accurate with an

experimenter of the opposite race. There can be little question that re-

sponse to the experimenter was as important as racial awareness and

knowledge of racial labels.

Furthermore, the interaction of subject race and sex with experi-

menter race and sex was also significant. When the experimenter was






56

White, subjects were more accurate with Male experimenters and less

accurate with Female experimenters; when the experimenter was Black,

the results became more complicated. White Male subjects were more

accurate with the Black Male experimenter than with the Black Female

experimenter; the exact opposite was true for Black Male subjects. Black

Female subjects decreased in accuracy with a Black Female experimenter,

while White Female subjects increased in accuracy with the Black Female

experimenter (in relation to performance with the Black Male experimen-

ter). These results are not consistent with the preference results. How-

ever, the complexities of the interaction reinforce the hypothesis that much

of what is being measured is the response to an external situation rather

than a degree of knowledge.

In Condition II, where another external variable was added, the ques-

tion of accuracy becomes much more clear cut. White subjects were

significantly more accurate than Black subjects; Female subjects were

more accurate than Male subjects. Female subjects were equally accu-

rate regardless of experimenter race, while Male subjects were con-

siderably less accurate with a Black experimenter than with a White

experimenter. These results could be explained by saying that females

are traditionally more school oriented and therefore might be more

likely to do well on a test of accuracy. However, more important than

such an explanation is the added evidence that the experimental situation

can affect the subjects' accuracy responses.

On the self-identification question, White subjects identified


_ 1___1_1___(






57

themselves with the correct color significantly more often than did

Black subjects; this was also true for Female subjects in relation to

Males. Furthermore, White subjects were equally accurate whether

Male or Female. Black Male subjects, however, were far less

accurate in self-identification than all other subjects. Black Female

subjects were almost as accurate as White subjects on this question.

The identical interaction was found in Condition II. Thus, it would seem

that only Black Male subjects are now rejecting their race. Perhaps

this can be explained by the opportunities of the Female subjects to

positively identify with maternal figures and perhaps black female teach-

ers. An additional significant finding in Condition II was that more ac-

curate Self-Identification responses were made with a Male experimenter

than with a. Female experimenter. Once again, the results are very

complex and it would seem that the concept of self-rejection is tenuous

to some degree.

Since no relationship was found between responses to the request for

a "nice doll" and a "doll that looks like you, it may be concluded that

the whole concept of self-rejection on the basis of the Dolls Test has

been overinterpreted. In fact, it is questionable whether or not the

internal states of racial preference and identification can be measured by

the choice of a doll. The Dolls Test can be used with confidence as a

behavior showing preference for dolls of different colors; as behavior,

these preferences can be modified by changes in the experimental situa-

tion. Generalizations of racial preferences and identification may be made,









but this should be done with qualifications.

Before further generalizations are made from the present study,

some further research would be useful. The effect of varying experimen-

ters was obviously powerful. There could be some question as to whether

the personalities of the experimenters had any effect in addition to the

effects of race and sex. Given the complexities of the race and sex inter-

actions, this would seem unlikely. Nevertheless, ideally the research

should now be replicated with several experimenters of each race and sex.

A further investigation of the effects of varying the dolls could be done.

One possibility is a replication with half of the subjects experiencing Con-

dition II before Condition I to check for any order effect. Also, other

modifications of the dolls' dress and color and also sex might be made.

Finally, a study correlating the various methods used to measure racial

preference among children should be used with the same children; thus,

some firmer conclusions as to what is being measured might be possible.

All of the above does not say that previous studies have provided

worthless information. Rejection by blacks of their identity and position

has been a reality; it would seem that the situation is now somewhat al-

leviated. However, it seems that excessive interpretations have been made

on the basis of such data in the past and insufficient consideration has been

given to the effects of the experimental situation. It has become very clear

that the children were reacting very differently in the situation depending

on who the experimenter was. This leads to the consideration of some

implications for schools. Further information is needed on how the









factors of race and sex affect the children's responses to the teacher

and the school situation, where the teacher is often a white female, How-

ever, considerably more evidence would be needed before scwh a ques-

tion can be seriously considered














REFERENCES

Allport, Gordon. The Nature of Prejudice. Doubleday and Co.,
Garden City, New York, 1954.

Asher, S. R. and V. L. Allen. "Racial preference and social com-
pa prison processes. J. Social Issues, 1969, 25, 157-166.

Blakely, Karen and Addison Somerville. "An investigation of the
preference for racial identification terms among Negro and
Caucasian children. Journal of Negro Education, 1970 (Fall)
39 (4), 314-319.

Borgatta, Edgar and William Lambert. Handbook of Personality:
Theory and Research.. Rand McNally: Chicago, 1968.

Bruning, James and B. L. Kintz. Computational Handbook of
Statistics, Scott, Foresman, and Company: Glenview, Illinois,
1968.

Butts, H. P. "Skin color perception and self-esteem. Journal
of Negro Education, 1963, 32, 122-128.

Carithers, Martha. "School desegregation and racial cleavage:
A review of the literature. J. Social Issues 1970, 26 (4),
25-47.

Clark, Kenneth. Prejudice and Your Child. Beacon Press:
Boston, 1955.

Clark, Kenneth and Mamie Clark. "Emotional factors in racial
identification and preference in Negro preschool children. "
Journal of Negro Education, 1939, 19, 341-350.

Clark, Kenneth and Mamie Clark, "Emotional factors in racial
identification and preference in Negro children. Journal
of Negro Education, 1950, 19, 341-350.

Clark, Kenneth and Mamie Clark. "Racial identification and
preference in Negro children. (Published in E. E. Macoby,
T. M. Newcomb, and E. L. Harley, eds. Readings in Social
Psychology. Henry Holt and Co.: New York, 1958. )








Crooks, Roland. "The effects of an interracial preschool program
upon racial preference, knowledge of racial differences, and
racial identification. J. Social Issues, 1970, 26, 4, 137-144.

Davis, Allison and John Dollard. Children of Bondage: The
Personality Development of Negro Youth in the Urban South.
American Council on Education: Washington, D. C., 1940.

Doll, Paddy A., Hacker Fagot, and Joanne Himbert. "Experimenter
effect on sex-role preference among black and white lower-
class male children. Psychological Reports, 1971 (Dec.),
29 (3, Pt. 3), 1295-1301.

Drake, St. C. "The small and economic status of the Negro in the
United States. Daedalus, 1965, 94, 771-814.

Goldstein, Bernard. Low Income Youth in Urban Areas: A
Critical Review of the Literature. Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, Inc.: New York, 1967.

Goodman, M. E. Race Awareness in Young Children. Collier
Books: New York, 1952.

Greenwald, H. J. and D. B. Oppenheim. "Reported magnitude of
self-misidentification among Negro children -- artifact? "
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1968, 8, 49-52.

Gregor, A. J. and D. Angus McPherson. "Racial attitudes among
white and Negro children in a deep-south standard metro-
politan area. Journal of Social Psychology, 1966, 68, 95-100.

Grossack, Martin (ed). Mental Health and Segregation. Springer
Publishing Co., Inc.: New York, 1963.

Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. Psychiatric Aspects of
School Desegregation. New York: Group for the Advancement
of Psychiatry, 1957.

Harris, Susan and John Braun. "Self-esteem.and racial preference
in black children. Proceedings American Psychological Associa-
tion Convention, 1971, 6 (Part 1, 259-360.

Harowitz, R. "Racial aspects of self-identification in nursery school
children." Journal of Psychology, 1939, 7, 91-99.

Hraba, J. and G. Grant. "Black is beautiful: a reexamination of
racial preference and identification. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 398-401.








Janis, I., G. Mahl, J. Kagan, and R. Holt. Personality:
Dynamics, Development, and Assessment. Harcourt,
Brace, and World, Inc.: New York, 1969.

Johnson, C. S. Growing Up in the Black Belt. Washington, D. C.:
American Council on Education, 1941.

Kardiner, A. and L. Ovesey. The Mark of Oppression.
Cleveland, Ohio: World, 1962.

Kluckhohn, C. and H. A. Murray. Personality in Nature, Society,
and Culture. Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1967.

Landreth, Catherine. Early Childhood: Behavior and Learning.
Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1967.

Landreth, Catherine, and B.C. Johnson. "Young children's
responses to a picture inset test designed to reveal reactions
to persons of different skin color. Child Development,
1953, 24, 63-79.

Lewin, Kurt. Resolving Social Conflicts. Harper and Row:
New York, 1948.

Morland, J.K. "Racial recognition by nursery school children in
Lynchburg, Virginia." Social Forces, 1958, 37, 132-137.

Morland, J.K. "Racial acceptance and preference of nursery
school children in a southern city. Merrill Palmer
Quarterly, 1962, 8, 271-380. _

Mussen, Paul. "Differences between the TAT responses of Negro
white boys. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1953, 17,
373-376.

Nicholas, Karen B., R. E. McCarter, and R. V. Heckel. "The
effects of race and sex on the imitation of television models."
Journal of Social Psychology, 1971 a, (Dec. ), 85 (2), 315-316.

Nicholas, Karen B., R. E. McCarter, and R. V. Heckel. "Imi-
tation of adult and peer television models by white and Negro
children. Journal of Social Psychology, 1971 b, (Dec.), 85
(2), 317-318.

Palermo, D. S. "Racial comparisons and additive normative data on
the children's Manifest Anxiety Scale. Child Development,
1959, 30, 53-57.








Proshansky, Harold and Peggy Newton. "The nature and meaning of
Negro self-identity. (Published in Martin Deutsch, Irwin Katz,
and Arthur Jensen eds. Social Class, Race, and Psycholo -
gical Development. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.:
New York, 1968.)

Radke, M. and H. G. Trager. "Children's perceptions of the social
roles of Negros and whites. Journal of Psychology, 1950,
29, 3-23.

Radke, J. Sutherland, and P. Rosenberg. "Racial attitudes of
children. Sociometry, 1950, 13, 254-171.

Sciara, Frank J. "Perceptions of Negro boys regarding color and
occupational status. Child Study Journal. 1971 (Sum), 1 (4),
203-211.

Seward, G. Psychotherapy and Culture Conflict. New York: Roland
Press, 1956.

Sewell, W. H. "Social class and childhood personality. Sociometry,
1961, 24, 350-356.

Shane, Norton. "Some subcultural considerations in the psychotherapy
of a Negro patient. The Psychiatric Quarterly, (Jan. ), 1960,
34, 1-19.

Stevenson, H. W. and N. G. Stevenson. "Social interaction in an
interracial nursery school. Genetic Psychology Monographs,
1960, 61, 37-75.

Stevenson, H. W. and E. C. Stewart. "A developmental study of
race awareness in young children. Child Development, 1958
29, 399-410.

Strickland, Bonnie P. "Delay of gratification as a function of race
of the experimenter. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1972 (Apr), 22 (1), 108-112.

Watson, G. Social Psychology: Issues and Insights. J. B. Lippincott
Co.: New York, 1966.

White, R. W. The Abnormal Personality. The Ronald Press Co.:
New York, 1964.

Williams, Robert and Harry Byars. "The effect of academic
integration in the self-esteem of southern Negro students."
Journal of Social Psychology, 1970, 80, 183-188.













BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH


Katrine Geha Kirn was born on August 21, 1948, in Detroit,

Michigan. She later lived in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where she

graducated from Johnstown Central High School in 1966. She received

the degree of Bachelor of Arts from Chatham College in Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania, in 1970. At Chatham, she received the Psychology

Department Award for Outstanding Involvement in Psychology. Ms. Kirn

received the degree of Master of Arts in psychology from the Univer-

sity of Florida in June, 1971. During that year she served as a

graduate teaching assistant for the psychology department. In Septem-

ber of 1971, she was awarded a fellowship by the United States Public

Health Service. In August, 1973, she completed a year-long intern-

ship in clinical and community psychology at the Malcolm Bliss Mledital

Health Center in St. Louis, Missouri. She received the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Florida in Decemnber, 1973.

She is married to Steven P. Kirn.

















I certify, that I have read this study- and that in my opinion it
C(uoir'lins to ac piabli standard-s of scholarly prDiesentation and is
It [ll adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.






Marvin E. Shaw, Chairman
Professor of Psychology






I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.



)

----------------1--------
Paul Satz, Cochairman
Professor of Psychology





I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.












1 c 'rt ily that I[ ave read thLs study and tL.'al in m( opi) ion tl St
(conform' s tu acc tpablt s(,n!L i(i.- oI sch lauio pr '. antatio an i1
filly adequate, inii scope alnd alit y, as a disrtationi for tie degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.






Norman N. Markel
Associate Professor of Speech





I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.






Robert C. Ziller
Professor of Psychology





This dissertation was submitted to the Department of Psychology
in the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and
was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.

December, 1973


Dean, Graduate School







































UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
II3 1262 I I08553 6976
3 1262 08553 6976




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ENGH6ANMK_OU5760 INGEST_TIME 2017-07-13T21:56:06Z PACKAGE AA00003954_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

5$&,$/ ,'(17,),&$7,21 $1' 35()(5(1&( ,1 <281* &+,/'5(1 $6 $ )81&7,21 2) 5$&( $1' 6(; 2) 7+( (;3(5,0(17(5 $1' &+,/' %\ .$75,1( *(+$ .,51 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( &281&,/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

'(',&$7,21 7KLV VWXG\ LV GHGLFDWHG WR WKH GD\ ZKHQ QR RQH DVNV ZKLFK GROO LV D QLFH FRORU

PAGE 3

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

PAGE 4

7$%/( 2) &217(176 3DJH $&.12:/('*0(176 LLL /,67 2) 7$%/(6 Y /,67 2) ),*85(6 YL $%675$&7 YLL ,1752'8&7,21 $1' +,6725< ,QWURGXFWLRQ 5HYLHZ RI WKH /LWHUDWXUH 6WDWHPHQW RI WKH 3UREOHP DQG +\SRWKHVHV + 0(7+2' 6XEMHFWV ([SHULPHQWV ([SHULPHQWDO 'HVLJQ 3URFHGXUH ,,, 5(68/76 ,9 ',6&866,21 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ ,9

PAGE 5

/,67 2) 7$%/(6 3DJH ([SHULPHQWDO 'HVLJQ &ODUN DQG &ODUN f 'DWD &RPSDUHG ZLWK &XUUHQW 'DWD 5HVXOWV RI $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ ,QLWLDO 3UHIHUHQFH 6FRUHV 5HVXOWV RI $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ 3UHIHUHQFH 6FRUHV &RQGLWLRQ 5HVXOWV RI $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ 3UHIHUHQFH 6FRUHV &RQGLWLRQ ,, &KRLFH RI 3UHWW\ YHUVXV 1RW 3UHWW\ WWHVW 5HVXOWV 5HVXOWV RI $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ $FFXUDF\ 6FRUHV &RQGLWLRQ 5HVXOWV RI $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ $FFXUDF\ 6FRUHV &RQGLWLRQ ,, 5HVXOWV RI $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ 6HOI ,GHQWLILFDWLRQ 6FRUHV &RQGLWLRQ 5HVXOWV RI $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ 6HOI ,GHQWLILFDWLRQ 6FRUHV &RQGLWLRQ ,, Y

PAGE 6

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

PAGE 7

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

PAGE 8

LQWHUSUHWHG WR PHDQ WKDW EODFN FKLOGUHQ KDYH D QHJDWLYH VHOILPDJH 7KH PDMRU SXUSRVHV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZHUH WR GHWHUPLQH KRZ UHFHQW VRFLDO FKDQJHV KDYH DIIHFWHG WKLV VHOILPDJH RI EODFN FKLOGUHQ DQG WR GHn WHUPLQH ZKHWKHU RU QRW FKDQJHV LQ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQ L H UDFH DQG VH[ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWHUf FRXOG DIIHFW H[SHULPHQWDO UHVXOWV 6XEMHFWV ZHUH ILIW\VL[ EODFN DQG ILIW\VL[ ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ LQFOXGLQJ DQ HTXDO QXPEHU RI PDOHV DQG IHPDOHV ZKR KDG EHHQ HQUROOHG LQ DQ LQWHn JUDWHG NLQGHUJDUWHQ IRU DOPRVW D IXOO DFDGHPLF \HDU $ EODFN IHPDOH D ZKLWH IHPDOH D EODFN PDOH DQG D ZKLWH PDOH H[SHULPHQWHU ZHUH XVHG (DFK VXEMHFW ZDV SUHVHQWHG ZLWK IRXU LGHQWLFDO GROOV WZR EODFN ZLWK EODFN KDLU DQG WZR ZKLWH ZLWK \HOORZ KDLU 6XEMHFWV ZHUH ILUVW LQYLWHG WR SLFN XS DQ\ GROO WR SOD\ ZLWK 7KHQ HDFK VXEMHFW ZDV DVNHG WR JLYH WKH H[SHULPHQWHU WKH GROO KH VKHf ZRXOG OLNH WR SOD\ ZLWK DQG WKH GROO WKDW LV D QLFH GROO WKDW ORRNV EDG WKDW LV D QLFH FRORU WKDW ORRNV OLNH D ZKLWH FKLOG WKDW ORRNV OLNH D FRORUHG FKLOG WKDW ORRNV OLNH D 1HJUR FKLOG WKDW ORRNV OLNH \RX 6XEMHFWV ZHUH WKHQ SUHVHQWHG ZLWK D VHFRQG VHW RI GROOV LGHQWLFDO WR WKH ILUVW H[FHSW WKDW RQH EODFN GROO DQG RQH ZKLWH GROO ZHUH GUHVVHG LQ FOHDQ QHZ VPRFNV DQG RQH EODFN DQG RQH ZKLWH GROO ZHUH GUHVVHG LQ WRUQ GLUW\ VPRFNV WR LQGLFDWH D VRFLRHFRQRPLF GLIn IHUHQFH ,W ZDV K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW EODFN VXEMHFWV ZRXOG SUHIHU WKH EODFN GROOV DQG LGHQWLI\ WKHPVHOYHV ZLWK WKH EODFN GROOV VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ LQ SUHYLRXV VWXGLHV ,W ZDV DOVR K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW EODFN VXEMHFWV ZRXOG VKRZ D JUHDWHU SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKH GROO RI WKHLU RZQ UDFH ZKHQ WKH YLLL

PAGE 9

H[SHULPHQWHU ZDV RI WKH VDPH UDFH ,W ZDV DOVR H[SHFWHG WKDW DOO VXEn MHFWV ZRXOG SUHIHU WKH KLJK VWDWXV GROO 1R K\SRWKHVLV FRXOG EH PDGH UHJDUGLQJ WKH HIIHFWV RI WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI UDFH DQG VH[ RI WKH H[SHULn PHQWHU DQG FKLOG 7KH UHVXOWV VXSSRUWHG WKH ILUVW WZR K\SRWKHVHV 6HYHUDO FRQFOXn VLRQV ZHUH PDGH RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKH UHVXOWV $ VLJQLILFDQW LQFUHDVH LQ SUHIHUHQFH IRU EODFN E\ EODFN VXEMHFWV ZDV IRXQG LQ UHODWLRQ WR D SUHYLRXV VWXG\ %ODFN VXEMHFWV SUHIHUUHG EODFN VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH WKDQ ZKLWH VXEMHFWV :KLWH VXEMHFWV LGHQWLILHG WKHPVHOYHV ZLWK WKH DSSURSULDWHO\ FRORUHG GROO VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ EODFN VXEMHFWV 5DFLDO SUHIn HUHQFH DFFXUDF\ DQG LGHQWLILFDWLRQ ZHUH IRXQG WR YDU\ LQ D FRPSOH[ ZD\ DV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH UDFH DQG VH[ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWHU DQG FKLOG ,W ZDV FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH UHVXOWV DW OHDVW LQ SDUW LQGLFDWH WKH VXEMHFWnV UHVSRQVH WR WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQ VLQFH WKH UHVXOWV YDULHG ZLWK FKDQJHV LQ WKH VLWXDWLRQ 7KHUHIRUH LW ZRXOG VHHP WKDW FRQFOXVLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH VHOI LPDJH RI EODFN FKLOGUHQ RQ WKH EDVLV RI VXFK GDWD PXVW EH PDGH FDXWLRXVO\ DQG LW VKRXOG EH NHSW LQ PLQG WKDW JHQHUDOL]DWLRQV RQ WKH EDVLV RI VXFK GDWD PD\ EH WHQXRXV ,;

PAGE 10

&KDSWHU ,1752'8&7,21 $1' +,6725< ,QWURGXFWLRQ ,Q DQ\ VRFLHW\ LQ ZKLFK HWKQLF JURXS PHPEHUVKLS FDUULHV VRPH FRQQRWDWLRQ RI LQIHULRULW\ RU VXSHULRULW\ WKH VRFLDO KRSHOHVVQHVV RI WKRVH LQ D GLVFUHGLWHG PLQRULW\ JURXS LV WUDQVPLWWHG WR WKHLU FKLOGUHQ /DQGUHWK S f $Q DVVXPHG LQIHULRULW\ RI WKH 1HJUR FHUWDLQO\ SUHGDWHV WKH $PHULFDQ VRFLHW\ ,Q /LQQDHXV GHVFULEHG WKH $IULFDQ YDULHW\ RI PDQ DV EHLQJ SKOHJPDWLF LQGXOJHQW FUDIW\ OD]\ DQG QHJOLJHQW %RUJDWWD DQG /DPEHUW f $OWKRXJK NQRZOHGJH RI UDFLDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV KDV LQFUHDVHG VLQFH WKH HLJKWHHQWK FHQWXU\ VRPH EHOLHIV DERXW WKH LQKHULWHG LQIHULRULW\ RI WKH 1HJUR VWLOO SHUVLVW 6HYn HUDO VWXGLHV &ODUN DQG &ODUN 5DGNH DQG 7UDJHU f KDYH VKRZQ WKDW EODFN FKLOGUHQ DV \RXQJ DV IRXU \HDUV RI DJH VHHP WR EH DZDUH RI WKH XQGHVLUDEOH TXDOLW\ RI WKHLU VNLQ FRORU %ODFN FKLOGUHQ SUHIHUUHG ZKLWH WR EODFN FRPSDQLRQV /DQGUHWK DQG -RKQVRQ f WKH\ VDLG D ZKLWH GROO ZDV SUHWWLHU WKDQ WKH EODFN RQH DQG WKH\ ZRXOG SUHIHU WR EH OLNH WKH ZKLWH RQH 5DGNH DQG 7UDJHU f +RZHYHU LQ WKH \HDUV VLQFH WKH 6XSUHPH &RXUW GHFLVLRQV PDNLQJ LQWHJUDWLRQ FRPSXOVRU\ LQ VFKRROV DQG RWKHU SXEOLF SODFHV PXFK KDV

