Stereotype agreement Sample Clauses

Stereotype agreement. A 3-item 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”; Xxxxxxxx’s alpha = .87) adapted from Xxx, Xxxx, Xxxxxx, and Xxxxx (2005) were used to measure participants’ agreement with a positive-valence notion that Asians are success driven (“Asian Americans seem to be striving to become number one.”; “Most Asian Americans have a mentality that stresses gain of economic power”; “When it comes to education, Asian Americans aim to achieve too much”. These three items were presented following each positive-stereotype joke. Another 3-item 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree”; Xxxxxxxx’s alpha = .85) were developed to assess participants’ agreement with a negative-valence notion that Asians are bad drivers (“Many Asian Americans are hazard to themselves and others on the road”; “Many Asian Americans are incompetent drivers”; “Many Asian American drivers fail to follow traffic laws and rules”). These driving-specific questions were presented following each negative-stereotype joke. A one-factor three-indicator CFA was conducted for this scale. For model identification purpose, the factor variance was fixed to one. The factor loading estimate was .92 (for SA-1), .94 (for SA-2), and .77 (for SA-3). Because his CFA model was just-identified, no global model fit information was available.

Stereotype agreement. The subversion paradox The end outcome variable of the current study, stereotype agreement, is an operationalization based on a joint of