PAGE 11

KDSSHQHG WR WKH $PHULFDQ 1HJUR (DUO\ FLYLO ULJKWV VLWLQV KDYH SUHn VXPDEO\ UHVXOWHG LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH FRQFHSWV RI SULGH DQG GLJQLW\ LQ EODFNQHVV 7KH QRWLRQ RI %ODFN 3RZHU EODFN LV EHDXWLIXO DQG WKH $IUR$PHULFDQ PRYHPHQW KDYH EHHQ DLPHG DW LPSURYLQJ ERWK WKH DFWXDO SRVLWLRQ DQG WKH VHOILPDJH RI WKH EODFN 7KH PRVW REYLRXV UHVXOW RI WKHVH HIIRUWV KDV EHHQ WKH DFFHSWDQFH RI WKH SUHIHUHQFH WR EH FDOOHG EODFN UDWKHU WKDQ 1HJUR RU FRORUHG +RZHYHU WKHUH LV VRPH TXHVn WLRQ DV WR ZKHWKHU RU QRW WKH DSSDUHQW FKDQJHV LQ WKH VHOIDWWLWXGHV RI EODFNV KDYH \HW EHHQ LQWHUQDOL]HG +DYH WKH VHOILPDJHV RI EODFN FKLOn GUHQ FKDQJHG WKURXJK WKH HIIRUWV WR GHYHORS EODFN SULGH" 'R WKH\ QR ORQJHU UHMHFW WKH EODFN GROO D EHKDYLRU ZKLFK KDV EHHQ LQWHUSUHWHG DV D UHMHFWLRQ RI WKHLU RZQ EODFNQHVV" 5HYLHZ RI WKH /LWHUDWXUH 7KH UHDOLW\ RI FRORU LV DQ LQHVFDSDEOH IDFW IRU WKH $PHULFDQ 1HJUR LQ WKDW LW EHFRPHV DQ LPSRUWDQW SDUW RI WKH FRQFHSW RI WKH VHOI $V 6HZDUG SRLQWHG RXW FRORU LV LQKHUHQW LQ WKH FRQFHSW RI nVHOIn DV DZDUHn QHVV HPHUJHV LQ D UDFHFRQVFLRXV VRFLDO FRQWH[W ZKLFK DVVLJQV YDOXHV WR WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI FRORU S f $OOSRUW f DQG 3URVKDQVN\ DQG 1HZWRQ f DOO FRQVLGHUHG WKH SUHVFKRRO DQG HDUO\ HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRRO \HDUV DJHV WKUHH WR VHYHQf DV WKH FUXFLDO SHULRG IRU WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH FKLOGnV IHHOLQJV DERXW KLPVHOI DQG DERXW WKRVH ZKR DUH HWKQLFDOO\ GLIIHUHQW 'XULQJ WKHVH \HDUV WKH FKLOG EHFRPHV DZDUH RI UDFLDO GLIIHUHQFHV

PAGE 12

OHDUQV WKH ODEHOV DQG OHDUQV WKH HYDOXDWLYH FRQQRWDWLRQV RI WKHVH ODEHOV 7KXV WKH UHVHDUFK RQ UDFLDO LGHQWLILFDWLRQ DQG DZDUHQHVV KDV ODUJHO\ FRQFHQWUDWHG RQ WKHVH HDUO\ \HDUV 7KH DZDUHQHVV RI UDFLDO GLIIHUHQFHV KDV EHHQ IRXQG DV HDUO\ DV DJH WKUHH &ODUN DQG &ODUN 6WHYHQVRQ DQG 6WHZDUW 0RUODQG 6WHYHQVRQ DQG 6WHYHQVRQ ,f 7KH GHJUHH RI DZDUHQHVV LQFUHDVHG VWHDGLO\ XQWLO DJH VL[ RU VHYHQ E\ WKLV DJH DOO FKLOGUHQ ZHUH DEOH WR PDNH DFFXUDWH UDFLDO LGHQWLILFDWLRQV &ODUN DQG &ODUN 0RUODQG f :KLOH WKH DELOLW\ WR PDNH UDFLDO GLVFULPLQDWLRQV KDV RFFXUUHG DV HDUO\ DV DJH WKUHH LW ZDV GXULQJ WKH IRXUWK \HDU WKDW D KLJK DZDUHQHVV RI UDFH ZDV IRXQG *RRGPDQ f *RRGPDQ f IRXQG LQ D VWXG\ RI QXUVHU\ VFKRRO FKLOGUHQ WKDW D KLJK GHJUHH RI DZDUHQHVV RI UDFLDO GLIIHUHQFHV GLG QRW RFFXU EHIRUH WKH DJH RI IRXU \HDUV WKUHH PRQWKV ZKLOH ORZ DZDUHn QHVV GLG QRW RFFXU LQ VXEMHFWV ROGHU WKDQ IRXU \HDUV HOHYHQ PRQWKV &ODUN DQG &ODUN f DOVR SURSRVHG WKDW WKH WLPH EHWZHHQ IRXU DQG ILYH \HDUV RI DJH PD\ EH WKH FUXFLDO SHULRG LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI UDFLDO DWWLWXGHV 7KXV LW KDV EHHQ HVWDEOLVKHG WKDW FKLOGUHQ DUH DZDUH RI UDFLDO GLIIHUHQFHV DQG FDQ PDNH UDFLDO GLVFULPLQDWLRQV E\ DJH ILYH $V &ODUN f SRLQWHG RXW WKH FRQFHSW RI UDFLDO DZDUHQHVV PXVW EH FRQVLGHUHG FRQMRLQWO\ ZLWK WKH FRQFHSW RI UDFLDO SUHIHUHQFH 7KH FKLOG FDQQRW OHDUQ ZKDW UDFLDO JURXS KH EHORQJV WR ZLWKRXW EHLQJ LQYROYHG LQ D ODUJHU SDWWHUQ RI HPRWLRQV FRQIOLFWV DQG GHVLUHV ZKLFK DUH SDUW RI KLV JURZLQJ NQRZOHGJH RI ZKDW VRFLHW\ WKLQNV DERXW KLV UDFH S f 7KXV DV WKH FKLOG OHDUQV UDFLDO ODEHOV KH DOVR OHDUQV WKDW

PAGE 13

SRVLWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH YDOXHV DUH DWWDFKHG WR WKRVH ODEHOV 5HVHDUFK KDV VKRZQ WKDW EODFN FKLOGUHQ DSSDUHQWO\ KDYH OHDUQHG WKH QHJDWLYH YDOXH RI WKHLU RZQ UDFLDO LGHQWLW\ DQG KDYH DVVLPLODWHG WKLV LQWR WKHLU VHOIFRQFHSWV .HQQHWK DQG 0DPLH &ODUN VWXGLHG UDFLDO DZDUHQHVV DQG LGHQWLILn FDWLRQ LQ \RXQJ FKLOGUHQ DQG WKH YDOXH DWWDFKHG WR UDFHV WKURXJK ZKDW WKH\ WHUPHG WKH 'ROOV 7HVW &ODUN DQG &ODUN f )RXU GROOV ZHUH XVHG WZR EODFN DQG WZR ZKLWH ZLWK EODFN DQG \HOORZ KDLU UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH GROOV ZHUH FODG RQO\ LQ GLDSHUV VR WKDW WKHUH FRXOG EH QR VH[ LGHQWLILFDn WLRQ &KLOGUHQ ZHUH DVNHG WR JLYH WKH H[SHULPHQWHU WKH GROO WKDW \RX ZRXOG OLNH WR SOD\ ZLWK WKDW LV D QLFH GROO WKDW ORRNV EDG WKDW LV D QLFH FRORU WKDW ORRNV OLNH D ZKLWH FKLOG WKDW ORRNV OLNH D FRORUHG FKLOG WKDW ORRNV OLNH D 1HJUR FKLOG WKDW ORRNV OLNH \RX LQ WKDW RUGHU 4XHVWLRQV RQH WKURXJK IRXU ZHUH WR LQGLFDWH UDFLDO SUHIHUHQFHV TXHVWLRQV ILYH WKURXJK VHYHQ UDFLDO DZDUHQHVV DQG T TXHVWLRQ HLJKW VHOILGHQWLILFDWLRQ 7KH SUHIHUHQFH TXHVWLRQV ZHUH JLYHQ ILUVW EHFDXVH LW ZDV IRXQG WKDW RQFH WKH FKLOG KDG LGHQWLILHG KLPVHOI ZLWK D GROO KH WHQGHG WR VKRZ SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKDW GROO WKH H[SHULPHQWHUV SRVWXODWHG WKDW LQ WKHVH FDVHV WKH\ ZHUH QRW PHDVXULQJ UDFLDO SUHIHUHQFH EXW UDWKHU HJRLQYROYHPHQW &ODUN DQG &ODUN f %ODFN FKLOGUHQ RI DJHV WKUHH WKURXJK VHYHQ ZHUH WHVWHG ZLWK WKLV PHWKRG VRXWKHUQ FKLOGUHQ ZHUH WDNHQ IURP VHJUHJDWHG VFKRROV QRUWKHUQ FKLOGUHQ IURP PL[HV VFKRROV 7KH UHVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW QLQHW\IRXU SHUn FHQW RI WKH FKLOGUHQ FRUUHFWO\ LGHQWLILHG WKH ZKLWH GROO QLQHW\WKUHH SHUn FHQW LGHQWLILHG WKH FRORUHG GROO DQG VHYHQW\WZR SHUFHQW FRUUHFWO\ FKRVH

PAGE 14

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n VHOYHV ZLWK WKH EODFN GROO 7KXV LW LV FOHDU WKDW DPRQJ VRPH FKLOGUHQ WKHUH ZDV D SUREOHP LQ UDFLDO VHOILGHQWLILFDWLRQ )XUWKHUPRUH WKH FKLOn GUHQ ZHUH IRXQG WR FRQVLVWHQWO\ UHMHFW WKH EODFN GROO DQG SUHIHU WKH ZKLWH GROO 7KHUH ZHUH PRUH QRUWKHUQ FKLOGUHQ ZKR VDZ WKH EODFN GROO DV EDG VHYHQW\RQH SHUFHQWf ZKLOH IRUW\QLQH SHUFHQW RI WKH VRXWKHUQ FKLOGUHQ VDZ WKH EODFN GROO DV EDG 5HMHFWLRQ RI WKH FKLOGnV RZQ UDFH ZDV VWLOO WKH QRUP 1R WHVWLQJ ZDV GRQH ZLWK ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ $OWKRXJK FULWLFLVPV PD\ EH PDGH RI WKLV VWXG\ WKH VSRQWDQHRXV FRPn PHQWV RI WKH FKLOGUHQ LQ WKH WHVWLQJ VLWXDWLRQ OHIW OLWWOH GRXEW WKDW WKH UHVHDUFK UHYHDOHG VRPH LPSRUWDQW IDFWV DERXW WKH VHOILPDJH RI EODFN FKLOn GUHQ ,Q VRPH FDVHV FKLOGUHQ UDQ RXW RI WKH URRP FU\LQJ ZKHQ DVNHG WR PDNH WKH VHOILGHQWLILFDWLRQ 7KHUH ZHUH QXPHURXV FRPPHQWV DERXW EODFN EHLQJ GLUW\ DQG ZKLWH EHLQJ FOHDQ &KLOGUHQ WULHG WR H[SODLQ DZD\ WKHLU EODFNQHVV RQH VDLG KH KDG EXUQHG KLPVHOI WKDW PRUQLQJ DQRWKHU VDLG KH KDG JRWWHQ VXQWDQQHG RQ YDFDWLRQ ,Q DQRWKHU VWXG\ &ODUN DQG &ODUN f D FRORULQJ WHVW ZDV XVHG

PAGE 15

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n FKDQJLQJ LW IRU D OLJKWHU FRORU 6RPH RI WKH FKLOGUHQ ZKR KDG EHHQ FRORULQJ FDUHIXOO\ VFULEEOHG RYHU WKH GUDZLQJ UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKHPVHOYHV $ VOLJKW PDMRULW\ RI WKH FKLOGUHQ GLG QRW XVH EURZQ RU EODFN EXW UDWKHU XVHG D OLJKWHU FRORU RU VRPH EL]DUUH FRORU VXFK DV UHG RU JUHHQ 7KLV VWXG\ DOVR LQGLFDWHG WKDW EODFN FKLOGUHQ ZHUH UHMHFWLQJ WKHLU VNLQ FRORU RU IHHOLQJ VRPH FRQIOLFW RYHU VNLQ FRORU &ODUN f K\SRWKHVL]HG D FRQIOLFW EHWZHHQ WKH QHHG IRU VHOIHVWHHP DQG WKH DZDUHQHVV WKDW GDUN VNLQ FRORU LV D EDVLV IRU UHMHFWLRQ E\ VRFLHW\ &KLOGUHQ DVVLPLODWH SUHYDLOLQJ VRFLDO DWWLWXGHV VHH WKDW WKH\ DUH LGHQWLn ILHG ZLWK VRPHWKLQJ ZKLFK LV UHMHFWHG DQG FRQVHTXHQWO\ UHMHFW WKHPVHOYHV 7KH UHVXOW LV D FRQIOLFW DERXW RQHVHOI TXLWH HDUO\ LQ GHYHORSPHQW DV HDUO\ DV WKUHH \HDUV 2OGHU FKLOGUHQ ZHUH IRXQG WR SUHIHU OLJKW EURZQ RYHU HLWKHU EODFN RU ZKLWH &ODUN VDZ WKLV DV D FRPSURPLVH WR UHVROYH WKH FRQIOLFW RI RQHnV LQHYLWDEOH EODFNQHVV &ODUN FRQWLQXHG WR EXLOG KLV FDVH E\ VWDWLQJ WKDW EODFN SV\FKLDWULF FDVHV PD\ KDYH GHOXVLRQV RI EHLQJ ZKLWH

PAGE 16

RU PD\ GHQ\ WKHLU UDFLDO DQFHVWU\ 7KXV &ODUN FRQFOXGHG WKDW D VHOI KDWUHG GHYHORSV ZKLFK PD\ UHVXOW LQ DJJUHVVLRQ GHOLQTXHQF\ VXEPLVVLYHn QHVV RYHUFRPSHQVDWLRQ LQ DFKLHYHPHQW EXW DOZD\V D JHQHUDO GHIHDWLVW DWWLWXGH DQG ORZHULQJ RI DVSLUDWLRQ 5HJDUGOHVV RI WKH WKHRUHWLFDO H[SODQDWLRQV VRPH YHU\ VSHFLILF FRQn FOXVLRQV FDQ EH PDGH IURP WKH SUHFHGLQJ VWXGLHV ,W ZDV GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW FKLOGUHQ ZHUH DEOH WR FRUUHFWO\ LGHQWLI\ UDFLDO GLIIHUHQFHV DV HDUO\ DV DJH WKUHH ,Q DGGLWLRQ EODFN FKLOGUHQ UHMHFWHG EODFN DQG SUHIHUUHG ZKLWH DV D VNLQ FRORU IRU GROOV DQG IRU GUDZLQJV )LQDOO\ EODFN FKLOGUHQ VRPHn WLPHV EHFDPH XSVHW ZKHQ DVNHG WR PDNH UDFLDO VHOILGHQWLILFDWLRQV 2QH PD\ IHHO LW LV QHFHVVDU\ WR DFFHSW &ODUNnV ZRUN ZLWK VRPH FDXWLRQ VLQFH KH LV EODFN KLPVHOI +RZHYHU RWKHU LQYHVWLJDWRUV DOVR FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKHUH LV D SRRU VHOILPDJH DPRQJ EODFN FKLOGUHQ +RURZLW] f VWXGLHG UDFLDO SUHIHUHQFHV LQ D UXUDO DUHD XVLQJ EODFN FKLOGUHQ IURP JUDGHV RQH WKURXJK ILYH &KLOGUHQ ZHUH JLYHQ D JURXS RI SKRWRJUDSKV RI EODFN ZKLWH DQG )LOLSLQR ER\V DQG JLUOV WKH\ ZHUH DVNHG WR VKRZ WKH H[n SHULPHQWHU DOO WKRVH SKRWRJUDSKV RI SHUVRQV WKH\ ZRXOG OLNH WR SOD\ ZLWK KDYH IRU D FRXVLQ VLW QH[W WR DW VFKRRO QRW EH DOORZHG WR SOD\ ZLWK DQG VR RQ 3KRWRJUDSKV RI EODFN FKLOGUHQ ZHUH FRQVLVWHQWO\ UHMHFWHG DQG UDFH ZDV IRXQG WR EH HYHQ PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ VH[ LQ PDNLQJ FKRLFHV D ZKLWH ER\ ZRXOG SUHIHU D ZKLWH JLUO DV D SOD\PDWH UDWKHU WKDQ SOD\ ZLWK D EODFN ER\ -RKQVRQ f VWXGLHG EODFNV EHWZHHQ WKH DJHV RI WZHOYH DQG WZHQW\ OLYLQJ LQ WKH UXUDO 6RXWK 6XEMHFWV ZHUH JLYHQ VL[ UDFLDO FDWHJRULHV DQG

PAGE 17

ZHUH DVNHG WR XVH WKHVH FDWHJRULHV WR GHVFULEH SHRSOH LQ WKLUW\ YDOXH MXGJPHQW VLWXDWLRQ -RKQVRQ IRXQG WKDW EODFN ZDV XVHG GLVSURSRUWLRQDWHO\ IRU QHJDWLYH MXGJPHQWV )RU LQVWDQFH IRUW\ SHUFHQW RI WKH ER\V FKRVH EODFN IRU WKH XJOLHVW JLUO \RX NQRZ ZKLOH HOHYHQ SHUFHQW FKRVH \HOORZ DQG VHYHQ SHUFHQW FKRVH OLJKW EURZQ )RUW\WKUHH SHUFHQW RI WKH ER\V DQG WZHQW\WKUHH SHUFHQW RI WKH JLUOV LQGLFDWHG EODFN DV WKH FRORU RI WKH PHDQn HVW ER\ JLUOf \RX NQRZ 7KH H[SHULPHQWHUV UHSRUWHG VSRQWDQHRXV FRPn PHQWV E\ VXEMHFWV VXFK DV EODFN LV XJO\ EODFN SHRSOH DUH PHDQ EODFN SHRSOH DUH HYLO 7KH FRQFOXVLRQ ZDV WKDW WKH MXGJPHQWV PDGH LQ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQV ZHUH EDVHG RQ VWHUHRW\SHV UDWKHU WKDQ DFWXDO H[SHULHQFH 5DGNH DQG 7UDJHU rf DQG5DGNH 6XWKHUODQG DQG 5RVHQEHUJ f IRXQG WKDW EODFN FKLOGUHQ VKRZHG D SUHIHUHQFH IRU ZKLWH GROOV DQG JDYH XQn GHVLUDEOH GHVFULSWLRQV WR SKRWRJUDSKV RI EODFNV PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ WKDQ GLG ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ VR WKDW EODFN FKLOGUHQ VHHPHG WR EH DWWULEXWLQJ PRUH QHJDn WLYH YDOXH WR WKHPVHOYHV WKDQ GLG WKH ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ *RRGPDQ f IRXQG WKDW QLQH SHUFHQW RI WKH EODFN FKLOGUHQ LQ KHU VDPSOH H[SUHVVHG KRVn WLOLW\ WRZDUG ZKLWHV ZKLOH WZHQW\IRXU SHUFHQW H[SUHVVHG KRVWLOLW\ WRZDUG WKHLU RZQ UDFH WKLUW\WKUHH SHUFHQW RI WKH ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ H[SUHVVHG KRVWLOLW\ WRZDUG EODFNV EXW QRQH RI WKH ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ VWXGLHG ZDV KRVWLOH WRZDUG KLV RZQ UDFH 6WHYHQVRQ DQG 6WHZDUW f IRXQG WKDW EODFN FKLOGUHQ SHUFHLYHG RWKHU EODFN FKLOGUHQ DV DJJUHVVLYH EDG DQG WKRVH ZKRP RWKHU FKLOGUHQ IHDU VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ DWWULEXWHG WKHVH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WR RWKHU ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ %RWK EODFN DQG ZKLWH

PAGE 18

VXEMHFWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ PRVW RIWHQ FKRVH ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ DV ZLQQHUV LQ D JDPH 0RUODQG f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f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f IRXQG VRFLRHFRQRPLF FODVV WR EH D PDMRU IDFWRU LQ FKLOGUHQnV UDFLDO DWWLWXGHV )LYH\HDUROG FKLOGUHQ ZHUH LQYLWHG WR FRPSOHWH D SLFWXUH RI D SHUVRQ HQJDJHG LQ VRPH DFWLYLW\ E\ DGGLQJ RQH RI WKUHH LQVHWV WKH LQVHWV ZHUH LGHQWLFDO H[FHSW WKDW WKH VNLQ FRORU RI WKH SHUVRQ ZDV HLWKHU ZKLWH EURZQ RU EODFN &KLOGUHQ RI SURIHVVLRQDO SDUHQWV VKRZHG QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ FKRLFH RI FRORU

PAGE 19

&KLOGUHQ RI XQVNLOOHG ZRUNHUV ERWK EODFN DQG ZKLWH FKRVH WKH ZKLWHn VNLQQHG LQVHW VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ WKH GDUNVNLQQHG RQHV 7KH H[SHULPHQWHUV FRQFOXGHG WKDW YDOXH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK FRORU PD\ GHSHQG ODUJHO\ RQ H[SHULHQFH WKH\ GHWHUPLQHG WKDW ZRUNLQJ FODVV SDUHQWV DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR LQVWLOO HWKQLF SUHMXGLFH WKDQ DUH SDUHQWV ZLWK PRUH HGXFDn WLRQ ,Q VXPPDU\ VWXGLHV LQ WKH nV DQG nV KDYH FRQVLVWHQWO\ VKRZQ WKDW EODFN FKLOGUHQ UHMHFWHG EODFN LPDJHV LQ WKH IRUPV RI GROOV DQG SKRWRJUDSKV ,Q DGGLWLRQ EODFN FKLOGUHQ DVVLJQHG WKHPVHOYHV QHJDWLYH SHUVRQDOLW\ DWWULEXWHV DQG DVVRFLDWHG EODFN VNLQ FRORU ZLWK SRRU VRFLRn HFRQRPLF FRQGLWLRQV :KLWH FKLOGUHQ ZHUH DOVR UHMHFWLQJ RI EODFN VNLQ FRORU KRZHYHU VRPH VWXGLHV IRXQG ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ OHVV QHJDWLYH WRZDUGV EODFNV WKDQ WKH EODFNV WKHPVHOYHV 2QH VWXG\ IRXQG WKDW FKLOGUHQ RI SURIHVVLRQDO SDUHQWV GLG QRW GLVFULPLQDWH DPRQJ VNLQ FRORUV ZKLOH ERWK EODFN DQG ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ RI XQVNLOOHG ZRUNHUV SUHIHUUHG ZKLWH ,Q WKH QXPHURXV DWWHPSWV LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH WR H[SODLQ WKH SKHQRPHn QRQ RI QHJDWLYH VHOILPDJHV LQ EODFN FKLOGUHQ SDUW RI WKH SUREOHP KDV EHHQ DWWULEXWHG WR WKH H[SHULHQFH RI EHLQJ SRRU DQG ORZHU FODVV 6HZHOO f IRXQG WKDW KHDOWK\ SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV RQ WKH &DOLIRUQLD 7HVW RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ ZHUH PRUH IUHTXHQW LQ FKLOGUHQ RI KLJKHU VRFLRHFRQRPLF FODVV +RZHYHU :DWVRQ f UHSRUWHG WKDW FKLOGUHQ ZHUH XQDEOH WR DVFULEH FODVV RU FODVVUHODWHG DFWLYLWLHV EHIRUH WKH VL[WK JUDGH WKH LQIHULRU VWDWXV RI WKH EODFN FRXOG EH GHWHFWHG E\ DJH IRXU $ VWXG\ RI $PLVK FKLOn GUHQ IRXQG WKDW WKH\ IHOW SHUVHFXWHG LQIHULRU DQG QRW DV VWURQJ DV RWKHU

PAGE 20

FKLOGUHQ &ODUN f &KLOGUHQ RI ,WDOLDQERUQ SDUHQWV GHPRQVWUDWHG D VHQVH RI LQIHULRULW\ DQG UHMHFWLRQ SRRU VRFLDO DGMXVWPHQW DQG HPRn WLRQDO LQVWDELOLW\ &ODUN f /HZLQ f KDV UHYLHZHG WKH SKHQRPHn QRQ RI VHOIKDWUHG DPRQJ -HZV ,W VHHPHG WKDW DOO PLQRULW\ FKLOGUHQ VXIIHUHG VRPH GDPDJH D VHQVH RI LQIHULRULW\ SHUVRQDO KXPLODWLRQ DQG FRQIXVLRQ DERXW VHOIZRUWK &ODUN f 2I FRXUVH WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV HVSHFLDOO\ DFXWH IRU WKH EODFN FKLOG VLQFH KH FDQ QHYHU HVFDSH KLV EDGJH RI LQIHULRULW\ ,Q /HZLQnV f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

PAGE 21

RWKHU SHRSOH KH OHDUQV KRZ RWKHUV SHUFHLYH KLP WKURXJK WKHLU DFWV DQG DWWLWXGHV DQG FRPHV WR SHUFHLYH KLPVHOI LQ WKH VDPH ZD\ :KLWH f 0DQ\ RI WKH EODFN IDPLOLHV DUH GLVUXSWHG WKH PRWKHU RU PDWHUQDO JUDQGn PRWKHU LV WKH GRPLQDQW IDPLO\ ILJXUH &KLOGUHQ IURP EURNHQ KRPHV IUHTXHQWO\ IHHO XQZDQWHG VLQFH WKH\ PD\ ZHOO EH D EXUGHQ RQ WKH PRWKHU DQG DUH RIWHQ VKXIIOHG IURP SODFH WR SODFH WKHVH FKLOGUHQ GHYHORS DQ LQVDWLDEOH QHHG IRU UHDVVXUDQFH .OXFNKRKQ DQG 0XUUD\ f 7KH EODFN KRPH PD\ RIWHQ EH IDWKHUOHVV EHFDXVH WKH IDWKHU ZDV XQDEOH WR PHHW WKH LPDJH RI EHLQJ D JRRG SURYLGHU DQG OHIW RXW RI GHVSHUDWLRQ *URVVDFN f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n KLJK GHPDQGV PD\ VKRZ H[WUHPH FRQIRUPLW\ WR WKH PDWHUQDO H[SHFWDWLRQV .OXFNKRKQ DQG 0XUUD\ f ,Q DGGLWLRQ SDUHQWV VHUYH DV SULPDU\ PRGHOV IRU LQJURXS LGHQWLILFDWLRQ %ODFN FKLOn GUHQ FDQQRW VHH WKHLU SDUHQWV DV FDSDEOH DQG SRZHUIXO SURWHFWRUV LQ WKH IDFH RI YKLWH VRFLHW\ WKH SDUHQWV DSSHDU LQWLPLGDWHG DQG LPSRWHQW 6KDQH f %HLQJ EODFN LQ D EODFN IDPLO\ DQG VXEFXOWXUH WKH FKLOG ILQGV IHZ EODFN OHDGHUV ZLWK ZKRP WR LGHQWLI\ WKH ZKLWH FXOWXUH KDV REYLRXV

PAGE 22

DGYDQWDJHV 7KH GHYHORSPHQW RI D VHFXUH VHOIV\VWHP LQ EODFNV LV REn VWUXFWHG E\ WKH DFFHSWDQFH RI WKH ZKLWH YDOXH V\VWHP DQG WKXV WKH LQGLn YLGXDO DQG WKH JURXS PHDVXUHG ZRUWK E\ FORVHQHVV WR ZKLWH IHDWXUHV 7KH OLJKWHU WKH VNLQ WKH VWUDLJKWHU WKH KDLU WKH QDUURZHU WKH QRVH DQG PRXWK WKH PRUH VHOIHVWHHP WKH EODFN RQFH GHYHORSHG .OXFNKRKQ DQG 0XUUD\ f $ FKLOG ZKR ZDV EODFN DQG YHU\ $IULFDQ LQ DSSHDUDQFH PD\ KDYH EHHQ ORRNHG XSRQ ZLWK VRPH VFRUQ E\ IDPLO\ IULHQGV VRFLHW\ DW ODUJH DQG HYHQ E\ WKH FKLOG KLPVHOI 7KLV PD\ KDYH FKDQJHG LQ WKH OLJKW RI EODFN SULGH +RZHYHU LQ DGGLWLRQ WR D SRRU VHOILPDJH DQG D GLVUXSWHG IDPLO\ WKH EODFN FKLOG LV OLNHO\ WR OLYH XQGHU PDUJLQDO VRFLDO FRQGLWLRQV ZLWK D ODFN RI SULYDF\ OLPLWHG RSSRUWXQLWLHV WR H[SORUH WKH RXWVLGH ZRUOG WKH ODFN RI DQ DHVWKHWLFDOO\ SOHDVLQJ HQYLURQPHQW DQG VR RQ *ROGVWHLQ f 7KXV LW FDQ EH VHHQ WKDW WKH SRRU VHOILPDJH LQ EODFN FKLOGUHQ GHn YHORSHG IRU D YDULHW\ RI UHDVRQV 2QH VXJJHVWHG FDXVH ZDV WKH H[SHULHQFH RI EHLQJ SRRU DQG RI WKH ORZHU VRFLRHFRQRPLF FODVV WKLV H[SHULHQFH ZDV IRXQG WR KDYH JHQHUDWHG IHHOLQJV RI LQIHULRULW\ DPRQJ $PLVK ,WDOLDQ $PHULFDQV DQG -HZV DV ZHOO DV EODFNV /HZLQ f K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW WKH EODFN SHUFHLYHG KLPVHOI DV D PHPEHU RI D VRFLDOO\ XQGHUSULYLOHG JURXS DQG WULHG WR VHW KLPVHOI DSDUW IURP WKDW JURXS :KHQ WKLV ZDV LPn SRVVLEOH WKH EODFN LQWHUQDOL]HG WKH YDOXHV RI WKH SULYLOHJHG PDMRULW\ DQG VHOIKDWH GHYHORSHG %ODFN IDPLOLHV KDYH RIWHQ EHHQ GLVUXSWHG ZLWK QR VWURQJ PDOH ILJXUH IRU VH[ UROH LGHQWLILFDWLRQ %ODFN FKLOGUHQ VDZ WKHLU IDPLOLHV HVSHFLDOO\ IDWKHUV DV LPSRWHQW LQ WKH IDFH RI ZKLWH VRFLHW\ VR

PAGE 23

WKDW LQJURXS LGHQWLILFDWLRQ DQG SULGH ZDV KLQGHUHG )LQDOO\ WKH EODFN FKLOG VDZ ZKLWHV DQG WKRVH FORVHU WR EHLQJ ZKLWHV DV KDYLQJ PRUH VRFLDO DQG HFRQRPLF DGYDQWDJHV 7KH EODFN FKLOG PD\ UHDFW WR WKHVH IDFWRUV LQ ZD\V RWKHU WKDQ VHOI KDWH RU D SRRU VHOILPDJH )RU VRPH WKH UHVXOW KDV EHHQ H[WUHPH VXEPLVVLYHQHVV SOD\LQJ D SDVVLYH DQG VHUYLOH UROH +RZHYHU SDVVLYH DFFHSWDQFH RI WKH UROH GLFWDWHG E\ WKH ZKLWH VRFLHW\ LV D SRRU DGMXVWPHQW $ UHSRUW E\ WKH *URXS IRU WKH $GYDQFHPHQW RI 3V\FKLDWU\ f VXJn JHVWHG WKDW WKH FRPSOLDQW EHKDYLRU PHUHO\ PDVNV DQJHU IHDU DQG UHn VHQWPHQW ,Q VWXG\LQJ 7KHPDWLF $SSHUFHSWLRQ 7HVW UHVSRQVHV 0XVVHQ f IRXQG WKDW ZKLWH ER\V VDZ WKH ZRUOG DV D IULHQGO\ SODFH ZKLOH EODFN ER\V VDZ LW DV KRVWLOH DQG WKUHDWHQLQJ 3DOHUPR f IRXQG EODFN FKLOGUHQ LQ WKH IRXUWK WR WKH VL[WK JUDGHV H[SUHVVHG PRUH DQ[LHW\ WKDQ ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ .DUGLQHU DQG 2YHVH\ f UHSRUWHG GHQLDO DQG GLVn WRUWLRQ RI UHDOLW\ HYLGHQFHG LQ WKH 5RUVFKDFK SURWRFROV RI EODFN DGXOWV $QRWKHU UHDFWLRQ WR WKH IUXVWUDWLRQ RI WKH VLWXDWLRQ KDV EHHQ DQ DWWHPSW WR HVFDSH WKURXJK GUXJV RU DOFRKRO 'UDNH f 7KH OLJKWVNLQQHG EODFN VRPHWLPHV FRPSOHWHO\ HVFDSHG KLV JURXS E\ SDVVLQJ DV ZKLWH 'UDNH f $QRWKHU PHDQV RI GHDOLQJ ZLWK UHMHFWLRQ KDV EHHQ DJJUHVn VLRQ DJDLQVW WKH RXWJURXS &ODUN f DVVHUWHG WKDW DJJUHVVLRQ WKURXJK FULPH KDV EHHQ WKH EODFNnV ZD\ RI UHMHFWLQJ ZKLWH VRFLHW\ 7KLV VHHPV WR LJQRUH WKH IDFW WKDW FULPH LV JHQHUDOO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK SRYHUW\ 1HYHUWKHOHVV GHOLQTXHQF\ DQG FULPH DUH QRW XQFRPPRQ LQ EODFN QHLJKn ERUKRRGV

PAGE 24

7KH SUREOHPV RI WKH EODFN FKLOG KDYH EHHQ VHHQ LQLWLDOO\ LQ WKH VFKRROV 7KH FKLOG FRPHV WR VFKRRO ZLWK SRRU YHUEDO VNLOOV WKH RQH DELOLW\ ZKLFK LV H[WUHPHO\ LPSRUWDQW LQ RXU HGXFDWLRQ V\VWHP *ROGVWHLQ f UHSRUWHG WKDW ORZLQFRPH EODFNV FDPH WR WKH ILUVW JUDGH ZHOOGUHVVHG DQG HDJHU E\ WKH IRXUWK JUDGH WKH\ ZHUH H[KLELWLQJ SUREOHPV LQ EHKDYLRU DQG DWWLWXGH 7KH FKLOG JRHV WR VFKRRO KDYLQJ H[SHULHQFHG RQO\ SXQLVKPHQW DV GLFLSOLQH DQG LV XQDFFXVWRPHG WR WKH PLGGOH FODVV V\VWHP RI VRFLDO UHZDUGV 7KH FKLOG TXLFNO\ OHDUQV WKDW EDG EHKDYLRU EULQJV SXQLVKPHQW DQG LV KLV RQO\ ZD\ RI JHWWLQJ WKH WHDFKHUnV DWWHQWLRQ 2WKHU FKLOn GUHQ JHW VSHFLDO SULYLOHJHV IURP WKH WHDFKHU ZKLOH WKH EODFN FKLOG PD\ EH UHMHFWHG DQG GHQLHG SULYLOHJHV EHFDXVH RI KLV SRRU EHKDYLRU KLV FORWKHV KLV GLDOHFW RU SHUKDSV KLV VNLQ FRORU 7KXV WKH FKLOGnV VHOI LPDJH ZRUVHQV KH EHFRPHV DJJUHVVLYH DQG HYHQWXDOO\ ZDQWV WR TXLW VFKRRO 'DYLV DQG 'ROODUG f 7KH WHDFKHU PD\ H[SHFW WKH FKLOG WR EH D SRRU VWXGHQW DQG WKLV H[SHQWDQF\ KDV EHHQ GHPRQVWUDWHG WR LQFUHDVH WKH SUREDELOLW\ RI IDLOXUH -DQLV HW DO f $QG VR D GHYHORSLQJ FKLOG ZKR DOUHDG\ KDV D SRRU VHQVH RI VHOIZRUWK LV SXW LQWR D VFKRRO VLWXDWLRQ ZKLFK FRQWLQXDOO\ VKRZV KLP WKDW KH LV QRW DV JRRG DV PLGGOH FODVV ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ WKH EODFN FKLOG EHFRPHV FDXJKW LQ D ZKLUOSRRO RI IDLOXUH UHn MHFWLRQ DQG IHHOLQJV RI LQIHULRULW\ $QG VR WKH UHDFWLRQV WR EHLQJ EODFN DQG D PHPEHU RI DQ XQGHUn SULYLOHJHG PLQRULW\ PD\ LQFOXGH SDVVLYH DFFHSWDQFH RI DQ LQIHULRU UROH DQ[LHW\ DQG GLVWRUWLRQ RI UHDOLW\ 7KHUH PD\ EH DQ DWWHPSW WR HVFDSH WKURXJK DOFRKRO GUXJV RU E\ SDVVLQJ $JJUHVVLRQ LQ WKH IRUP RI FULPH

PAGE 25

PD\ UHVXOW 6XFK UHDFWLRQV PD\ OHDG WR D IXUWKHU ZRUVHQLQJ RI WKH VHOI LPDJH 2QH RI WKH DVVXPSWLRQV XQGHUO\LQJ VFKRRO GHVHJUHJDWLRQ ZDV WKDW LW ZRXOG LPSURYH WKH SRVLWLRQ RI WKH EODFN FKLOG E\ SURYLGLQJ EHWWHU HGXFDn WLRQ LW ZDV DOVR H[SHFWHG WKDW LQWHUUDFLDO FRQWDFW ZRXOG LPSURYH UDFH UHODWLRQV 2QH PLJKW DOVR DVVXPH WKDW JRRG UHODWLRQV ZLWK ZKLWH VWXGHQWV ZRXOG GHFUHDVH LQIHULRULW\ IHHOLQJV DPRQJ EODFN FKLOGUHQ :LOOLDPV DQG %\DUV f IRXQG WUHQGV WRZDUG LQFUHDVHG VHOIHVWHHP DPRQJ EODFN HOHYHQWKJUDGHUV DIWHU LQWHJUDWLRQ +RZHYHU WKHUH KDV EHHQ QR FRQn VLVWHQW HYLGHQFH WR VKRZ WKDW LQWHJUDWLRQ KDV LPSURYHG UDFLDO DWWLWXGHV VLPSOH LQWHUUDFLDO FRQWDFW KDV DSSDUHQWO\ QRW EURXJKW DERXW JUHDWHU WROHUn DQFH RU DFFHSWDQFH LQ WKH VFKRROV &DULWKHUV f 7KXV ZKLOH RQH VWXG\ PD\ ILQG LQFUHDVHG VHOIHVWHHP DPRQJ EODFN FKLOGUHQ WKURXJK ZKLWH DFFHSWDQFH DQG SRVLWLYH H[SHULHQFH ZLWK GHVHJUHJDWLRQ DQRWKHU VWXG\ PLJKW MXVW DV HDVLO\ ILQG GHFUHDVHG VHOIHVWHHP RU QR FKDQJH DV D UHVXOW RI LQWHJUDWLRQ 7KHUHIRUH LW LV GLIILFXOW WR GHWHUPLQH DV \HW MXVW ZKDW HIIHFW GHVHJUHJDWLRQ KDV KDG LQ UHODWLRQ WR VHOILPDJH DPRQJ EODFNV 7KXV WKH TXHVWLRQ UHPDLQV RI ZKDW HIIHFW WKH VRFLDO FKDQJHV RI UHFHQW \HDUV KDYH KDG RQ WKH VHOILPDJH RI EODFN FKLOGUHQ )LQGLQJV RI UHFHQW VWXGLHV KDYH EHHQ VRPHZKDW LQFRQVLVWHQW DQG FRQWUDGLFWRU\ %XWWV f UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH PLVSHUFHSWLRQ RI VNLQ FRORU FRUUHODWHG ZLWK ORZ VHOIHVWHHP FKLOGUHQ KLJK LQ VHOIHVWHHP GLG QRW LQFRUUHFWO\ LGHQWLI\ WKHLU VNLQ FRORU ,Q D UHSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH 'ROOV 7HVW *UHJRU DQG 0F3KHUVRQ f IRXQG EODFN FKLOGUHQ UHMHFWLQJ WKH EODFN GROO

PAGE 26

*UHHQZDOG DQG 2SSHQKHLP f DGGHG D 0XODWWR GROO DQG IRXQG WKDW PRUH EODFN FKLOGUHQ ZHUH DEOH WR FRUUHFWO\ LGHQWLI\ WKHPVHOYHV WKDQ LQ WKH &ODUN VWXGLHV ZKLFK XVHG RQO\ EODFN DQG ZKLWH GROOV +RZHYHU WKH PDn MRULW\ RI WKH FKLOGUHQ VWLOO UHMHFWHG WKH EODFN DQG EURZQf GROOV PRUHRYHU WKH H[SHULPHQWHUV ZHUH ZKLWH DQG WKH &ODUN TXHVWLRQV ZHUH FKDQJHG PDNn LQJ WKLV DQ LQH[DFW UHSOLFDWLRQ 8VLQJ SXSSHWV DQG VOLJKWO\ GLIIHUHQW TXHVn WLRQV $VKHU DQG $OOHQ f DOVR IRXQG WKDW EODFN FKLOGUHQ SUHIHUUHG ZKLWH DQG UHMHFWHG EODFN &URRNV f DOVR UHSOLFDWHG WKH &ODUN VWXGLHV DQG IRXQG HVVHQWLDOO\ LGHQWLFDO UHVXOWV KRZHYHU ZKHQ FKLOGUHQ ZKR KDG EHHQ LQ DQ LQWHUUDFLDO SUHVFKRRO ZHUH WHVWHG EODFN FKLOGUHQ VKRZHG D JUHDWHU SUHIHUHQFH IRU EODFN WKDQ GLG FKLOGUHQ ZKR KDG QRW EHHQ LQ DQ\ SUHn VFKRRO %ODNHO\ DQG 6RPHUYLOOH f TXHVWLRQHG FKLOGUHQ LQ JUDGHV RQH WKURXJK WZHOYH FRQFHUQLQJ WKHLU SUHIHUHQFH RI UDFLDO QDPHV PRVW EODFNV SUHIHUUHG 1HJUR RU $IUR$PHULFDQ WR EODFN 6FLDUD f DVNHG EODFN PDOHV LQ WKH IRXUWK JUDGH WR DVVLJQ SKRWRJUDSKV RI OLJKW PHGLXP DQG GDUNVNLQQHG LQGLYLGXDOV WR ORZ DQG KLJK VWDWXV MREV UHVXOWV ZHUH KLJKO\ VLJQLILFDQW ZLWK OLJKWVNLQQHG SHUVRQV EHLQJ DVVLJQHG KLJK VWDWXV MREV DQG GDUNVNLQQHG SHUVRQV ORZ VWDWXV RQHV 2QO\ WZR UHFHQW VWXGLHV KDYH VKRZQ D SRVLWLYH FKDQJH LQ UDFLDO SUHIn HUHQFH 8VLQJ D SHUIHFW UHSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH &ODUN f PHWKRG +UDED DQG *UDQW f IRXQG VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKHLU UHVXOWV DQG WKRVH RI WKH &ODUN VWXG\ $W DOO DJHV WHVWHG EODFN FKLOGUHQ SUHIHUUHG WKH EODFN GROOV DQG LGHQWLILHG WKHPVHOYHV ZLWK WKH EODFN GROO 7KH UHVHDUFKHUV VWDWHG WKDW WKH UDFH RI WKH H[SHULPHQWHU ZDV IRXQG WR EH XQLPSRUWDQW EXW

PAGE 27

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f 8VLQJ SXSSHWV DQG VOLJKWO\ GLIIHUHQW TXHVWLRQV DQG RUGHU RI TXHVWLRQLQJ WKH\ IRXQG WKDW EODFN FKLOGUHQ FKRVH WKH EODFN SXSSHWV UHJDUGOHVV RI VH[ RU VRFLRHFRQRPLF FODVV 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU ZDV D EODFN IHPDOH DQG UHVHDUFK ZDV FRQGXFWHG LQ WKH 3KLODGHOSKLD 3HQQn V\OYDQLD DUHD 7KXV RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKHVH WZR VWXGLHV LW PLJKW EH FRQn FOXGHG WKDW D FRPSOHWH UHYHUVDO RI UDFLDO SUHIHUHQFH KDV RFFXUUHG LQ EODFN FKLOGUHQ +RZHYHU YDULDWLRQV LQ PHWKRGV DQG JHRJUDSKLFDO DUHDV PD\ KDYH KDG VRPH HIIHFW 7R VXPPDUL]H WKH UHVHDUFK RI WKH nV DQG HDUO\ n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n GUHQ DVVRFLDWHG SKRWRJUDSKV RI GDUNVNLQQHG SHRSOH ZLWK ORZ VWDWXV MREV

PAGE 28

9DULDWLRQV LQ PHWKRG LQFOXGLQJ VWLPXOXV PDWHULDOV TXHVWLRQV DVNHG VH[ RI WKH FKLOG DQG UDFH DQG VH[ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWHU FRPELQHG ZLWK LQFRQn VLVWHQW UHVXOWV DFURVV H[SHULPHQWV PDNH FRQFOXVLRQV RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKLV PRUH UHFHQW GDWD VRPHZKDW GLIILFXOW 5HFHQW UHVHDUFK RQ WKH HIIHFWV RI UDFH DQG VH[ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWHU RQ H[SHULPHQWDO UHVXOWV KDV OHG WR WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW WKLV FDQ EH DQ LPn SRUWDQW IDFWRU ,Q D VWXG\ LQYROYLQJ LPLWDWLRQ RI WHOHYLVLRQ PRGHOV 1LFKRODV HW DO Df IRXQG WKDW ZKLWH JLUOV PRGHOHG DGXOW PDOHV RI ERWK VH[HV ZKLOH EODFN JLUOV LPLWDWHG EODFN IHPDOHV 1LFKRODV HW DO Ef DOVR IRXQG WKDW EODFN VXEMHFWV LPLWDWHG IHPDOH PRGHOV OHVV WKDQ ZKLWH VXEn MHFWV QR UDFHVH[ LQWHUDFWLRQV ZHUH IRXQG 'ROO )DJRW DQG +LPEHUW f LQ D VWXG\ RI VH[UROH SUHIHUHQFH DQG EODFN DQG ZKLWH ORZHU FODVV PDOHV IRXQG D VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ VH[ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWHU DQG UDFH RI WKH FKLOG 6WULFNODQG f UHSRUWHG WKDW EODFN FKLOGUHQ ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH ZLOOLQJ WR GHOD\ UHFHLYLQJ D UHZDUG IURP D EODFN H[n SHULPHQWHU WKDQ WKH\ ZHUH ZLWK D ZKLWH H[SHULPHQWHU ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ SUHn IHUUHG WKH GHOD\HG UHZDUG UHJDUGOHVV RI H[SHULPHQWHU UDFH 7KHVH n VWXGLHV FOHDUO\ LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH UDFH DQG VH[ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWHU FDQ KDYH D VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFW RQ H[SHULPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQV $OWKRXJK WKHVH VWXGLHV GR QRW GHDO ZLWK UDFLDO LGHQWLILFDWLRQ DQG SUHIHUHQFH WKH LQGLFDWLRQ LV WKDW VRPH H[SHULPHQWHU HIIHFW FDQ EH H[SHFWHG ,Q VXPPDU\ WKH UHVHDUFK RI WKH ODVW WKLUW\ \HDUV KDV HVWDEOLVKHG VRPH IDFWV LQ WKH DUHD RI UDFLDO LGHQWLILFDWLRQ DQG SUHIHUHQFH LQ \RXQJ FKLOn GUHQ &KLOGUHQ DV \RXQJ DV WKUHH \HDUV ROG ZHUH DEOH WR PDNH UDFLDO

PAGE 29

GLVFULPLQDWLRQV E\ ILYH \HDUV D KLJK GHJUHH RI UDFLDO DZDUHQHVV KDG GHYHORSHG &KLOGUHQ KDG DOVR OHDUQHG WKH YDOXHV DWWDFKHG WR UDFHV VR WKDW EODFN ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK PHDQ XJO\ SRRU KRXVHV DQG ORZ VWDWXV MREV %ODFN FKLOGUHQ UHMHFWHG GROOV ZLWK EODFN VNLQ SKRWRJUDSKV RI EODFN FKLOGUHQ DQG EODFN SXSSHWV DQG SUHIHUUHG ZKLWH RQO\ WZR UHFHQW VWXGLHV IRXQG EODFN FKLOGUHQ SUHIHUULQJ EODFN %ODFN FKLOGUHQ RIWHQ EHFRPH XSVHW ZKHQ DVNHG WR LGHQWLI\ WKHPVHOYHV LQ UHODWLRQ WR UDFH D VLJQLILFDQW QXPEHU RI EODFN FKLOGUHQ LGHQWLILHG WKHPVHOYHV DV ZKLWH 5HFHQW VWXGLHV LQ DUHDV RWKHU WKDQ UDFLDO SUHIHUHQFH KDYH IRXQG WKDW UDFH DQG VH[ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWHU KDG D VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFW RQ H[SHULPHQWDO UHVXOWV EXW WKLV YDULDEOH ZDV QRW H[DPLQHG V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ LQ UHODWLRQ WR UDFLDO LGHQWLILn FDWLRQ DQG SUHIHUHQFH ,Q DGGLWLRQ UHFHQW UHVHDUFK LQ WKH DUHD KDV YDULHG WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ XVHG WR VWXG\ UDFLDO LGHQWLILFDWLRQ DQG SUHIHUHQFH VR WKDW LW LV GLIILFXOW WR PDNH FRPSDULVRQV ZLWK HDUOLHU UHVHDUFK 6WDWHPHQW RI WKH 3UREOHP DQG +\SRWKHVHV 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ KDG WZR PDMRU SXUSRVHV 7KH ILUVW SXUSRVH ZDV WR IXUWKHU H[DPLQH WKH VHOILPDJH RI EODFN FKLOGUHQ LQ RUGHU WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU VRFLDO FKDQJHV KDYH DIIHFWHG WKLV VHOILPDJH 7R WKLV HQG DQ H[DFW UHSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH &ODUN DQG &ODUN f VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG VR WKDW D PHDVXUH RI FKDQJH FRXOG EH PDGH 7KH VHFRQG PDMRU SXUSRVH ZDV WR GHWHUPLQH KRZ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQ FRXOG DIIHFW WKH UHVXOWV VLQFH WKH UHVXOWV RI SUHYLRXV VWXGLHV KDYH EHHQ WDNHQ WR EH DQ LQGLFDWLRQ RI VHOI LPDJH 7R H[DPLQH H[SHULPHQW HU HIIHFWV PDOH DQG IHPDOH EODFN DQG ZKLWH H[SHULPHQWHUV ZHUH XVHG 7R IXUWKHU VWXG\ KRZ FKDQJHV LQ WKH

PAGE 30

H[SHULPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQ FRXOG DIIHFW WKH UHVXOWV WKH WHVW TXHVWLRQV ZHUH DVNHG D VHFRQG WLPH ZLWK WKH GROOV GUHVVHG WR LQGLFDWH KLJK DQG ORZ VRFLRn HFRQRPLF FODVV $Q HTXDO QXPEHU RI ZKLWH FKLOGUHQ ZHUH WHVWHG VR WKDW D FRPSDULVRQ RI EODFN DQG ZKLWH UHVSRQVHV WR WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQ FRXOG EH PDGH 7KH IROORZLQJ K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH RIIHUHG DV DOWHUQDWLYHV WR WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV %ODFN VXEMHFWV ZLOO SUHIHU WKH EODFN GROO DQG LGHQWLI\ WKHPVHOYHV ZLWK WKH EODFN GROO PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ VXEMHFWV LQ WKH &ODUN DQG &ODUN f VWXG\ %ODFN VXEMHFWV ZLOO VKRZ D KLJKHU SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKH EODFN GROO WKDQ ZLOO ZKLWH VXEMHFWV 6XEMHFWV ZLOO VKRZ D KLJKHU SUHIHUHQFH IRU GROOV RI WKHLU RZQ UDF ZKHQ WKH H[SHULPHQW HU LV RI WKH VDPH UDFH $OO VXEMHFWV ZLOO SUHIHU WKH KLJK VWDWXV GROO ZKLFK LV RI WKH VDPH UDFH SUHIHUUHG GXULQJ WKH ILUVW VHW RI TXHVWLRQV 1R SUHGLFWLRQV FRXOG EH PDGH UHJDUGLQJ WKH HIIHFWV RI VH[ RI WKH H[SHULn PHQWHU RU WKH LQWHUDFWLRQV RI UDFH DQG VH[ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWHU DQG FKLOG

PAGE 31

&+$37(5 ,, 0(7+2' 6XEMHFWV 6XEMHFWV ZHUH ILIW\VL[ ZKLWH DQG ILIW\VL[ EODFN FKLOGUHQ HQUROOHG LQ WKUHH *DLQHVYLOOH )ORULGD HOHPHQWDU\ VFKRROV ZKLFK KDYH DWWHPSWHG WR PDLQWDLQ D UDFLDO EDODQFH $OO VXEMHFWV ZHUH LQ WKH NLQGHUJDUWHQ ILYH \HDUV ROG DQG KDG EHHQ LQ DQ LQWHJUDWHG VFKRRO HQYLURQPHQW IRU DSn SUR[LPDWHO\ RQH DFDGHPLF \HDU ([SHULPHQWHUV )RXU H[SHULPHQWHUV ZHUH XVHG D EODFN IHPDOH D ZKLWH IHPDOH D EODFN PDOH DQG D ZKLWH PDOH $OO H[SHULPHQWHUV ZHUH ILUVW\HDU JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV H[FHSW IRU WKH EODFN IHPDOH ZKR ZDV D VHQLRU LQ WKH XQGHUJUDGXDWH FROOHJH (DFK H[SHULPHQWHU WHVWHG WZHQW\HLJKW FKLOGUHQ VHYHQ EODFN IHPDOHV VHYHQ ZKLWH IHPDOHV VHYHQ EODFN PDOHV DQG VHYHQ ZKLWH PDOHVf (DFK H[SHULPHQWHU ZDV JLYHQ ZULWWHQ LQVWUXFWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH SURFHGXUH QR LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQFHUQLQJ H[SHULPHQWDO K\n SRWKHVHV ZDV JLYHQ ([SHULPHQWDO GHVLJQ $ ;;; IDFWRULDO GHVLJQ ZDV XVHG ZLWK VHYHQ VXEMHFWV LQ HDFK

PAGE 32

FHOO VHH 7DEOH f 6FRUHV PHDVXULQJ IRXU GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV ZHUH DV IROORZV f ,QLWLDO 3UHIHUHQFH QXPEHU RI FKLOGUHQ SLFNLQJ XS WKH EODFN GROO GXULQJ WKH ,QLWLDO 3UHIHUHQFH FRQGLWLRQ f 3UHIHUHQFH 6FRUH QXPEHU RI WLPHV WKH EODFN GROO ZDV FKRVHQ LQ UHVSRQVH WR TXHVWLRQV RQH WZR DQG IRXU SOXV WKH QXPEHU RI WLPHV WKH ZKLWH GROO ZDV FKRVHQ LQ UHVSRQVH WR TXHVWLRQ WKUHH f $FFXUDF\ 6FRUH QXPEHU RI FRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV WR TXHVWLRQV ILYH VL[ DQG VHYHQ f 6HOI,GHQWLILFDWLRQ QXPEHU RI VXEMHFWV FKRRVLQJ WKH FRUUHFW GROO IRU WKHLU UDFH 'DWD ZHUH DOZD\V H[DPLQHG IURP WKH YLHZSRLQW RI SUHIHUHQFH IRU EODFN H[FHSW ZKHQ DFFXUDF\ ZDV LQYROYHG 3URFHGXUH ([SHULPHQWHUV ZHUH LQWURGXFHG WR WKH FKLOGUHQ E\ WKH FODVVURRP WHDFKHU ZKR H[SODLQHG WKDW WKH FKLOGUHQ ZRXOG EH JRLQJ ZLWK RQH RI WKH H[n SHULPHQWHUV RQH DW D WLPH WR SOD\ D VKRUW JDPH 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU WRRN HDFK FKLOG WR D FRUQHU RI WKH VFKRRO OLEUDU\ ZKHUH WKH\ VDW DW D WDEOH DQG IRXU GROOV ZHUH ODLG RXW LQ IURQW RI WKH FKLOG 7KH GROOV ZHUH LGHQWLFDO H[FHSW IRU VNLQ FRORU WZR ZHUH EURZQVNLQQHG ZLWK EODFN KDLU DQG WZR ZHUH ZKLWHVNLQQHG ZLWK EORQG KDLU 7KH GROOV ZHUH FODG LQ D IODQQHO

PAGE 33

7DEOH ([SHULPHQWDO 'HVLJQ %ODFN 6XEMHFW :KLWH 6XEMHFW 0DOH ) HPDOH 0DOH ) HPDOH %ODFN 0DOH ([SHULPHQWHU ) HPDOH :KLWH 0DOH ([SHULPHQWHU ) HPDOH

PAGE 34

EODQNHW GXULQJ &RQGLWLRQ QR VH[ LGHQWLILFDWLRQ FRXOG EH PDGH 'ROOV ZHUH SODFHG LQ IURQW RI WKH FKLOG LQ D UDQGRPO\ YDULHG RUGHU HLWKHU EODFNZKLWHEODFNZKLWH RU ZKLWHEODFNZKLWHEODFN 7KH FKLOG ZDV WROG WKDW KH FRXOG SOD\ ZLWK RQH RI WKH GROOV ZKLOH WKH H[SHULPHQWHU SUHSDUHG UHFRUGLQJ VKHHWV DQG JRW UHDG\ WR SOD\ WKH JDPH $V DQ DWWHPSW WR REWDLQ D SXUHO\ EHKDYLRUDO PHDVXUH RI SUHIHUHQFH WKH H[SHULPHQWHU UHn FRUGHG ZKHWKHU WKH FKLOG SLFNHG XS D ZKLWH GROO D EODFN GROO RU ERWK WKLV ZDV WHUPHG LQLWLDO SUHIHUHQFH 7KH FKLOG ZDV WKHQ DVNHG WKH IROORZLQJ TXHVWLRQV ZKLFK DUH LGHQWLn FDO WR WKRVH XVHG E\ &ODUN DQG &ODUN f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f DQG

PAGE 35

GROOV LQ WKH WRUQ VPRFNV ZHUH WHUPHG 1RW 3UHWW\ 13f 7KH SURFHGXUH XVLQJ WKLV VHFRQG VHW RI GROOV ZDV LGHQWLFDO WR WKH SURFHGXUH RI &RQGLWLRQ WKH VDPH VHW RI HLJKW TXHVWLRQV ZHUH DVNHG 7KURXJKRXW WKH WHVWLQJ VSRQWDQHRXV FRPPHQWV PDGH E\ WKH FKLOGUHQ ZHUH UHFRUGHG LQ ZULWLQJ E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHUV &KLOGUHQ ZHUH WKDQNHG DQG UHWXUQHG WR WKHLU FODVVURRP ZKHQ WHVWLQJ ZDV FRPSOHWHG

PAGE 36

&+$37(5 ,,, 5(68/76 7ZR RI WKH IRXU K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH SDUWLDOO\ VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH UHVXOWV ,Q DGGLWLRQ VRPH QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV REWDLQHG +\SRWKHVLV %ODFN VXEMHFWV ZLOO SUHIHU WKH EODFN GROO DQG LGHQn WLI\ WKHPVHOYHV ZLWK WKH EODFN GROO PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ LQ WKH &ODUN DQG &ODUN f VWXG\ ,Q RUGHU WR FRPSDUH WKH FXUUHQW UHVXOWV ZLWK WKH &ODUN DQG &ODUN f GDWD SHUFHQWDJHV ZHUH FRPSXWHG IRU WKH UHVSRQVH WR HDFK TXHVWLRQ SHUFHQWDJHV IRU TXHVWLRQV RQH WKURXJK IRXU ZHUH EDVHG RQ WKH QXPEHU RI WLPHV WKH EODFN GROO ZDV FKRVHQ DQG SHUFHQWDJHV IRU TXHVWLRQV ILYH WKURXJK HLJKW ZHUH EDVHG RQ WKH QXPEHU RI DFFXUDWH UHVSRQVHV 7KH 7HVW )RU 6LJQLILFDQFH RI 'LIIHUHQFH %HWZHHQ 7ZR 3URSRUWLRQV %UXQLQJ DQG .LQW] f ZDV FRPSXWHG IRU HDFK TXHVWLRQ VHH 7DEOH f 7KH RQO\ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH WZR VWXGLHV ZHUH LQ UHVSRQVH WR TXHVWLRQ RQH *LYH PH WKH GROO \RX ZRXOG OLNH WR SOD\ ZLWK DQG TXHVWLRQ WZR *LYH PH WKH GROO WKDW LV D QLFH GROO 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ VKRZHG D VLJn QLILFDQW LQFUHDVH LQ WKH SUHIHUHQFH IRU EODFN RQ WKHVH WZR TXHVWLRQV 2Q WKH UHPDLQLQJ SUHIHUHQFH TXHVWLRQV WKUHH DQG IRXUf WKHUH ZDV DQ LQFUHDVH LQ WKH SUHIHUHQFH IRU EODFN EXW WKH GLIIHUHQFH ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW 7KHUH ZDV QRW D VLJQLILFDQW LQFUHDVH LQ VHOILGHQWLILFDWLRQ ZLWK WKH EODFN GROO

PAGE 37

7DEOH &ODUN DQG &ODUN f 'DWD &RPSDU &ODUN HG ZLWK &XUUHQW 'DWD &XUUHQW &XUUHQW 3UHIHUHQFH 6WXG\ %ODFN :KLWH OLNH WR SOD\ ZLWK b br brr D QLFH GROO b br brr D EDG GROO b b b D QLFH FRORU b b b $FFXUDF\ D ZKLWH FKLOG b b b D FRORUHG FKLOG b b b D 1HJUR FKLOG b b b 6HOI,GHQWLILFDWLRQ \RX b b b A6LJQLILFDQWO\ 'LIIHUHQW IURP &ODUN — A6LJQLILFDQWO\ 'LIIHUHQW IURP &XUUHQW %ODFN

PAGE 38

&ODUN DQG &ODUN XVHG RQO\ EODFN VXEMHFWV SHUFHQWDJHV IRU WKH FXUUHQW ZKLWH VXEMHFWV DUH JLYHQ LQ 7DEOH IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI FRPSDULVRQ :KLWHV LGHQWLILHG ZLWK WKH DSSURSULDWH FRORU GROO VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ EODFN VXEMHFWV +\SRWKHVLV %ODFN VXEMHFWV ZLOO VKRZ D KLJKHU SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKH EODFN GROO WKDQ ZLOO ZKLWH VXEMHFWV 5HVXOWV RI $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ WKH ,QLWLDO 3UHIHUHQFH VFRUHV DUH VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH 6XEMHFW UDFH ZDV WKH RQO\ PDLQ HIIHFW IRXQG WR EH VLJn QLILFDQW ZLWK EODFN VXEMHFWV FKRRVLQJ WKH EODFN GROO PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ ZKLWH VXEMHFWV %ODFN PHDQ :KLWH PHDQ f 7KUHH VHFRQG RUGHU LQWHUDFWLRQV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW 7KH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI 6XEMHFW 5DFH E\ 6XEn MHFW 6H[ E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 6H[ )LJXUH f VKRZHG WKDW %ODFN VXEMHFWV GLG QRW GLIIHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK D 0DOH RU D )HPDOH ([SHULPHQWHU :KLWH VXE MHFWV KRZHYHU VKRZHG D JUHDWHU SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKH EODFN GROO ZKHQ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU ZDV RI WKH RSSRVLWH VH[ 7KH VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKH 6XEMHFW 5DFH E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 5DFH E\ ([n SHULPHQWHU 6H[ LQWHUDFWLRQ UHYHDOHG WKDW WKH UHVSRQVH HYRNHG E\ D :KLWH )HPDOH H[SHULPHQWHU DQG D %ODFN 0DOH ([SHULPHQWHU ZDV HVVHQWLDOO\ WKH VDPH WKLV ZDV DOVR WUXH IRU WKH UHVSRQVH HYRNHG E\ WKH %ODFN )HPDOH H[SHULPHQWHU DQG WKH :KLWH 0DOH H[SHULPHQWHU VHH )LJXUH f $OO VXEn MHFWV VKRZHG WKH VDPH SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKH EODFN GROO ZLWK D %ODFN )HPDOH RU :KLWH 0DOH H[SHULPHQWHU %ODFN VXEMHFWV KRZHYHU VKRZHG FRQVLGHUn DEO\ JUHDWHU SUHIHUHQFH WKDQ :KLWH VXEMHFWV ZLWK WKH :KLWH )HPDOH DQG %ODFN 0DOH H[SHULPHQWHU 6XEMHFW 6H[ E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 5DFH E\

PAGE 39

7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ ,QLWLDO 3UHIHUHQFH 6FRUHV V 5DFH ) r BV 6H[ ( 5DFH ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ e 5DFH E\ (5DFH 6 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH 6 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ V 6H[ E\ ( 6H[ ( 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ 6 6H[ E\ 6 5DFH E\ ( 5DFH 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ ( 6H[ r V 5DFH E\ ( 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ r e 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ r V 6H[ E\ 6 5DFH E\ ( 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ rS )! rrS )r

PAGE 40

0HDQ 1XPEHU RI 7LPHV %ODFN &KRVHQ )LJXUH 6XEMHFW 5DFH E\ 6XEMHFW 6H[ E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 6H[ ,QLWLDO 3UHIHUHQFH

PAGE 41

0HDQ 1XPEHU RI 7LPHV %ODFN &KRVHQ %ODFN )HPDOH :KLWH 0DOH ( :KLWH )HPDOH %ODFN 0DOH ( Ua %ODFN 6 :KLWH 6 )LJXUH 6XEMHFW 5DFH E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 5DFH E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 6H[ ,QLWLDO 3UHIHUHQFH

PAGE 42

([SHULPHQWHU 6H[ LQWHUDFWLRQ DOVR VKRZV WKDW VXEMHFWV UHVSRQGHG GLIn IHUHQWO\ WR GLIIHUHQW H[SHULPHQWHUV VHH )LJXUH f :KHQ WKH H[SHULn PHQWHU ZDV %ODFN UHVSRQVHV RI 0DOH DQG )HPDOH VXEMHFWV ZHUH HVVHQWLDOO\ WKH VDPH UHJDUGOHVV RI H[SHULPHQWHU VH[ +RZHYHU ZKHQ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU ZDV :KLWH VXEMHFWV VKRZHG D KLJKHU SUHIHUHQFH IRU EODFN ZKHQ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU ZDV RI WKH RSSRVLWH VH[ 5HVXOWV RI WKH DQDO\VLV RQ 3UHIHUHQFH VFRUHV IRU &RQGLWLRQ DUH UHSRUWHG LQ 7DEOH 7KH PDLQ HIIHFW RI VXEMHFW UDFH ZDV DJDLQ VLJQLILn FDQW ZLWK %ODFN VXEMHFWV SUHIHUULQJ WKH EODFN GROO PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ :KLWH VXEMHFWV %ODFN PHDQ :KLWH PHDQ f 7KH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI 6XEMHFW 5DFH E\ 6XEMHFW 6H[ E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 6H[ ZDV VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO VHH )LJXUH f %ODFN )HPDOH VXEMHFWV ZHUH PRVW OLNHO\ WR SUHn IHU WKH EODFN GROO ZKLOH :KLWH 0DOH VXEMHFWV VKRZHG D JUHDWHU SUHIHUHQFH IRU EODFN ZKHQ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU ZDV 0DOH %ODFN 0DOH VXEMHFWV ZHUH HVSHFLDOO\ DIIHFWHG E\ H[SHULPHQWHU VH[ VKRZLQJ DOPRVW DV KLJK D SUHIHUHQFH IRU WKH EODFN GROO DV %ODFN )HPDOH VXEMHFWV ZKHQ WKH H[SHULn PHQWHU ZDV 0DOH EXW GHFUHDVLQJ LQ SUHIHUHQFH ZLWK D )HPDOH H[SHULn PHQWHU VR WKDW RQO\ :KLWH 0DOH VXEMHFWV KDG ORZHU SUHIHUHQFH VFRUHV 1R VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG DPRQJ SUHIHUHQFH VFRUHV IRU &RQn GLWLRQ + UHVXOWV DUH UHSRUWHG LQ 7DEOH +\SRWKHVLV M 6XEMHFWV ZLOO VKRZ D KLJKHU SUHIHUHQFH IRU GROOV RI WKHLU RZQ UDFH ZKHQ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU LV RI WKH VDPH UDFH 7KLV K\SRWKHVLV ZDV QRW VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH GDWD ZKLFK DUH UHSRUWHG DERYH 7KH LQWHUDFWLRQV RI UDFH DQG VH[ ZHUH IRXQG WR KDYH PRUH HIIHFW

PAGE 43

)LJXUH 6XEMHFW 6H[ E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 5DFH E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 6H[ ,QLWLDO 3UHIHUHQFH

PAGE 44

7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ 3UHIHUHQFH 6FRUHV &RQGLWLRQ V 5DFH B) r V 6H[ (B 5DFH ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ (A 5DFH 6 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ 6 6H[ E\ ( 6H[ ( 5DFH E\ ,6 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH 6 5DFH E\B6 6H[ E\ ( 6H[ r 6 5DFH E\ (A 5DFH E\ B( 6H[ 6 6H[ E\ ,6 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ ,6 5DFH E\ (A 6H[ rS mS ) )

PAGE 45

0HDQ 1XPEHU RI WLPHV %ODFN &KRVHQ %ODFN )HPDOH 6 :KLWH )HPDOH 6 %ODFN 0DOH :OLLWH 0DOH L f 0DOH ( )HPDOH ( )LJXUH 6XEMHFW 5DFH E\ 6XEMHFW 6H[ E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 6H[ 3UHIHUHQFH &RQGLWLRQ ,P _FQ

PAGE 46

7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ 3UHIHUHQFH 6FRUHV &RQGLWLRQ ,, V 5DFH ) V 6H[ ( 5DFH ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\B6 6H[ V 5DFH E\ ( 5DFH V 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH V 6H[ E\ ,e 6H[ V 5DFH E\ (A 6H[ ( 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ ,& 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ 6 6H[ E\ -( 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ S S F ) )

PAGE 47

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n GLWLRQ ,, WWHVWV ZHUH SHUIRUPHG RQ WKH GDWD IRU HDFK VXEMHFW JURXS WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU VXEMHFWV FKRVH 3UHWW\ 3f RU 1RW 3UHWW\ 13f GROOV PRUH RIWHQ 1RQH RI WKHVH WWHVWV ZDV VLJQLILFDQW H[FHSW IRU %ODFN )HPDOH VXEn MHFWV VHH 7DEOH f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

PAGE 48

7DEOH &KRLFH RI 3UHWW\ YHUVXV 1RW 3UHWW\ WWHVW 5HVXOWV :KLWH 0DOH VXEMHFWV W :KLWH )HPDOH VXEMHFWV W %ODFN 0DOH VXEMHFWV W %ODFN )HPDOH VXEMHFWV W r rS GI

PAGE 49

7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ $FFXUDF\ 6FRUHV &RQGLWLRQ V 5DFH ) V 6H[ ( 5DFH ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 5DFH r 6 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH 6 6H[ E\ ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ ( 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ B( 5DFH 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ ( 5DFH E\ (A 6H[ 6 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH E\ 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ (A 5DFH E\ 6H[ r rS ) rrS )

PAGE 50

7KH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI 6XEMHFW 5DFH E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 5DFH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO VHH )LJXUH f 6XEMHFWV ZHUH PRUH DFFXUDWH ZKHQ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU ZDV RI WKH VDPH UDFH 7KH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI 6XEMHFW 5DFH E\ 6XEMHFW 6H[ E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 5DFH E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 6H[ ZDV VLJQLILn FDQW DW WKH OHYHO VHH )LJXUH f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n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f ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI 6XEMHFW 6H[ E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 6H[ ZDV VLJQLn ILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO 6HH )LJXUH f )HPDOH VXEMHFWV ZHUH HTXDOO\

PAGE 51

:KLWH 6 0HDQ QXPEHU RI &RUUHFW 5HVSRQVHV W %ODFN 6 %ODFN ( :KLWH ( )LJXUH 6XEMHFW 5DFH E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 5DFH $FFXUDF\ &RQGLWLRQ ,

PAGE 52

0HDQ 1XPEHU RI &RUUHFW 5HVSRQVHV %ODFN %ODFN 0DOH ( ) HPDOH ( 0HDQ 1XPEHU RI &RUUHFW 5H VSRQVHV :KLWH )HPDOH %ODFN )HPDOH :KLWH 0DOH %ODFN 0DOH :KLWH :KLWH 0DOH ( )HPDOH ( )LJXUH 6XEMHFW 5DFH E\ 6XEMHFW 6H[ E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 5DFH E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 6H[ $FFXUDF\ &RQGLWLRQ ,

PAGE 53

7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ $FFXUDF\ 6FRUHV &RQGLWLRQ ,, ) V 5DFH rr V 6H[ R R f6U ( 5DFH ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 5DFH V 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH r V 6H[ E\ ( 6H[ V 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ ( 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\B6 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ ( 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ V 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ V 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ B( 5DFH E\ (A 6H[ rS ) rrS )

PAGE 54

)LJXUH B 6XEMHFW 6H[ E\ ([SHULPHQWHU 5DFH $FFXUDF\ &RQGLWLRQ ,,

PAGE 55

DFFXUDWH UHJDUGOHVV RI WKH UDFH RI WKH H[SHULPHQWHU +RZHYHU 0DOH VXEMHFWV ZHUH OHVV DFFXUDWH ZLWK %ODFN H[SHULPHQWHUV WKDQ ZLWK :KLWH H[SHULPHQWHUV 7KH HIIHFWV RI UDFH DQG VH[ ZHUH DOVR VHHQ LQ WKH DQDO\VLV RI WKH VHOILGHQWLILFDWLRQ TXHVWLRQ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH DQDO\VLV RI 6HOI ,GHQWLILFDWLRQ LQ &RQGLWLRQ DUH UHSRUWHG LQ 7DEOH 7ZR PDLQ HIIHFWV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO :KLWH 0DOHV ZHUH PRUH DFFXUDWH RQ 6HOI,GHQWLILFDWLRQ WKDQ %ODFN 0DOHV :KLWH PHDQ %ODFN PHDQ f ,Q DGGLWLRQ )HPDOH VXEMHFWV ZHUH PRUH DFFXUDWH LQ 6HOI,GHQWLILn FDWLRQ WKDQ 0DOH VXEMHFWV )HPDOH PHDQ 0DOH PHDQ f 7KH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI WKHVH WZR YDULDEOHV 6XEMHFW 5DFH E\ 6XEMHFW 6H[ ZDV DOVR VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO VHH )LJXUH f :KLWH VXEMHFWV ZHUH HTXDOO\ DFFXUDWH ZKHWKHU 0DOH RU )HPDOH %ODFN )HPDOH VXEMHFWV ZHUH PRUH DFn FXUDWH WKDQ %ODFN 0DOH VXEMHFWV 7KH DQDO\VLV RI 6HOILGHQWLILFDWLRQ IRU &RQGLWLRQ ,, LV UHSRUWHG LQ 7DEOH 7KUHH PDLQ HIIHFWV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO 6XEMHFW UDFH KDG D VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFW ZLWK :KLWH VXEMHFWV PRUH DFFXUDWH LQ 6HOI ,GHQWLILFDWLRQ WKDQ %ODFN VXEMHFWV :KLWH PHDQ %ODFN PHDQ f 6XEMHFW VH[ DOVR KDG D VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFW ZLWK )HPDOH VXEMHFWV PRUH DFn FXUDWH WKDQ 0DOH VXEMHFWV )HPDOH PHDQ 0DOH PHDQ f )LQDOO\ WKH HIIHFW RI VH[ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWHU DOVR KDG D VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFW ZLWK PRUH DFFXUDWH 6HOI,GHQWLILFDWLRQ EHLQJ PDGH ZLWK D 0DOH H[SHULPHQn WHU WKDQ ZLWK D )HPDOH H[SHULPHQWHU 0DOH PHDQ )HPDOH PHDQ f 7KH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI 6XEMHFW 5DFH E\ 6XEMHFW 6H[ ZDV DOVR VLJQLILFDQW

PAGE 56

7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ 6HOI,GHQWLILFDWLRQ 6FRUHV &RQGLWLRQ ) 6 5DFH rr 6 6H[ r ( 5DFH ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ r 6 5DFH E\ ( 5DFH 6 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH 6 5DFH E\ B( 6H[ 6 6H[ E\ ( 6H[ B( 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ ( 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ 6 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ rS )! rrS )-r

PAGE 57

0HDQ 1XPEHU RI &RUUHFW 5HVSRQVHV %ODFN :KLWH 7 7 0DOH 6 )HPDOH 6 )LJXUH B 6XEMHFW 5DFH E\ 6XEMHFW 6H[ 6HOI,GHQWLILFDWLRQ &RQGLWLRQ _Z ,Z

PAGE 58

7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ 6HOI,GHQWLILFDWLRQ 6FRUHV &RQGLWLRQ ,, ) 6 5DFH rr 6 6H[ rr 5DFH ( 6H[ rr 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ rr 6 5DFH E\ ( 5DFH 6 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH 6 6H[ E\ ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ ( 6H[ B( 5DFH E\ B( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\B6 6H[ E\ ( 5DFH 6 5DFH E\ -6 6H[ E\ ( 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ (A 6H[ 6 6H[ E\ (A 5DFH E\ (A 6H[ 6 5DFH E\ 6 6H[ E\ (A 5DFH E\ B( 6H[ rS ‘ ) rrS )

PAGE 59

VHH )LJXUH f :KLWH VXEMHFWV ZHUH QRW DIIHFWHG E\ VH[ RI WKH H[SHULn PHQWHU ZKLOH %ODFN VXEMHFWV PDGH PRUH DFFXUDWH 6HOI,GHQWLILFDWLRQ UHVSRQVHV ZLWK WKH )HPDOH H[SHULPHQWHU WKDQ ZLWK WKH 0DOH H[SHULPHQn WHU 7KHVH UHVXOWV DUH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKRVH RI &RQGLWLRQ $ FKLVTXDUH ZDV SHUIRUPHG RQ WKH UHVSRQVHV WR *LYH PH WKH GROO WKDW LV D QLFH GROO DQG *LYH PH WKH GROO WKDW ORRNV OLNH \RX WR VHH LI FKLOGUHQ SUHIHUUHG DQG LGHQWLILHG ZLWK WKH GROO RI WKH VDPH FRORU ,W KDG EHHQ DVVXPHG WKDW D FKLOG ZKR SUHIHUV RQH FRORU DQG LGHQWLILHV ZLWK D GLIIHUHQW FRORU GROO LV UHYHDOLQJ D SRRU VHOILPDJH EDVHG RQ VNLQ FRORU 1R UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH UHVSRQVHV WR WKHVH TXHVWLRQV FKL VTXDUH GI f 7KHUHIRUH LW FDQ EH FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH UHn VSRQVHV WR WKHVH WZR TXHVWLRQV VKRXOG QRW EH XVHG DV D PHDVXUH RI D FKLOGnV VHOILPDJH )LQDOO\ QRQH RI WKH VSRQWDQHRXV FRPPHQWV PDGH E\ WKH FKLOGUHQ KDG WR GR ZLWK WKHLU FRORU RU WKH FRORU RI WKH GROOV ,Q IDFW WKH FKLOGUHQ VDLG YHU\ OLWWOH EXW WKH\ ZHUH H[WUHPHO\ FRRSHUDWLYH LQ SOD\LQJ WKH JDPH 1R FKLOGUHQ FULHG OHIW WKH VLWXDWLRQ RU UHIXVHG WR SDUWLFLSDWH

PAGE 60

0HDQ 1XPEHU RI &RUUHFW 5HVSRQVHV :KLWH %ODFN L 0DOH 6 )HPDOH 6 )LJXUH 6XEMHFW 5DFH E\ 6XEMHFW 6H[ 6HOI,GHQWLILFDWLRQ &RQGLWLRQ ,, _FQ _FQ

PAGE 61

&+$37(5 ,9 ',6&866,21 7KHUH DUH VRPH YHU\ GHILQLWH FRQFOXVLRQV ZKLFK FDQ EH PDGH IURP WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ 7KHUH KDV EHHQ D VLJQLILFDQW LQFUHDVH LQ SUHIHUHQFH IRU EODFN E\ EODFN FKLOGUHQ RYHU WKH &ODUN DQG &ODUN f GDWD %ODFN VXEMHFWV SUHIHUUHG EODFN VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH WKDQ :KLWH VXEMHFWV 7KHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ UHVSRQVH WR WKH VHOILGHQWLILFDWLRQ TXHVWLRQ LQ FRPSDULVRQ ZLWK WKH &ODUN DQG &ODUN GDWD ZKLOH :KLWH VXEMHFWV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH OLNHO\ WR LGHQWLI\ WKHPVHOYHV ZLWK WKH GROO RI WKHLU FRORU 5DFLDO SUHIHUHQFH DFFXUDF\ DQG LGHQWLILFDWLRQ ZHUH IRXQG WR YDU\ LQ DQ XQSUHGLFWHG DQG FRPSOLFDWHG ZD\ DV D IXQFn WLRQ RI WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI UDFH DQG VH[ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWHUV DQG VXEMHFWV 7KH FXUUHQW GDWD DQG SUHYLRXV GDWDf LQGLFDWH D UHVSRQVH WR WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQ LQ WKDW FKDQJHV LQ WKH VLWXDWLRQ UHVXOWHG LQ GLIIHUHQW UHVSRQVHV

PAGE 62

,Q D GLUHFW FRPSDULVRQ ZLWK WKH &ODUN DQG &ODUN f GDWD LW LV LQWHUHVWLQJ WR QRWH WKDW WKHUH KDV EHHQ D VLJQLILFDQW LQFUHDVH LQ WKH SUHn IHUHQFH IRU EODFN RQ WZR RI WKH IRXU SUHIHUHQFH TXHVWLRQV 7KLV FRXOG OHDG WR WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW WKH VRFLDO FKDQJHV RI WKH SDVW IHZ \HDUV KDYH LQ IDFW LPSURYHG WKH ZD\ EODFNV VHH WKHPVHOYHV 7KHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILn FDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ VHOILGHQWLILFDWLRQ KRZHYHU VR WKDW LW ZRXOG VHHP WKDW WKH EODFN FKLOG LV VWLOO UHMHFWLQJ KLV RZQ FRORU :KHQ FRPSDULQJ WKH GDWD RI EODFN DQG ZKLWH VXEMHFWV RI WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ LQ WKH VDPH IDVKLRQ LW FDQ EH VHHQ WKDW ZKLWHV DQG EODFNV GLIIHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ RQ WKH VDPH WZR SUHIHUHQFH TXHVWLRQV DV WKRVH ZKLFK GLIIHU IURP WKH &ODUN GDWD ,W LV FOHDU WKDW %ODFN VXEMHFWV GLG VKRZ D JUHDWHU SUHIHUHQFH IRU EODFN IXUWKHU VXSSRUWLQJ WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW EODFN VHOILPDJH PD\ KDYH LPn SURYHG 7KH :KLWH VXEMHFWV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH OLNHO\ WR LGHQWLI\ WKHPVHOYHV ZLWK WKH GROO RI WKHLU RZQ FRORU ZKLFK PD\ DOVR LQGLFDWH WKDW UHVSRQVH RI %ODFN VXEMHFWV LQ WKH VHOILGHQWLILFDWLRQ TXHVWLRQ GRHV LQn GLFDWH VHOIUHMHFWLRQ $OO RI WKH WKUHH JURXSV ZHUH HTXDOO\ DFFXUDWH LQ UDFLDO LGHQWLILFDWLRQ $OWKRXJK WKLV GDWD VXSSRUWV VRPH K\SRWKHVHV LW VKRXOG EH FRQVLGHUHG ZLWK VRPH FDXWLRQ JLYHQ WKH PDMRU UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ ,W FDQ EH DFFHSWHG WKDW %ODFN VXEMHFWV VKRZHG DQ LQFUHDVHG SUHn IHUHQFH IRU EODFN RYHU WKH &ODUN GDWD ZLWK QR LQFUHDVH LQ VHOILGHQWLILFDWLRQ ZLWK EODFN KRZHYHU LW PXVW EH NHSW LQ PLQG WKDW YDULDEOHV LQ WKH VLWXDWLRQ GLG VLJQLILFDQWO\ DIIHFW WKH UHVSRQVHV RI WKH VXEMHFWV *LYHQ WKH FKRLFH RI SLFNLQJ XS DQ\ GROO ,QLWLDO 3UHIHUHQFHf %ODFN VXEMHFWV GLG FKRRVH WKH EODFN GROO VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH RIWHQ WKDQ GLG :KLWH

PAGE 63

VXEMHFWV 7KH WKUHH LQWHUDFWLRQV ZKLFK ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW DUH FRPSOH[ DQG GLIILFXOW WR LQWHUSUHW ,W GRHV DSSHDU WKDW %ODFN VXEMHFWV ZHUH QRW DIIHFWHG E\ H[SHULPHQWHU VH[ ZKLOH :KLWH 0DOH VXEMHFWV VKRZHG D JUHDWHU SUHn IHUHQFH IRU EODFN ZLWK )HPDOH H[SHULPHQWHUV DQG WKH VDPH LV WUXH IRU :KLWH )HPDOH VXEMHFWV ZLWK 0DOH H[SHULPHQWHUV 7KLV UHVXOW PD\ EH UHn ODWHG WR WKH IDFW WKDW EODFNV RIWHQ RQO\ KDYH D PDWHUQDO ILJXUH LQ WKH KRPH DQG DUH QRW VRFLDOL]HG LQ WKH VDPH ZD\ WR VH[ UROHV DV DUH ZKLWHV 8Qn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nV

PAGE 64

HQYLURQPHQW KDV VXFK D GHDUWK RI PDOH UROH PRGHOV WKDW WKH UHVXOW ZDV DQ H[WUHPHO\ SRVLWLYH UHVSRQVH WR 0DOH H[SHULPHQWHUV %\ VLPSO\ DGGLQJ DQRWKHU YDULDEOH WR WKH VLWXDWLRQ LQ &RQGLWLRQ ,, L H GUHVV RI WKH GROOVf WKH VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFWV RI &RQGLWLRQ SUHIHUHQFHV ZHUH ZLSHG RXW 7KXV LW FDQ EH FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH UHVSRQVH RI UDFLDO SUHIHUHQFH LQ WKLV VLWXDWLRQ LV VXIILFLHQWO\ GHOLFDWH DV WR EH DIIHFWHG E\ H[WHUQDO YDULDEOHV 7KHUHIRUH DOWKRXJK LW FDQQRW EH GHQLHG WKDW WKHUH DUH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH SUHIHUHQFH VFRUHV RQH PXVW EH YHU\ FDXWLRXV LQ PDNLQJ FRQFOXVLRQV IURP WKLV VWXG\ DQG VLPLODU UDFLDO SUHIHUHQFH GDWD ,W DSSHDUV WKDW WKH FKLOGnV UHVSRQVH WR WKH LPPHGLDWH VLWXDWLRQ LV EHLQJ PHDVXUHG LQ DGGLWLRQ WR UDFLDO SUHIHUHQFH 7KLV LV WUXH WR VXFK DQ H[WHQW WKDW HYHQ DFFXUDF\ ZDV DIIHFWHG E\ WKH VLWXDWLRQ 1R PDLQ HIIHFWV KDG D VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFW RQ DFFXUDF\ LQ &RQn GLWLRQ 7KLV LV WR VD\ WKDW :KLWH VXEMHFWV ZHUH QRW PRUH DFFXUDWH WKDQ %ODFN VXEMHFWV QRU 0DOHV WKDQ )HPDOHV +RZHYHU WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI VXEMHFW UDFH ZLWK H[SHULPHQWHU UDFH GLG DIIHFW DFFXUDF\ 6XEMHFWV RI HDFK UDFH ZHUH PRUH DFFXUDWH ZLWK DQ H[SHULPHQWHU RI WKHLU RZQ UDFH 7KLV PD\ EH DWWULEXWHG WR WKH HIIHFW RI PRGHOLQJ RU VRFLDO GHVLUDELOLW\ ,W LV LPSRUWDQW WR UHPHPEHU DOVR WKDW FKLOGUHQ ZHUH OHVV DFFXUDWH ZLWK DQ H[SHULPHQWHU RI WKH RSSRVLWH UDFH 7KHUH FDQ EH OLWWOH TXHVWLRQ WKDW UHn VSRQVH WR WKH H[SHULPHQWHU ZDV DV LPSRUWDQW DV UDFLDO DZDUHQHVV DQG NQRZOHGJH RI UDFLDO ODEHOV )XUWKHUPRUH WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI VXEMHFW UDFH DQG VH[ ZLWK H[SHULn PHQWHU UDFH DQG VH[ ZDV DOVR VLJQLILFDQW :KHQ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU ZDV

PAGE 65

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n WHUf 7KHVH UHVXOWV DUH QRW FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH SUHIHUHQFH UHVXOWV +RZn HYHU WKH FRPSOH[LWLHV RI WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ UHLQIRUFH WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW PXFK RI ZKDW LV EHLQJ PHDVXUHG LV WKH UHVSRQVH WR DQ H[WHUQDO VLWXDWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ D GHJUHH RI NQRZOHGJH ,Q &RQGLWLRQ ,, ZKHUH DQRWKHU H[WHUQDO YDULDEOH ZDV DGGHG WKH TXHVn WLRQ RI DFFXUDF\ EHFRPHV PXFK PRUH FOHDU FXW :KLWH VXEMHFWV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH DFFXUDWH WKDQ %ODFN VXEMHFWV )HPDOH VXEMHFWV ZHUH PRUH DFFXUDWH WKDQ 0DOH VXEMHFWV )HPDOH VXEMHFWV ZHUH HTXDOO\ DFFXn UDWH UHJDUGOHVV RI H[SHULPHQWHU UDFH ZKLOH 0DOH VXEMHFWV ZHUH FRQn VLGHUDEO\ OHVV DFFXUDWH ZLWK D %ODFN H[SHULPHQWHU WKDQ ZLWK D :KLWH H[SHULPHQWHU 7KHVH UHVXOWV FRXOG EH H[SODLQHG E\ VD\LQJ WKDW IHPDOHV DUH WUDGLWLRQDOO\ PRUH VFKRRO RULHQWHG DQG WKHUHIRUH PLJKW EH PRUH OLNHO\ WR GR ZHOO RQ D WHVW RI DFFXUDF\ +RZHYHU PRUH LPSRUWDQW WKDQ VXFK DQ H[SODQDWLRQ LV WKH DGGHG HYLGHQFH WKDW WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQ FDQ DIIHFW WKH VXEMHFWVn DFFXUDF\ UHVSRQVHV 2Q WKH VHOILGHQWLILFDWLRQ TXHVWLRQ :KLWH VXEMHFWV LGHQWLILHG

PAGE 66

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n HUV $Q DGGLWLRQDO VLJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJ LQ &RQGLWLRQ ,, ZDV WKDW PRUH DFn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n WLRQ *HQHUDOL]DWLRQV RI UDFLDO SUHIHUHQFHV DQG LGHQWLILFDWLRQ PD\ EH PDGH

PAGE 67

EXW WKLV VKRXOG EH GRQH ZLWK TXDOLILFDWLRQV %HIRUH IXUWKHU JHQHUDOL]DWLRQV DUH PDGH IURP WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ VRPH IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK ZRXOG EH XVHIXO 7KH HIIHFW RI YDU\LQJ H[SHULPHQn WHUV ZDV REYLRXVO\ SRZHUIXO 7KHUH FRXOG EH VRPH TXHVWLRQ DV WR ZKHWKHU WKH SHUVRQDOLWLHV RI WKH H[SHULPHQWHUV KDG DQ\ HIIHFW LQ DGGLWLRQ WR WKH HIIHFWV RI UDFH DQG VH[ *LYHQ WKH FRPSOH[LWLHV RI WKH UDFH DQG VH[ LQWHUn DFWLRQV WKLV ZRXOG VHHP XQOLNHO\ 1HYHUWKHOHVV LGHDOO\ WKH UHVHDUFK VKRXOG QRZ EH UHSOLFDWHG ZLWK VHYHUDO H[SHULPHQWHUV RI HDFK UDFH DQG VH[ $ IXUWKHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH HIIHFWV RI YDU\LQJ WKH GROOV FRXOG EH GRQH 2QH SRVVLELOLW\ LV D UHSOLFDWLRQ ZLWK KDOI RI WKH VXEMHFWV H[SHULHQFLQJ &RQn GLWLRQ ,, EHIRUH &RQGLWLRQ WR FKHFN IRU DQ\ RUGHU HIIHFW $OVR RWKHU PRGLILFDWLRQV RI WKH GROOVn GUHVV DQG FRORU DQG DOVR VH[ PLJKW EH PDGH )LQDOO\ D VWXG\ FRUUHODWLQJ WKH YDULRXV PHWKRGV XVHG WR PHDVXUH UDFLDO SUHIHUHQFH DPRQJ FKLOGUHQ VKRXOG EH XVHG ZLWK WKH VDPH FKLOGUHQ WKXV VRPH ILUPHU FRQFOXVLRQV DV WR ZKDW LV EHLQJ PHDVXUHG PLJKW EH SRVVLEOH $OO RI WKH DERYH GRHV QRW VD\ WKDW SUHYLRXV VWXGLHV KDYH SURYLGHG ZRUWKOHVV LQIRUPDWLRQ 5HMHFWLRQ E\ EODFNV RI WKHLU LGHQWLW\ DQG SRVLWLRQ KDV EHHQ D UHDOLW\ LW ZRXOG VHHP WKDW WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV QRZ VRPHZKDW DOn OHYLDWHG +RZHYHU LW VHHPV WKDW H[FHVVLYH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV KDYH EHHQ PDGH RQ WKH EDVLV RI VXFK GDWD LQ WKH SDVW DQG LQVXIILFLHQW FRQVLGHUDWLRQ KDV EHHQ JLYHQ WR WKH HIIHFWV RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQ ,W KDV EHFRPH YHU\ FOHDU WKDW WKH FKLOGUHQ ZHUH UHDFWLQJ YHU\ GLIIHUHQWO\ LQ WKH VLWXDWLRQ GHSHQGLQJ RQ ZKR WKH H[SHULPHQWHU ZDV 7KLV OHDGV WR WKH FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI VRPH LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU VFKRROV )XUWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ LV QHHGHG RQ KRZ WKH

PAGE 68

c IDFWRUV RI UDFH DQG VH[ DIIHFW WKH FKLOGUHQnV UHVSRQVHV WR WKH WHDFKHU DQG WKH VFKRRO VLWXDWLRQ ZKHUH WKH WHDFKHU LV RIWHQ D ZKLWH IHPDOH +RZn HYHU FRQVLGHUDEO\ PRUH HYLGHQFH ZRXOG EH QHHGHG EHIRUH VXFK D TXHVn WLRQ FDQ EH VHULRXVO\ FRQVLGHUHG

PAGE 69

5()(5(1&(6 $OOSRUW *RUGRQ 7KH 1DWXUH RI 3UHMXGLFH 'RXEOHGD\ DQG &R *DUGHQ &LW\ 1HZ
PAGE 70

&URRNV 5RODQG 7KH HIIHFWV RI DQ LQWHUUDFLDO SUHVFKRRO SURJUDP XSRQ UDFLDO SUHIHUHQFH NQRZOHGJH RI UDFLDO GLIIHUHQFHV DQG UDFLDO LGHQWLILFDWLRQ B6RFLDO ,VVXHV 'DYLV $OOLVRQ DQG -RKQ 'ROODUG &KLOGUHQ RI %RQGDJH 7KH 3HUVRQDOLW\ 'HYHORSPHQW RI 1HJUR
PAGE 71

-DQLV 0DKO .DJDQ DQG 5 +ROW 3HUVRQDOLW\ '\QDPLFV 'HYHORSPHQW DQG $VVHVVPHQW +DUFRXUW %UDFH DQG :RUOG ,QF 1HZ
PAGE 72

3URVKDQVN\ +DUROG DQG 3HJJ\ 1HZWRQ 7KH QDWXUH DQG PHDQLQJ RI 1HJUR VHOILGHQWLW\ 3XEOLVKHG LQ 0DUWLQ 'HXWVFK ,UZLQ .DW] DQG $UWKXU -HQVHQ HGV 6RFLDO &ODVV 5DFH DQG 3V\FKROR JLFDO 'HYHORSPHQW +ROW 5LQHKDUW DQG :LQVWRQ ,QF 1HZ
PAGE 73

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ .DWULQH *HKD .LUQ ZDV ERUQ RQ $XJXVW LQ 'HWURLW 0LFKLJDQ 6KH ODWHU OLYHG LQ -RKQVWRZQ 3HQQV\OYDQLD ZKHUH VKH JUDGXFDWHG IURP -RKQVWRZQ &HQWUDO +LJK 6FKRRO LQ 6KH UHFHLYHG WKH GHJUHH RI %DFKHORU RI $UWV IURP &KDWKDP &ROOHJH LQ 3LWWVEXUJK 3HQQV\OYDQLD LQ $W &KDWKDP VKH UHFHLYHG WKH 3V\FKRORJ\ 'HSDUWPHQW $ZDUG IRU 2XWVWDQGLQJ ,QYROYHPHQW LQ 3V\FKRORJ\ 0V .LUQ UHFHLYHG WKH GHJUHH RI 0DVWHU RI $UWV LQ SV\FKRORJ\ IURP WKH 8QLYHUn VLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ -XQH 'XULQJ WKDW \HDU VKH VHUYHG DV D JUDGXDWH WHDFKLQJ DVVLVWDQW IRU WKH SV\FKRORJ\ GHSDUWPHQW ,Q 6HSWHPn EHU RI VKH ZDV DZDUGHG D IHOORZVKLS E\ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 3XEOLF +HDOWK 6HUYLFH ,Q $XJXVW VKH FRPSOHWHG D \HDUORQJ LQWHUQn VKLS LQ FOLQLFDO DQG FRPPXQLW\ SV\FKRORJ\ DW WKH 0DOFROP %OLVV 0HQWDO +HDOWK &HQWHU LQ 6W /RXLV 0LVVRXUL 6KH UHFHLYHG WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ IURP WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 'HFHPEHU 6KH LV PDUULHG WR 6WHYHQ 3 .LUQ

PAGE 74

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

PAGE 75

, FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 1RUPDQ 1 0DUNHW $VVRFLDWH 3URIHVVRU RI 6SHHFK FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 5REHUW & =LOOHU 3URIHVVRU RI 3V\FKRORJ\ 7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI 3V\FKRORJ\ LQ WKH &ROOHJH RI $UWV DQG 6FLHQFHV DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH &RXQFLO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 'HFHPEHU 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 76

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


RACIAL IDENTIFICATION AND PREFERENCE
IN YOUNG CHILDREN AS A FUNCTION OF
RACE AND SEX OF THE EXPERIMENTER AND CHILD
By
KATRINE GEHA KIRN
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE
COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1973

DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to the day when no one asks which doll
is a nice color.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author extends sincere thanks to the kindergarten teachers
and the principals of Glen Springs, Rawlings, and Prairie View
Elementary Schools in Gainesville, Florida. Also, special thanks go
to Doug Freeman, Vicki Johnson, Karen Maitland, and Keith Williams
for their hard work as experimenters. Every committee member is
thanked for his help and interest, especially Marvin Shaw who overcame
considerable obstacles to offer his assistance.
And finally, to Steve, who lived with this study as well as his own,
and yet was able to serve as a fine critic and a calm source of support.
in

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ABSTRACT -vii
I. INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY 1
Introduction 1
Review of the Literature 2
Statement of the Problem and Hypotheses 20
H. METHOD 22
Subjects 22
Experiments 22
Experimental Design 22
Procedure 23
III. RESULTS 27
IV. DISCUSSION 52
REFERENCES 60
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 64
IV

LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Experimental Design 24
2. Clark and Clark (1958) Data Compared with
Current Data 28
3. Results of Analysis of Variance on Initial
Preference Scores 30
4. Results of Analysis of Variance on Preference
Scores, Condition I 35
5. Results of Analysis of Variance on Preference
Scores, Condition II 37
6. Choice of Pretty versus Not Pretty t-test Results -39.
7. Results of Analysis of Variance on Accuracy
Scores, Condition I -----40
8. Results of Analysis of Variance on Accuracy
Scores, Condition II 44
9. Results of Analysis of Variance on Self-
Identification Scores, Condition I 47
10. Results of Analysis of Variance on Self-
Identification Scores, Condition II 49
v

LIST OF FIGURES
r
Page
1. Subject Race by Subject Sex by Experimenter
Sex, Initial Preference 31
2. Subject Race by Experimenter Race by
Experimenter Sex, Initial Preference 32
3. Subject Sex by Experimenter Race by
Experimenter Sex, Initial Preference 34
4. Subject Race by Subject Sex by Experimenter
Sex, Preference, Condition I 36
5. Subject Race by Experimenter Race, Accuracy,
Condition I 42
6. Subject Race by Subject Sex by Experimenter
Race by Experimenter Sex, Accuracy, Condition I 43
7. Subject Sex by Experimenter Race, Accuracy,
Condition II 45
8. Subject Race by Subject Sex, Self-Identification,
Condition I 48
9. Subject Race by Subject Sex, Self-Identification,
Condition II 51
vi

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
RACIAL IDENTIFICATION AND PREFERENCE
IN YOUNG CHILDREN AS A FUNCTION OF
RACE AND SEX OF THE EXPERIMENTER AND CHILD
By
Katrine Geha Kirn
December, 1973
Chairman: Marvin E. Shaw, Ph. D.
Cochairman: Paul Satz, Ph. D.
Major Department: Psychology
A considerable amount of research concerning racial awareness,
identification, and preference in young children has been conducted
since 1939. The results of this research included the findings that
children were able to make racial discriminations as early as age three
and that a high degree of racial awareness was developed by age five.
It was also found that black children rejected black dolls and puppets and
photographs of blacks and attributed negative characteristics to blacks.
Black children identified themselves as white significantly more often
than they identified themselves as black, and they often became upset
when asked to make a racial self-identification. These results were
Vll

interpreted to mean that black children have a negative self-image.
The major purposes of the present study were to determine how recent
social changes have affected this self-image of black children and to de¬
termine whether or not changes in the experimental situation (i. e. , race
and sex of the experimenter) could affect experimental results.
Subjects were fifty-six black and fifty-six white children including
an equal number of males and females who had been enrolled in an inte¬
grated kindergarten for almost a full academic year. A black female,
a white female, a black male, and a white male experimenter were used.
Each subject was presented with four identical dolls, two black with
black hair and two white with yellow hair. Subjects were first invited to
pick up any doll to play with. Then each subject was asked to give the
experimenter the doll he (she) would "like to play with, " and the doll "that
is a nice doll, " "that looks bad, " "that is a nice color, " "that looks like a
white child, " "that looks like a colored child, " "that looks like a Negro
child, " "that looks like you. " Subjects were then presented with a second
set of dolls identical to the first except that one black doll and one white
doll were dressed in clean, new smocks and one black and one white doll
were dressed in torn, dirty smocks to indicate a socioeconomic dif¬
ference.
It was hypothesized that black subjects would prefer the black dolls
and identify themselves with the black dolls significantly more often
than in previous studies. It was also hypothesized that black subjects
would show a greater preference for the doll of their own race when the
viii

experimenter was of the same race. It was also expected that all sub¬
jects would prefer the high status doll. No hypothesis could be made
regarding the effects of the interaction of race and sex of the experi¬
menter and child.
The results supported the first two hypotheses. Several conclu¬
sions were made on the basis of the results. A significant increase in
preference for black by black subjects was found in relation to a previous
study. Black subjects preferred black significantly more than white
subjects. White subjects identified themselves with the appropriately
colored doll significantly more often than black subjects. Racial pref¬
erence, accuracy, and identification were found to vary in a complex way
as a function of the race and sex of the experimenter and child. It was
concluded that the results at least in part indicate the subject's response
to the experimental situation, since the results varied with changes in the
situation. Therefore, it would seem that conclusions regarding the self-
image of black children on the basis of such data must be made cautiously
and it should be kept in mind that generalizations on the basis of such
data may be tenuous.
IX

1
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY
Introduction
"In any society in which ethnic group membership carries some
connotation of inferiority or superiority, the social hopelessness of
those in a discredited minority group is transmitted to their children"
(Landreth, 1967, p. 291). An assumed inferiority of the Negro
certainly pre-dates the American society. In 1758, Linnaeus described
the African variety of man as being phlegmatic, indulgent, crafty, lazy,
and negligent (Borgatta and Lambert, 19 68). Although knowledge of
racial characteristics has increased since the eighteenth century, some
beliefs about the inherited inferiority of the Negro still persist. Sev¬
eral studies (Clark and Clark, 1939; Radke and Trager, 1950) have shown
that black children as young as four years of age seem to be aware of
the undesirable quality of their skin color. Black children preferred
white to black companions (Landreth and Johnson, 1953); they said a
white doll was prettier than the black one and they would prefer to be like
the white one (Radke and Trager, 1950).
However, in the years since the Supreme Court decisions making
integration compulsory in schools and other public places, much has

2
happened to the American Negro. Early civil rights sit-ins have pre¬
sumably resulted in the development of the concepts of pride and
dignity in blackness. The notion of Black Power, "black is beautiful",
and the Afro-American movement have been aimed at improving both
the actual position and the self-image of the black. The most obvious
result of these efforts has been the acceptance of the preference to be
called black rather than Negro or colored. However, there is some ques¬
tion as to whether or not the apparent changes in the self-attitudes of
blacks have yet been internalized. Have the self-images of black chil¬
dren changed through the efforts to develop black pride? Do they no
longer reject the black doll, a behavior which has been interpreted as a
rejection of their own blackness?
Review of the Literature
The reality of color is an inescapable fact for the American Negro
in that it becomes an important part of the concept of the self. As
Seward pointed out, "color is inherent in the concept of 'self', as aware¬
ness emerges in a race-conscious social context which assigns values to
the perception of color" (1956, p. 129). Allport (1954) and Proshansky and
Newton (1966) all considered the preschool and early elementary school
years (ages three to seven) as the crucial period for the development of
the child's feelings about himself and about those who are ethnically
different. During these years the child becomes aware of racial differences,

3
learns the labels, and learns the evaluative connotations of these labels.
Thus, the research on racial identification and awareness has largely-
concentrated on these early years.
The awareness of racial differences has been found as early as age
three (Clark and Clark, 1958; Stevenson and Stewart, 1958; Morland,
1958; Stevenson and Stevenson, I960). The degree of awareness increased
steadily until age six or seven; by this age, all children were able to make
accurate racial identifications (Clark and Clark, 1958; Morland, 1958).
While the ability to make racial discriminations has occurred as early as
age three, it was during the fourth year that a high awareness of race was
found (Goodman, 1952). Goodman (1952) found in a study of nursery
school children that a high degree of awareness of racial differences did
not occur before the age of four years, three months, while low aware¬
ness did not occur in subjects older than four years, eleven months.
Clark and Clark (1958) also proposed that the time between four and five
years of age may be the crucial period in the development of racial
attitudes. Thus, it has been established that children are aware of racial
differences and can make racial discriminations by age five.
As Clark (1955) pointed out, the concept of racial awareness must
be considered conjointly with the concept of racial preference: "The
child. . . cannot learn what racial group he belongs to without being
involved in a larger pattern of emotions, conflicts, and desires which are
part of his growing knowledge of what society thinks about his race"
(p. 23). Thus, as the child learns racial labels, he also learns that

4
positive and negative values are attached to those labels. Research has
shown that black children apparently have learned the negative value of
their own racial identity and have assimilated this into their self-concepts.
Kenneth and Mamie Clark studied racial awareness and identifi¬
cation in young children and the value attached to races through what
they termed the Dolls Test (Clark and Clark, 1958). Four dolls were
used, two black and two white with black and yellow hair respectively. The
dolls were clad only in diapers, so that there could be no sex identifica¬
tion. Children were asked to give the experimenter the doll "that you
would like to play with, . . . that is a nice doll, . . . that looks bad, . . .
that is a nice color, . . . that looks like a white child, . . . that looks
like a colored child, . . . that looks like a Negro child, . . .that looks
like you" in that order. Questions one through four were to indicate
racial preferences, questions five through seven racial awareness, and q
question eight self-identification. The preference questions were given
first, because it was found that once the child had identified himself with
a doll, he tended to show preference for that doll; the experimenters
postulated that in these cases they were not measuring racial preference,
but rather ego-involvement (Clark and Clark, 1958).
Black children of ages three through seven were tested with this
method; southern children were taken from segregated schools, northern
children from mixes schools. The results showed that ninety-four per¬
cent of the children correctly identified the white doll, ninety-three per¬
cent identified the colored doll, and seventy-two percent correctly chose

5
the Negro doll. Thus, it was concluded that the concept of race had been
formed. On the self-identification question, thirty-three percent of the
children identified themselves with the white doll, while sixty-six percent
of the children chose the black doll. The difference was significant and
the experimenters concluded that this indicated that some black children
wished to be white. The criticism has been made that some of the lighter
children were actually closer to the white doll in color; however, even
among the darkest children, only seventy-five percent identified them¬
selves with the black doll. Thus, it is clear that among some children
there was a problem in racial self-identification. Furthermore, the chil¬
dren were found to consistently reject the black doll and prefer the white
doll. There were more northern children who saw the black doll as bad
(seventy-one percent), while forty-nine percent of the southern children
saw the black doll as bad. Rejection of the child's own race was still the
norm. No testing was done with white children.
Although criticisms may be made of this study, the spontaneous com¬
ments of the children in the testing situation left little doubt that the
research revealed some important facts about the self-image of black chil¬
dren. In some cases, children ran out of the room crying when asked to
make the self-identification. There were numerous comments about black
being dirty and white being clean. Children tried to explain away their
blackness; one said he had burned himself that morning, another said he
had gotten suntanned on vacation.
In another study (Clark and Clark, 19 50), a coloring test was used

6
to give children a wider range of responses. Children were given a sheet
of paper with drawings of a leaf, an apple, an orange, a mouse, a boy,
and a girl, plus a box of twenty-four colored crayons, including brown,
black, white, yellow, pink, and tan. Children were asked to color the
objects to det ermine whether or not they knew what color things really
were; children were then instructed to color the appropriate sex drawing
the color that they were and the opposite sex drawing the color that they
would like little girls or boys to be. Many of the children spent a long time
choosing the crayon for skin color, sometimes choosing one and then ex¬
changing it for a lighter color. Some of the children who had been coloring
carefully, scribbled over the drawing representing themselves. A slight
majority of the children did not use brown or black, but rather used a
lighter color or some bizarre color such as red or green. This study also
indicated that black children were rejecting their skin color or feeling
some conflict over skin color.
Clark (1955) hypothesized a conflict between the need for self-esteem-
and the awareness that dark skin color is a basis for rejection by society.
Children assimilate prevailing social attitudes, see that they are identi¬
fied with something which is rejected, and consequently reject themselves.
The result is a conflict about oneself quite early in development, as
early as three years. Older children were found to prefer light brown
over either black or white. Clark saw this as a compromise to resolve the
conflict of one's inevitable blackness. Clark continued to build his case
by stating that black psychiatric cases may have delusions of being white

7
or may deny their racial ancestry. Thus, Clark concluded that a self-
hatred develops which may result in aggression, delinquency, submissive¬
ness, over-compensation in achievement, but always a general defeatist
attitude and lowering of aspiration.
Regardless of the theoretical explanations, some very specific con¬
clusions can be made from the preceding studies. It was demonstrated
that children were able to correctly identify racial differences as early as
age three. In addition, black children rejected black and preferred white
as a skin color for dolls and for drawings. Finally black children some¬
times became upset when asked to make racial self-identifications.
One may feel it is necessary to accept Clark's work with some caution
since he is black himself. However, other investigators also concluded
that there is a poor self-image among black children. Horowitz (1939)
studied racial preferences in a rural area using black children from
grades one through five. Children were given a group of photographs of
black, white, and Filipino boys and girls; they were asked to show the ex¬
perimenter all those photographs of persons they would like to play with,
have for a cousin, sit next to at school, not be allowed to play with and so
on. Photographs of black children were consistently rejected and race
was found to be even more important than sex in making choices; a white
boy would prefer a white girl as a playmate rather than play with a black
boy.
Johnson (1941) studied blacks between the ages of twelve and twenty,
living in the rural South. Subjects were given six racial categories and

8
were asked to use these categories to describe people in thirty value-
judgment situation. Johnson found that black was used disproportionately
for negative judgments. For instance, forty percent of the boys chose
black for the "ugliest girl you know, " while eleven percent chose yellow,
and seven percent chose light brown. Forty-three percent of the boys and
twenty-three percent of the girls indicated black as the color of the "mean¬
est boy (girl) you know. " The experimenters reported spontaneous com¬
ments by subjects such as "black is ugly, " "black people are mean, "
"black people are evil. " The conclusion was that the judgments made in
the experimental situations were based on stereotypes rather than actual
experience.
Radke and Trager (1°50) and.Radke, Sutherland, and Rosenberg (1950)
found that black children showed a preference for white dolls and gave un¬
desirable descriptions to photographs of blacks more frequently than did
white children, so that black children seemed to be attributing more nega¬
tive value to themselves than did the white children. Goodman (1952)
found that nine percent of the black children in her sample expressed hos¬
tility toward whites, while twenty-four percent expressed hostility toward
their own race; thirty-three percent of the white children expressed hostility
toward blacks, but none of the white children studied was hostile toward his
own race. Stevenson and Stewart (1958) found that black children
perceived other black children as aggressive, bad, and those "whom
other children fear" significantly more often than white children attributed
these characteristics to other white children. Both black and white

9
subjects in this study most often chose white children as "winners in a
game. " Morland (1962) found that sixty percent of the black children
studied preferred to play with white children, while only ten percent of
the white children preferred to play with blacks.
Thus, it can be seen that other researchers in addition to the Clarks
have found that black children preferred white dolls and photographs and
rejected black dolls and photographs. Black children exhibited hostility
toward blacks and attributed negative characteristics to blacks, saying
they preferred to play with white children.
It was also found that children associate a socioeconomic class with
race. Radke and Trager (1950) asked five-to eight-year-old children to
choose a house for a white and a black doll, given a "good" house and a
"poor" house. Eighty-two percent of the white children and sixty-seven
percent of the black children gave the "poor" house to the black doll;
seventy-seven percent of the white children and sixty percent of the black -
children gave the "good" house to the white doll. Thus, it would seem
that children of both races had assimilated and accepted the inferior
social status of the black.
Landreth and Johnson (1953) found socioeconomic class to be a
major factor in children's racial attitudes. Five-year-old children were
invited to complete a picture of a person engaged in some activity by
adding one of three insets; the insets were identical except that the skin
color of the person was either white, brown, or black. Children of
professional parents showed no significant differences in choice of color.

10
Children of unskilled workers, both black and white, chose the white¬
skinned inset significantly more often than the dark-skinned ones. The
experimenters concluded that value associated with color may depend
largely on experience; they determined that working class parents are
more likely to instill ethnic prejudice than are parents with more educa¬
tion.
In summary, studies in the 1940's and 1950's have consistently
shown that black children rejected black images in the forms of dolls and
photographs. In addition, black children assigned themselves negative
personality attributes and associated black skin color with poor socio¬
economic conditions. White children were also rejecting of black skin
color; however, some studies found white children less negative towards
blacks than the blacks themselves. One study found that children of
professional parents did not discriminate among skin colors, while both
black and white children of unskilled workers preferred white.
In the numerous attempts in the literature to explain the phenome¬
non of negative self-images in black children, part of the problem has
been attributed to the experience of being poor and lower class. Sewell
(1961) found that healthy personality traits on the California Test of
Personality were more frequent in children of higher socioeconomic class
However, Watson (1966) reported that children were unable to ascribe
class or class-related activities before the sixth grade; the inferior
status of the black could be detected by age four. A study of Amish chil¬
dren found that they felt persecuted, inferior, and not as strong as other

11
children (Clark, 1955). Children of Italian-born parents demonstrated
a sense of inferiority and rejection, poor social adjustment, and emo¬
tional instability (Clark, 1955). Lewin (1948) has reviewed the phenome¬
non of self-hatred among Jews. It seemed that all minority children
suffered some damage --a sense of inferiority, personal humilation,
and confusion about self-worth (Clark, 1955). Of course, the situation
is especially acute for the black child, since he can never escape his badge
of inferiority.
In Lewin's (1948) theoretical system the black was the most extreme
case of self-hate resulting from belonging to a group. Belonging to a
socially underprivileged group may seem to be an impediment to reaching
some future goal; however, the individual is forced to remain a part of
that group by external forces. The individual may try to set himself apart
from the group; when he is unable to, self-hatred develops. The hatred
is a product of internalized values of the higher strata, including the low
esteem of the majority for the lower class group. Lewin interpreted the
problem to be pathological, but in persons of normal mental health he
accepted the problem as social psychological. Self-hate can be overcome
when the feelings of group inferiority and inequality are no longer a
reality. Lewin judged neurotic trends to stem from the lack of adjustment
to group inferiority.
Much of the self-hate and negative self-image among blacks appears
to have been learned from the family as well as from the outside white
world. A child builds his sense of self from responses made to him by

12
other people; he learns how others perceive him through their acts and
attitudes, and comes to perceive himself in the same way (White, 19 64).
Many of the black families are disrupted; the mother or maternal grand¬
mother is the dominant family figure. Children from broken homes
frequently feel unwanted, since they may well be a burden on the mother
and are often shuffled from place to place; these children develop an
insatiable need for reassurance (Kluckhohn and Murray, 1967). The black
home may often be fatherless because the father was unable to meet the
image of being a good provider and left out of desperation (Grossack, 1963).
Even if the father is physically present, he is likely to be unimportant,
since the mother or mother-substitute serves as the dominant family figure.
For male children, there is no strong male figure to serve for sex role
identification. Furthermore, mothers consistently prefer their daughters
in these homes, leaving their sons to feel inferior. To overcome this,
boys may identify with the maternal authority and subsequently feel some
sense of inadequacy in terms of masculinity. The girls, in an attempt
to live up to their mothers' high demands, may show extreme conformity
to the maternal expectations (Kluckhohn and Murray, 1967). In addition,
parents serve as primary models for in-group identification. Black chil¬
dren cannot see their parents as capable and powerful protectors; in the
face of v/hite society the parents appear intimidated and impotent
(Shane, 1960).
Being black in a black family and subculture, the child finds few
black leaders with whom to identify; the white culture has obvious

13
advantages. The development of a secure self-system in blacks is ob¬
structed by the acceptance of the white value system, and thus the indi¬
vidual and the group measured worth by closeness to white features. The
lighter the skin, the straighter the hair, the narrower the nose and mouth,
the more self-esteem the black once developed (Kluckhohn and Murray,
1967). A child who was black and very "African" in appearance may have
been looked upon with some scorn by family, friends, society at large,
and even by the child himself. This may have changed in the light of
black pride. However, in addition to a poor self-image and a disrupted
family, the black child is likely to live under marginal social conditions,
with a lack of privacy, limited opportunities to explore the outside world,
the lack of an aesthetically pleasing environment, and so on (Goldstein,
1967).
Thus, it can be seen that the poor self-image in black children de¬
veloped for a variety of reasons. One suggested cause was the experience
of being poor and of the lower socioeconomic class; this experience was
found to have generated feelings of inferiority among Amish, Italian-
Americans, and Jews as well as blacks. Lewin (1948) hypothesized that
the black perceived himself as a member of a socially underpriviled
group and tried to set himself apart from that group. When this was im¬
possible, the black internalized the values of the privileged majority and
self-hate developed. Black families have often been disrupted, with no
strong male figure for sex role identification. Black children saw their
families, especially fathers, as impotent in the face of white society, so

14
that in-group identification and pride was hindered. Finally, the black
child saw whites and those closer to being whites as having more social
and economic advantages.
The black child may react to these factors in ways other than self-
hate or a poor self-image. For some, the result has been extreme
submissiveness, playing a passive and servile role. However, passive
acceptance of the role dictated by the white society is a poor adjustment.
A report by the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (1957) sug¬
gested that the compliant behavior merely masks anger, fear, and re¬
sentment. In studying Thematic Apperception Test responses, Mussen
(1953) found that white boys saw the world as a friendly place, while
black boys saw it as hostile and threatening. Palermo (1959) found black
children in the fourth to the sixth grades expressed more anxiety than
white children. Kardiner and Ovesey (1962) reported denial and dis¬
tortion of reality evidenced in the Rorschach protocols of black adults.
Another reaction to the frustration of the situation has been an attempt
to escape through drugs or alcohol (Drake, 1965). The light-skinned
black sometimes completely escaped his group by "passing" as white
(Drake, 1965). Another means of dealing with rejection has been aggres¬
sion against the out-group; Clark (1955) asserted that aggression through
crime has been the black's way of rejecting white society. This seems
to ignore the fact that crime is generally associated with poverty.
Nevertheless, delinquency and crime are not uncommon in black neigh¬
borhoods.

15
The problems of the black child have been seen initially in the
schools. The child comes to school with poor verbal skills, the one
ability which is extremely important in our education system.
Goldstein (1967) reported that low-income blacks came to the first grade
well-dressed and eager; by the fourth grade they were exhibiting problems
in behavior and attitude. The child goes to school having experienced
only punishment as dicipline and is unaccustomed to the middle class
system of social rewards. The child quickly learns that bad behavior brings
punishment and is his only way of getting the teacher's attention. Other chil¬
dren get special privileges from the teacher, while the black child may
be rejected and denied privileges because of his poor behavior, his
clothes, his dialect, or perhaps his skin color. Thus, the child's self-
image worsens, he becomes aggressive and eventually wants to quit school
(Davis and Dollard, 1940). The teacher may expect the child to be a
poor student and this expentancy has been demonstrated to increase the
probability of failure (Janis et al. , 1969). And so, a developing child
who already has a poor sense of self-worth is put into a school situation
which continually shows him that he is not as good as middle class white
children; the black child becomes caught in a whirlpool of failure, re¬
jection, and feelings of inferiority.
And so, the reactions to being black and a member of an under¬
privileged minority may include passive acceptance of an inferior role,
anxiety, and distortion of reality. There may be an attempt to escape
through alcohol, drugs, or by "passing. " Aggression in the form of crime

16
may result. Such reactions may lead to a further worsening of the self-
image.
One of the assumptions underlying school desegregation was that
it would improve the position of the black child by providing better educa¬
tion; it was also expected that interracial contact would improve race
relations. One might also assume that good relations with white students
would decrease inferiority feelings among black children. Williams and
Byars (1970) found trends toward increased self-esteem among black
eleventh-graders after integration. However, there has been no con¬
sistent evidence to show that integration has improved racial attitudes;
simple interracial contact has apparently not brought about greater toler¬
ance or acceptance in the schools (Carithers, 1970). Thus, while one
study may find increased self-esteem among black children through white
acceptance and positive experience with desegregation, another study
might just as easily find decreased self-esteem or no change as a result
of integration. Therefore, it is difficult to determine as yet just what
effect desegregation has had in relation to self-image among blacks.
Thus, the question remains of what effect the social changes of
recent years have had on the self-image of black children. Findings of
recent studies have been somewhat inconsistent and contradictory.
Butts (1963) reported that the misperception of skin color correlated
with low self-esteem; children high in self-esteem did not incorrectly
identify their skin color. In a replication of the Dolls Test, Gregor
and McPherson (1966) found black children rejecting the black doll.

17
Greenwald and Oppenheim (1968) added a Mulatto doll and found that more
black children were able to correctly identify themselves than in the
Clark studies, which used only black and white dolls. However, the ma¬
jority of the children still rejected the black (and brown) dolls; moreover,
the experimenters were white and the Clark questions were changed, mak¬
ing this an inexact replication. Using puppets and slightly different ques¬
tions, Asher and Allen (1969) also found that black children preferred
white and rejected black. Crooks (1970) also replicated the Clark studies
and found essentially identical results; however, when children who had
been in an interracial pre-school were tested, black children showed a
greater preference for black than did children who had not been in any pre¬
school. Blakely and Somerville (1970) questioned children in grades one
through twelve concerning their preference of racial names; most blacks
preferred Negro or Afro-American to black. Sciara (1971) asked black
males in the fourth grade to assign photographs of light, medium, and
dark-skinned individuals to low and high status jobs; results were highly
significant with light-skinned persons being assigned high status jobs and
dark-skinned persons low status ones.
Only two recent studies have shown a positive change in racial pref¬
erence. Using a perfect replication of the Clark (1955) method, Hraba and
Grant (1970) found significant differences between their results and those
of the Clark study. At all ages tested, black children preferred the black
dolls and identified themselves with the black doll. The researchers
stated that the race of the experimenter was found to be unimportant, but

18
they did not specify how this was determined. Hraba and Grant viewed
their findings with some limitations, since the only testing was done in
Lincoln, Nebraska; they pointed out that the city may be somewhat unique.
Also, the city had just completed a long black pride campaign, suggesting
that such programs might have a positive effect for some time period.
The researchers did find that light children were just as likely as darker
children to choose the black doll. Similar findings were reported by
Harris and Braun (1971). Using puppets and slightly different questions
and order of questioning, they found that black children chose the black
puppets regardless of sex or socioeconomic class. The experimenter was
a black female and research was conducted in the Philadelphia, Penn¬
sylvania area. Thus, on the basis of these two studies, it might be con¬
cluded that a complete reversal of racial preference has occurred in black
children. However, variations in methods and geographical areas may
have had some effect.
To summarize the research of the 1960's and early 1970's, several
studies have found that black children prefer white dolls or puppets, while
two studies found that black children prefer black. In one study, more
children were able to correctly identify themselves by skin color when a
brown doll was added to the black and white dolls; however, on preference
questions the black children still preferred the white doll. Children who
had been in an integrated pre-school indicated a slightly higher preference
for black than children who had not been in any pre-school. Black chil¬
dren associated photographs of dark-skinned people with low status jobs.

19
Variations in method, including stimulus materials, questions asked, sex
of the child, and race and sex of the experimenter, combined with incon¬
sistent results across experiments make conclusions on the basis of this
more recent data somewhat difficult.
Recent research on the effects of race and sex of the experimenter
on experimental results has led to the conclusion that this can be an im¬
portant factor. In a study involving imitation of television models,
Nicholas et al. (1971, a) found that white girls modeled adult males of both
sexes, while black girls imitated black females. Nicholas et al. (1971, b)
also found that black subjects imitated female models less than white sub¬
jects; no race-sex interactions were found. Doll, Fagot, and Himbert
(1971) in a study of sex-role preference and black and white lower class
males, found a significant interaction between sex of the experimenter and
race of the child. Strickland (1972) reported that black children were
significantly more willing to delay receiving a reward from a black ex¬
perimenter than they were with a white experimenter; white children pre¬
ferred the delayed reward regardless of experimenter race. These '
studies clearly indicate that the race and sex of the experimenter can have
a significant effect on experimental situations. Although these studies do
not deal with racial identification and preference, the indication is that
some experimenter effect can be expected.
In summary, the research of the last thirty years has established
some facts in the area of racial identification and preference in young chil¬
dren. Children as young as three years old were able to make racial

20
discriminations; by five years a high degree of racial awareness had
developed. Children had also learned the values attached to races, so
that black was associated with mean, ugly, poor houses, and low status
jobs. Black children rejected dolls with black skin, photographs of
black children, and black puppets and preferred white; only two recent
studies found black children preferring black. Black children often become
upset when asked to identify themselves in relation to race; a significant
number of black children identified themselves as white. Recent studies
in areas other than racial preference have found that race and sex of
the experimenter had a significant effect on experimental results; but this
variable was not examined systematically in relation to racial identifi¬
cation and preference. In addition, recent research in the area has
varied the methodology used to study racial identification and preference,
so that it is difficult to make comparisons with earlier research.
Statement of the Problem and Hypotheses
The present study had two major purposes. The first purpose was
to further examine the self-image of black children in order to determine
whether social changes have affected this self-image. To this end, an
exact replication of the Clark and Clark (1958) study was conducted so
that a measure of change could be made. The second major purpose was
to determine how the experimental situation could affect the results, since
the results of previous studies have been taken to be an indication of self-
image. To examine experiment er effects, male and female, black and
white experimenters were used. To further study how changes in the

21
experimental situation could affect the results, the test questions were
asked a second time with the dolls dressed to indicate high and low socio¬
economic class. An equal number of white children were tested so that
a comparison of black and white responses to the experimental situation
could be made.
The following hypotheses were offered as alternatives to the null
hypothesis:
1. Black subjects will prefer the black doll and
identify themselves with the black doll more
often than subjects in the Clark and Clark (1958)
study.
2. Black subjects will show a higher preference for
the black doll than will white subjects.
3. Subjects will show a higher preference for dolls of
their own racé when the experiment er is of the
same race.
4. All subjects will prefer the high status doll which is
of the same race preferred during the first set of
questions.
No predictions could be made regarding the effects of sex of the experi¬
menter or the interactions of race and sex of the experimenter and child.

22
CHAPTER II
METHOD
Subjects
Subjects were fifty-six white and fifty-six black children enrolled
in three Gainesville, Florida, elementary schools which have attempted
to maintain a racial balance. All subjects were in the kindergarten,
five years old, and had been in an integrated school environment for ap¬
proximately one academic year.
Experimenters
Four experimenters were used --a black female, a white female,
a black male, and a white male. All experimenters were first-year
graduate students, except for the black female who was a senior in the
undergraduate college. Each experimenter tested twenty-eight children
(seven black females, seven white females, seven black males, and
seven white males). Each experimenter was given written instructions
regarding the procedure; no information concerning experimental hy¬
potheses was given.
Experimental design
A 2X2X2X2 factorial design was used, with seven subjects in each

23
cell (see Table 1). Scores measuring four dependent variables were as
follows:
(1) Initial Preference -- number of children picking
up the black doll during the Initial Preference
condition.
(2) Preference Score -- number of times the black doll
was chosen in response to questions one, two and
four plus the number of times the white doll was
chosen in response to question three.
(3) Accuracy Score -- number of correct responses to
questions five, six, and seven,
(4) Self-Identification -- number of subjects choosing
the correct doll for their race.
Data were always examined from the viewpoint of preference for
black except when accuracy was involved.
Procedure
Experimenters were introduced to the children by the classroom
teacher, who explained that the children would be going with one of the ex¬
perimenters one at a time to play a short game. The experimenter took
each child to a corner of the school library, where they sat at a table and
four dolls were laid out in front of the child. The dolls were identical
except for skin color; two were brown-skinned with black hair and two
were white-skinned with blond hair. The dolls were clad in a flannel

Table 1
Experimental Design
Black Subject
White
Subject
Male
F emale
Male
F emale
Black
Male
7
7
7
7
Experimenter
F emale
7
7
7
7
White
Male
7
7
7
7
Experimenter
F emale
7
7
7
7

25
blanket during Condition I; no sex identification could be made. Dolls
were placed in front of the child in a randomly varied order, either
black-white-black-white or white-black-white-black. The child was told
that he could play with one of the dolls while the experimenter prepared
recording sheets and got ready to "play the game. " As an attempt to
obtain a purely behavioral measure of preference, the experimenter re¬
corded whether the child picked up a white doll, a black doll, or both;
this was termed initial preference.
The child was then asked the following questions, which are identi¬
cal to those used by Clark and Clark (1958):
1. Give me the doll that you would like to play with.
2. Give me the doll that is a nice doll.
3. Give me the doll that looks bad.
4. Give me the doll that is a nice color.
5. Give me the doll that looks like a white child.
6. Give me the doll that looks like a colored child.
7. Give me the doll that looks like a Negro child.
8. Give me the doll that looks like you.
The dolls for Condition I were then removed and the dolls for Condition
II were laid out. These four dolls were identical to the first four except for
dress. One black and one white were clad in a clean new smock which were
trimmed with lace, while one black and one white dollwere clad in smocks
which were torn and smeared with dirt. Thus, a socioeconomic status of
the dolls was implied. Dolls in the new smocks were termed Pretty (P) and

26
dolls in the torn smocks were termed Not Pretty (NP). The procedure
using this second set of dolls was identical to the procedure of Condition I;
the same set of eight questions were asked.
Throughout the testing, spontaneous comments made by the children
were recorded in writing by the experimenters. Children were thanked
and returned to their classroom when testing was completed.

27
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Two of the four hypotheses were partially supported by the
results. In addition, some new information was obtained.
Hypothesis 1: Black subjects will prefer the black doll and iden¬
tify themselves with the black doll more often than in the Clark and
Clark (1958) study.
In order to compare the current results with the Clark and Clark
(1958) data, percentages were computed for the response to each question;
percentages for questions one through four were based on the number of
times the black doll was chosen and percentages for questions five through
eight were based on the number of accurate responses. The Test For
Significance of Difference Between Two Proportions (Bruning and Kintz,
1968) was computed for each question (see Table 2). The only significant
differences in the results of the two studies were in response to question
one, "Give me the doll you would like to play with, " and question two,
"Give me the doll that is a nice doll. " The present study showed a sig¬
nificant increase in the preference for black on these two questions. On
the remaining preference questions (three and four) there was an increase
in the preference for black, but the difference was not significant. There
was not a significant increase in self-identification with the black doll.

28
Table 2
Clark and Clark (1958) Data Compar
Clark
ed with Current Data
Current Current
Preference:
Study
Black
White
1. like to play with
32%
54%*
29%**
2. a nice doll
38%
48%*
35%**
3. a bad doll
59%
57%
5 3%
4. a nice color
38%
43%
34%
Accuracy:
5. a white child
94%
89%
89%
6. a colored child
93%
91%
89%
7. a Negro child
72%
66%
72%
Self-Identification:
8. you
65%
69%
91%
^Significantly Different from Clark
❖ ^Significantly Different from Current Black

29
Clark and Clark used only black subjects; percentages for the current
white subjects are given in Table 2 for the purpose of comparison.
Whites identified with the appropriate color doll significantly more often
than black subjects.
Hypothesis 2: Black subjects will show a higher preference for the
black doll than will white subjects.
Results of Analysis of Variance on the Initial Preference scores are
shown in Table 3. Subject race was the only main effect found to be sig¬
nificant, with black subjects choosing the black doll more often than white
subjects (Black mean = 2. 07, White mean = 1. 41). Three second order
interactions were significant. The interaction of Subject Race by Sub¬
ject Sex by Experimenter Sex (Figure 1) showed that Black subjects did
not differ significantly with a Male or a Female Experimenter. White sub
jects, however, showed a greater preference for the black doll when the
experimenter was of the opposite sex.
The significance of the Subject Race by Experimenter Race by Ex¬
perimenter Sex interaction revealed that the response evoked by a White
Female experimenter and a Black Male Experimenter was essentially the
same; this was also true for the response evoked by the Black Female
experimenter and the White Male experimenter (see Figure 2). All sub¬
jects showed the same preference for the black doll with a Black Female
or White Male experimenter; Black subjects, however showed consider¬
ably greater preference than White subjects with the White Female and
Black Male experimenter. Subject Sex by Experimenter Race by

30
Table 3
Results of Analysis of Variance on Initial Preference Scores
s
Race
un
00
_s
Sex
1. 72
E
Race
0. 01
E
Sex
0.15
S
Race by S Sex
0. 05
£
Race by ERace
0.15
S
Sex by E Race
0. 48
S
Race by E Sex
0.15
S
Sex by E Sex
3. 72
E
Race by E Sex
0. 01
S
Sex by S Race by
E Race
1. 34
S
Race by S Sex by
E Sex
5. 01*
s
Race by E Race by
E Sex
5. 01*
£
Sex by E Race by
E Sex
5. 72*
s
Sex by S Race by
E Race by E Sex
1. 34
*p< .05, F> 3. 94
**p< .01, F> 6. 90

Mean Number
of Times
Black Chosen
Figure 1 Subject Race by Subject
Sex by Experimenter Sex,
Initial Preference

2. 0-
Mean Number
of Times
Black Chosen
1.0
Black Female 12
White Male E
White Female 12
Black Male E
1 r~ rrzz
Black S White S
Figure 2 Subject Race by Experimenter
Race by Experimenter Sex,
Initial Preference

33
Experimenter Sex interaction also shows that subjects responded dif¬
ferently to different experimenters (see Figure 3). When the experi¬
menter was Black, responses of Male and Female subjects were
essentially the same regardless of experimenter sex. However, when the
experimenter was White, subjects showed a higher preference for black
when the experimenter was of the opposite sex.
Results of the analysis on Preference scores for Condition I are
reported in Table 4. The main effect of subject race was again signifi¬
cant with Black subjects preferring the black doll more often than White
subjects (Black mean - 1.89, White mean = 1. 32). The interaction of
Subject Race by Subject Sex by Experimenter Sex was significant at the
.05 level (see Figure 4). Black Female subjects were most likely to pre¬
fer the black doll, while White Male subjects showed a greater preference
for black when the experimenter was Male. Black Male subjects were
especially affected by experimenter sex, showing almost as high a
preference for the black doll as Black Female subjects when the experi¬
menter was Male, but decreasing in preference with a Female experi¬
menter so that only White Male subjects had lower preference scores.
No significant differences were found among preference scores for Con¬
dition H; results are reported in Table 5.
Hypothesis 3j Subjects will show a higher preference for dolls of
their own race when the experimenter is of the same race.
This hypothesis was not supported by the data, which are reported
above. The interactions of race and sex were found to have more effect

Figure 3 Subject Sex by Experimenter
Race by Experimenter Sex,
Initial Preference

35
Table 4
Results of Analysis of Variance on Preference Scores,
Condition I
s
Race
F
4. 94*
s
Sex
1. 24
E_
Race
0. 02
E
Sex
2. 78
S
Race by S Sex
0. 69
S
Race by E Sex
0. 48
S
Race by .E Race
1. 56
S
Race by E Sex
0. 31
5
Sex by E Sex
0. 31
E
Race by IS Sex
3. 26
S
Race by S Sex by E Race
0. 02
S
Race by_S Sex by E Sex
4. 94*
S
Race by E^ Race by _E Sex
0. 94
S
Sex by IS Race by E Sex
0.48
S
Race by S Sex by IS Race
by E^ Sex
0. 17
*p < .05,
**p < .01,
F > 3. 94
F > 6. 90

2. 0.
Mean Number
of times
Black Chosen
1.0
Black Female S
White Female S
Black Male
Wliite Male
-i •
Male .E Female E
Figure 4 Subject Race by Subject Sex
by Experimenter Sex,
Preference, Condition I
\m |cn

37
Table 5
Results of Analysis of Variance on Preference Scores,
Condition II
s
Race
F
0. 28
s
Sex
2. 49
E
Race
0. 28
E
Sex
1. 73
S
Race by_S Sex
1. 11
S
Race by E Race
1. 11
S
Sex by E Race
0. 28
S
Sex by I£ Sex
0. 07
S
Race by E^ Sex
3. 39
E
Race by E Sex
1. 73
S
Race by S Sex by E Race
1, 11
S
Race by S Sex by E Sex
0. 62
S
Race by IC Race by E Sex
0. 69
S
Sex by JE Race by E Sex
0. 62
S
Race by S Sex by E Race by E Sex
1. 73
p < .05,
p c .01,
F > 3. 94
F > 6.90

38
than race alone. In fact, the highest performance scores were found
when the experimenter and subject were of different races. For Black
subjects, the highest preference for black was found with a White Female
experimenter; for White subjects the highest preference for black was
found with the Black Female experimenter. While the highest preference
was found with a Female experimenter of the opposite race as the subject,
the lowest preference was found with a Male experimenter of the opposite
race.
Hypothesis 4: All subjects will prefer the high status doll which is
of the same race preferred during the first set of questions.
This hypothesis was not supported. In examining the results of Con¬
dition II, t-tests were performed on the data for each subject group to
determine whether subjects chose Pretty (P) or Not Pretty (NP) dolls more
often. None of these t-tests was significant except for Black Female sub¬
jects (see Table 6). Black Female subjects preferred the Pretty doll at
the . 05 level of significance. Therefore, it was decided that P and NP
dolls did not constitute an important difference and P and NP dolls of each
color were considered together.
No hypotheses were formulated regarding the effect of sex and the
interactions of race and sex of the experimenter and child. It was found
that both race and sex interacted to form an important factor. Effects on
preference are cited above. The effects were seen especially in the
analysis of accuracy. Results of the analysis using accuracy scores for
Condition I are reported in Table 7. No main effect was significant

Table 6
Choice of Pretty versus Not Pretty t-test Results
White Male subjects
t = 0.489
White Female subjects
t = 0.740
Black Male subjects
t = 0.023
Black Female subjects
t = 2. 504*
*p<.05, df=54

40
Table 7
Results of Analysis of Variance on Accuracy Scores,
Condition I
s
Race
F
0. 89
s
Sex
0.89
E
Race
0. 89
E
Sex
3. 20
S
Race by S Sex
0. 36
S
Race by 13 Race
5. 69*
S
Sex by E Race
3. 20
S
Sex by E Sex
0. 09
S
Race by E Sex
0. 09
E
Race by E Sex
0. 09
S
Race by S Sex by _E Race
0. 80
S
Race by S Sex by E^ Sex
1. 42
S
Race by E Race by 13 Sex
0. 36
S
Sex by E Race by 13 Sex
0.-36
S
Race by S Sex by E^ Race by 13 Sex
7. 20*
*p < .05, F > 3.94
**p< .01, F > 6.90

41
The interaction of Subject Race by Experimenter Race was significant
at the . 05 level (see Figure 5). Subjects were more accurate when the
experimenter was of the same race. The interaction of Subject Race
by Subject Sex by Experimenter Race by Experimenter Sex was signifi¬
cant at the . 01 level (see Figure 6). With White experimenters, the
subject groups which were most and least accurate did not vary with the
experimenter sex. With White experiments, White Female subjects were
most accurate, followed by Black Females, White Males, and finally
Black Males. With a Black Male experimenter, White Male subjects were
least accurate. With a Black Female experimenter, Black Males were
most accurate and White Female subjects were least accurate. Overall,
the least accurate group was the Black Male subjects with the White
Female experimenter. The most accurate groups were White Male sub¬
jects with a Black Male experimenter, White Female subjects with a
White Male experimenter, and Black Male subjects with a Black Female
experimenter.
The analysis of the accuracy scores for Condition II are reported
in Table 8. Two main effects were significant. The effect of subject
race was significant at the . 01 level with White subjects more accurate
than Black subjects (White mean = 0. 91, Black mean = 0. 696. The effect
of subject sex was significant at the . 05 level with Female subjects more
accurate than Male subjects (Female mean = 0. 88, Male mean = 0. 73).
In addition, the interaction of Subject Sex by Experimenter Sex was signi¬
ficant at the . 05 level (See Figure 7). Female subjects were equally

White S
2. 0 .
Mean number of
Correct
Responses
1.0
t
Black S
Black E
White E
Figure 5 Subject Race by Experimenter
Race,
Accuracy, Condition I

43
Mean Number of
Correct
Responses
Black Black
Male E F emale E
2. 0 .
Mean Number of
Correct
Responses
1. 0 .
White Female
Black Female
White Male
Black Male
White White
Male E Female E
Figure 6 Subject Race by Subject Sex
by Experimenter Race by
Experimenter Sex,
Accuracy, Condition I

44
Table 8
Results of Analysis of Variance on Accuracy Scores,
Condition II
F
s
Race
9.00**
s
Sex
o
o
•Sr
E
Race
2. 25
E
Sex
1.00
S
Race by S Sex
2. 25
S
Race by Race
0. 00
s
Sex by E Race
4. 00*
s
Sex by E Sex
2. 25
s
Race by E Sex
0. 25
E
Race by E Sex
0. 00
S
Race by_S Sex by E Race
0. 25
S
Race by S Sex by E Sex
1.00
S
Race by E Race by E Sex
0. 25
s
Sex by E Race by E Sex
0. 25
s
Race by S Sex by _E Race by E^ Sex
1.00
*p < . 05, F > 3. 94
**p< .01, F 7 6. 90

Figure 7_ Subject Sex by Experimenter
Race,
Accuracy, Condition II

46
accurate regardless of the race of the experimenter. However, Male
subjects were less accurate with Black experimenters than with White
experimenters.
The effects of race and sex were also seen in the analysis of the
self-identification question. The results of the analysis of Self-
Identification in Condition I are reported in Table 9. Two main effects
were significant at the . 01 level. White Males were more accurate on
Self-Identification than Black Males (White mean = 0. 89, Black mean =
0. 50). In addition, Female subjects were more accurate in Self-Identifi¬
cation than Male subjects (Female mean = 0. 82, Male mean = 0. 57). The
interaction of these two variables, Subject Race by Subject Sex, was also
significant at the .01 level (see Figure 8). White subjects were equally
accurate whether Male or Female; Black Female subjects were more ac¬
curate than Black Male subjects.
The analysis of Self-identification for Condition II is reported in
Table 10. Three main effects were significant at the . 01 level. Subject
race had a significant effect, with White subjects more accurate in Self-
Identification than Black subjects (White mean = 1.91, Black mean = 1. 50).
Subject sex also had a significant effect, with Female subjects more ac¬
curate than Male subjects (Female mean = 1.82, Male mean = 1. 59).
Finally, the effect of sex of the experimenter also had a significant effect,
with more accurate Self-Identification being made with a Male experimen¬
ter than with a Female experimenter (Male mean = 1.80, Female mean =
1. 61). The interaction of Subject Race by Subject Sex was also significant

47
Table 9
Results of Analysis of Variance on Self-Identification Scores,
Condition I
F
S Race 27.92**
S Sex 11.31*
E Race 0. 23
E Sex 0.92
S Race by S Sex 11.31*
S Race by E Race 0.23
S Sex by E Race 0.23
S Race by _E Sex 0. 92
S Sex by E Sex 0.00
_E Race by E Sex 0.92
S Race by S Sex by E Race 0. 23
S Race by S Sex by E Sex 0.92
S Race by E Race by E Sex 0.92
S Sex by E Race by E Sex 0.92
S Race by S Sex by E Race by E Sex 0. 00
*p . 05, F> 3. 94
**p< .01, FJ* 6.90

Mean Number of
Correct
Responses
1. 0
Black
White
T
T
Male S Female S
Figure 8_ Subject Race by Subject Sex,
Self-Identification, Condition I
|w Iw

49
Table 10
Results of Analysis of Variance on Self-Identification Scores,
Condition II
F
S Race 35. 36**
S Sex 11.27**
Race 1. 66
E Sex 8.07**
S Race by S Sex 15.00**
S Race by E Race 1.67
S Sex by E Race 0.07
S Sex by E Sex 1.67
S Race by .E Sex 0. 60
_E Race by _E Sex 0. 60
S Race by_S Sex by E Race 0. 60
S Race by JS Sex by E Sex 0. 07
S Race by S Sex by E^ Sex 0. 60
S Sex by E^ Race by E^ Sex 0. 60
S Race by S Sex by E^ Race by _E Sex 0. 07
*p< .05, F 7 3.94
**p< .01, F 7 6.90

50
(see Figure 9). White subjects were not affected by sex of the experi¬
menter, while Black subjects made more accurate Self-Identification
responses with the Female experimenter than with the Male experimen¬
ter. These results are consistent with those of Condition I.
A chi-square was performed on the responses to "Give me the
doll that is a nice doll" and "Give me the doll that looks like you" to see
if children preferred and identified with the doll of the same color. It
had been assumed that a child who prefers one color and identifies with
a different color doll is revealing a poor self-image based on skin color.
No relationship was found between the responses to these questions (chi-
square = 5. 984, df = 9). Therefore, it can be concluded that the re¬
sponses to these two questions should not be used as a measure of a
child's self-image.
Finally, none of the spontaneous comments made by the children
had to do with their color or the color of the dolls. In fact, the children
said very little, but they were extremely cooperative in "playing the
game". No children cried, left the situation, or refused to participate.

Mean Number of
Correct
Responses
1. 0
White
Black
T |
Male S Female S
Figure 9 Subject Race by Subject Sex
Self-Identification, Condition II
|cn |cn

52
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
There are some very definite conclusions which can be made
from the present study.
1. There has been a significant increase in preference for
black by black children over the Clark and Clark (1958)
data.
2. Black subjects preferred black significantly more than
White subjects.
3. There was no significant difference in response to the
self-identification question in comparison with the Clark
and Clark data, while White subjects were significantly
more likely to identify themselves with the doll of their
color.
4. Racial preference, accuracy, and identification were found
to vary in an unpredicted and complicated way as a func¬
tion of the interaction of race and sex of the experimenters
and subjects.
5. The current data (and previous data) indicate a response
to the experimental situation, in that changes in the situation
resulted in different responses.

53
In a direct comparison with the Clark and Clark (1958) data it is
interesting to note that there has been a significant increase in the pre¬
ference for black on two of the four preference questions. This could
lead to the conclusion that the social changes of the past few years have
in fact improved the way blacks see themselves. There was no signifi¬
cant difference in self-identification, however, so that it would seem
that the black child is still rejecting his own color. When comparing
the data of black and white subjects of the current study in the same
fashion, it can be seen that whites and blacks differ significantly on the
same two preference questions as those which differ from the Clark data.
It is clear that Black subjects did show a greater preference for black,
further supporting the conclusion that black self-image may have im¬
proved. The White subjects were significantly more likely to identify
themselves with the doll of their own color, which may also indicate
that response of Black subjects in the self-identification question does in¬
dicate self-rejection. All of the three groups were equally accurate in
racial identification. Although this data supports some hypotheses, it
should be considered with some caution, given the major results of this
study. It can be accepted that Black subjects showed an increased pre¬
ference for black over the Clark data with no increase in self-identification
with black; however, it must be kept in mind that variables in the situation
did significantly affect the responses of the subjects.
Given the choice of picking up any doll (Initial Preference), Black
subjects did choose the black doll significantly more often than did White

54
subjects. The three interactions which were significant are complex and
difficult to interpret. It does appear that Black subjects were not affected
by experimenter sex, while White Male subjects showed a greater pre¬
ference for black with Female experimenters, and the same is true for
White Female subjects with Male experimenters. This result may be re¬
lated to the fact that blacks often only have a maternal figure in the home
and are not socialized in the same way to sex roles as are whites. Un¬
fortunately, in the Subject Race by Experimenter Race by Experimenter
Sex interaction, Black and White subjects respond in the same way to Black
Female and White Female experimenters; Black subjects, however, show
a high preference for Black with the White Female experimenter and
Black Male experimenter, while White subjects show a low preference
with the same experimenters. Regardless of whatever dynamic explanation
may be attempted, it is clear that something as simple as picking up a doll
f
can be affected by the interaction of race and sex of the experimenter
and child.
On the preference questions in Condition I, Blacks again showed a
higher preference for black than did Whites, as was hypothesized. Also,
it is no surprise that White Male subjects least preferred the black doll
and Black Female subjects showed the greatest preference for the black
doll. Black girls are simply the most likely to play with black dolls. All
subjects preferred black more with a Male experimenter in this condition.
Black Male subjects in particular showed a radical decrease in preference
for black with a Female experimenter. It could be that the black boy's

55
environment has such a dearth of male role models, that the result was
an extremely positive response to Male experimenters. By simply
adding another variable to the situation in Condition II (i. e., dress of the
dolls), the significant effects of Condition I preferences were wiped out.
Thus, it can be concluded that the response of racial preference in this
situation is sufficiently delicate as to be affected by external variables.
Therefore, although it cannot be denied that there are differences in the
preference scores, one must be very cautious in making conclusions from
this study and similar racial preference data. It appears that the child's
response to the immediate situation is being measured in addition to
racial preference.
This is true to such an extent that even accuracy was affected by the
situation. No main effects had a significant effect on accuracy in Con¬
dition I. This is to say that White subjects were not more accurate than
Black subjects, nor Males than Females. However, the interaction of
subject race with experimenter race did affect accuracy. Subjects of each
race were more accurate with an experimenter of their own race. This
may be attributed to the effect of modeling or social desirability. It is
important to remember also that children were less accurate with an
experimenter of the opposite race. There can be little question that re¬
sponse to the experimenter was as important as racial awareness and
knowledge of racial labels.
Furthermore, the interaction of subject race and sex with experi¬
menter race and sex was also significant. When the experimenter was

56
White, subjects were more accurate with Male experimenters and less
accurate with Female experimenters; when the experimenter was Black,
the results became more complicated. White Male subjects were more
accurate with the Black Male experimenter than with the Black Female
experimenter; the exact opposite was true for Black Male subjects. Black
Female subjects decreased in accuracy with a Black Female experimenter,
while White Female subjects increased in accuracy with the Black Female
experimenter (in relation to performance with the Black Male experimen¬
ter). These results are not consistent with the preference results. How¬
ever, the complexities of the interaction reinforce the hypothesis that much
of what is being measured is the response to an external situation rather
than a degree of knowledge.
In Condition II, where another external variable was added, the ques¬
tion of accuracy becomes much more clear cut. White subjects were
significantly more accurate than Black subjects; Female subjects were
more accurate than Male subjects. Female subjects were equally accu¬
rate regardless of experimenter race, while Male subjects were con¬
siderably less accurate with a Black experimenter than with a White
experimenter. These results could be explained by saying that females
are traditionally more school oriented and therefore might be more
likely to do well on a test of accuracy. However, more important than
such an explanation is the added evidence that the experimental situation
can affect the subjects' accuracy responses.
On the self-identification question, White subjects identified

57
themselves with the correct color significantly more often than did
Black subjects; this was also true for Female subjects in relation to
Males. Furthermore, White subjects were equally accurate whether
Male or Female. Black Male subjects, however, were far less
accurate in self-identification than all other subjects. Black Female
subjects were almost as accurate as White subjects on this question.
The identical interaction was found in Condition II. Thus, it would seem
that only Black Male subjects are now rejecting their race. Perhaps
this can be explained by the opportunities of the Female subjects to
positively identify with maternal figures and perhaps black female teach¬
ers. An additional significant finding in Condition II was that more ac¬
curate Self-Identification responses were made with a Male experimenter
than with a. Female experimenter. Once again, the results are very
complex and it would seem that the concept of self-rejection is tenuous
to some degree.
Since no relationship was found between responses to the request for
a "nice doll" and a "doll that looks like you, " it may be concluded that
the whole concept of self-rejection on the basis of the Dolls Test has
been overinterpreted. In fact, it is questionable whether or not the
internal states of racial preference and identification can be measured by
the choice of a doll. The Dolls Test can be used with confidence as a
behavior showing preference for dolls of different colors; as behavior,
these preferences can be modified by changes in the experimental situa¬
tion. Generalizations of racial preferences and identification may be made,

58
but this should be done with qualifications.
Before further generalizations are made from the present study,
some further research would be useful. The effect of varying experimen¬
ters was obviously powerful. There could be some question as to whether
the personalities of the experimenters had any effect in addition to the
effects of race and sex. Given the complexities of the race and sex inter¬
actions, this would seem unlikely. Nevertheless, ideally the research
should now be replicated with several experimenters of each race and sex.
A further investigation of the effects of varying the dolls could be done.
One possibility is a replication with half of the subjects experiencing Con¬
dition II before Condition I to check for any order effect. Also, other
modifications of the dolls' dress and color and also sex might be made.
Finally, a study correlating the various methods used to measure racial
preference among children should be used with the same children; thus,
some firmer conclusions as. to what is being measured might be possible.
All of the above does not say that previous studies have provided
worthless information. Rejection by blacks of their identity and position
has been a reality; it would seem that the situation is now somewhat al¬
leviated. However, it seems that excessive interpretations have been made
on the basis of such data in the past and insufficient consideration has been
given to the effects of the experimental situation. It has become very clear
that the children were reacting very differently in the situation depending
on who the experimenter was. This leads to the consideration of some
implications for schools. Further information is needed on how the

59
factors of race and sex affect the children's responses to the teacher
and the school situation, where the teacher is often a white female. How¬
ever, considerably more evidence would be needed before such a ques¬
tion can be seriously considered.

REFERENCES
Allport, Gordon. The Nature of Prejudice. Doubleday and Co. ,
Garden City, New York, 1954.
Asher, S. R. and V. L. Allen. "Racial preference and social com-
pa parison processes. " J. Social Issues, 1969, 25, 157-166.
Blakely, Karen and Addison Somerville. "An investigation of the
preference for racial identification terms among Negro and
Caucasian children." Journal of Negro Education, 1970 (Fall)
39 (4), 314-319. ' ~
Borgatta, Edgar and William Lambert. Handbook of Personality:
Theory and Research. . Rand McNally: Chicago, 1968.
Bruning, James and B. L. Kintz. Computational Handbook of
Statistics, Scott, Foresman, and Company: Glenview, Illinois
1968.
Butts, H. P. "Skin color perception and self-esteem. " Journal
of Negro Education, 1963, 32, 122-128.
Carithers, Martha. "School desegregation and racial cleavage:
A review of the literature." _J. Social Issues , 1970, 26 (4),
25-47.
Clark, Kenneth. Prejudice and Your Child. Beacon Press:
Boston, 1955.
Clark, Kenneth and Mamie Clark. "Emotional factors in racial
identification and preference in Negro preschool children. "
Journal of Negro Education, 1939, 19, 341-350.
Clark, Kenneth and Mamie Clark, "Emotional factors in racial
identification and preference in Negro children. " Journal
of Negro Education, 1950, 19, 341-350.
Clark, Kenneth and Mamie Clark. "Racial identification and
preference in Negro children. " (Published in E. E. Macoby,
T.M. Newcomb, and E. L. Harley, eds. Readings inSocial
Psychology. Henry Holt and Co. : New York, 1958. )

61
Crooks, Roland. "The effects of an interracial preschool program
upon racial preference, knowledge of racial differences, and
racial identification. " _J. Social Issues, 1970, 26, 4, 137-144.
Davis, Allison and John Dollard. Children of Bondage: The
Personality Development of Negro Youth in the Urban South.
American Council on Education: Washington, D. C. , 1940.
Doll, Paddy A. , Hacker Fagot, and Joanne Himbert. "Experimenter
effect on sex-role preference among black and white lower-
class male children. " Psychological Reports, 1971 (Dec. ),
29 (3, Pt. 3), 1295-1301.
Drake, St. C. "The small and economic status of the Negro in the
United States. " Daedalus, 1965, 94, 771-814.
Goldstein, Bernard. Low Income Youth in Urban Areas: A
Critical Review of the Literature. Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, Inc. : New York, 1967.
Goodman, M. E. Race Awareness in Young Children. Collier
Books: New York, 1952.
Greenwald, H. J. and D. B. Oppenheim. "Reported magnitude of
self-misidentification among Negro children -- artifact? "
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1968, 8, 49-52.
Gregor, A. J. and D. Angus McPherson. "Racial attitudes among
white and Negro children in a deep-south standard metro¬
politan area. " Journal of Social Psychology, 1966, 68, 95-100.
Grossack, Martin (ed). Mental Health and Segregation. Springer
Publishing Co. , Inc. : New York, 1963.
Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. Psychiatric Aspects of
School Desegregation. New York: Group for the Advancement
of Psychiatry, 1957.
Harris, Susan and John Braun. "Self-esteem .and racial preference
in black children. " Proceedings American Psychological Associa¬
tion Convention, 1971, 6 (Part 1, 259-360.
Harowitz, R. "Racial aspects of self-identification in nursery school
children." Journal of Psychology, 1939, 7, 91-99.
Hraba, J. and G. Grant. "Black is beautiful: a reexamination of
racial preference and identification. " Journal of Per sonality
and Social Psychology, 1970, 16, 398-401.

62
Janis, I. , G. Mahl, J. Kagan, and R. Holt. Personality:
Dynamics, Development, and Assessment. Harcourt,
Brace, and World, Inc. : New York, 1969.
Johnson, C.S. Growing Up in the Black Belt. Washington, D. C. :
American Council on Education, 1941.
Kardiner, A. and L. Ovesey. The Mark of Oppression.
Cleveland, Ohio: World, 1962.
Kluckhohn, C. and H. A. Murray. Personality in Nature, Society,
and Culture. Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1967.
Landreth, Catherine. Early Childhood: Behavior and Learning.
Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1967.
Landreth, Catherine, and B. C. Johnson. "Young children's
responses to a picture inset test designed to reveal reactions
to persons of different skin color. " Child Development,
1953, 24, 63-79.
Lewin, Kurt. Resolving Social Conflicts. Harper and Row:
New York, 1948.
Morland, J.K. "Racial recognition by nursery school children in
Lynchburg, Virginia. " Social Forces, 1958, 37, 132-137.
Morland, J.K. "Racial acceptance and preference of nursery
school children in a southern city. " Merrill Palmer
Quarterly, 1962, 8, 271-380.
Mussen, Paul. "Differences between the TAT responses of Negro
white boys. " Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1953, 17,
373-376.
Nicholas, Karen B. , R. E. McCarter, and R. V. Heckel. "The
effects of race and sex on the imitation of television models."
Journal of Social Psychology, 1971 a, (Dec. ), 85 (2), 315-316.
Nicholas, Karen B. , R. E. McCarter, and R. V. Heckel. "Imi¬
tation of adult and peer television models by white and Negro
children. " Journal of Social Psychology, 1971 b, (Dec. ), 85
(2), 317-318.
Palermo, D. S. "Racial comparisons and additive normative data on
the children's Manifest Anxiety Scale. " Child Development,
1959, 30, 53-57. ~ ~ ~~~~~

63
Proshansky, Harold and Peggy Newton. "The nature and meaning of
Negro self-identity. " (Published in Martin Deutsch, Irwin Katz,
and Arthur Jensen eds. Social Class, Race, and Psycholo -
gical Development. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. :
New York, 1968. )
Radke, M. and H. G. Trager. "Children's perceptions of the social
roles of Negros and whites. " Journal of Psychology, 1950,
29, 3-23.
Radke, J. Sutherland, and P. Rosenberg. "Racial attitudes of
children. " Sociometry, 1950, 13, 254-171.
Sciara, Frank J. "Perceptions of Negro boys regarding color and
occupational status. " Child Study Journal. 1971 (Sum), 1 (4),
203-211.
Seward, G. Psychotherapy and Culture Conflict. New York: Roland
Press, 1956.
Sewell, W. H. "Social class and childhood personality. " Sociometry,
1961, 24, 350-356.
Shane, Norton. "Some subcultural considerations in the psychotherapy
of a Negro patient. " The Psychiatric Quarterly, (Jan. ), I960,
34, 1-19.
Stevenson, H. W. and N. G. Stevenson. "Social interaction in an
interracial nursery school. " Genetic Psychology Monographs,
I960, 61, 37-75.
Stevenson, H. W. and E. C. Stewart. "A developmental study of
race awareness in young children. " Child Development, 1958
29, 399-410. '
Strickland, Bonnie P. "Delay of gratification as a function of race
of the experimenter. " Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 1972 (Apr), 22 (1), 108-112.
Watson, G. Social Psychology: Issues and Insights. J. B. Lippincott
Co. : New York, 1966.
White, R. W. The Abnormal Personality. The Ronald Press Co.:
New York, 1964.
Williams, Robert and Harry Byars. "The effect of academic
integration in the self-esteem of southern Negro students. "
Journal of Social Psychology, 1970, 80, 183-188.

64
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Katrine Geha Kirn was born on August 21, 1948, in Detroit,
Michigan. She later lived in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where she
graducated from Johnstown Central High School in 1966. She received
the degree of Bachelor of Arts from Chatham College in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, in 1970. At Chatham, she received the Psychology
Department Award for Outstanding Involvement in Psychology. Ms. Kirn
received the degree of Master of Arts in psychology from the Univer¬
sity of Florida in June, 1971. During that year she served as a
graduate teaching assistant for the psychology department. In Septem¬
ber of 1971, she was awarded a fellowship by the United States Public
Health Service. In August, 1973, she completed a year-long intern¬
ship in clinical and community psychology at the Malcolm Bliss Mental
Health Center in St. Louis, Missouri. She received the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Florida in December, 1973.
She is married to Steven P. Kirn.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.
Marvin E. Shaw, Chairman
Professor of Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.
Paul Satz, Cochairman
Professor of Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degr ee
of Doctor of Philosophy.
Norman N. Market
Associate Professor of Speech
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it
conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is
fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.
Robert C. Ziller
Professor of Psychology
This dissertation was submitted to the Department of Psychology
in the College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and
was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy.
December, 19 73
Dean, Graduate School

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08553 6976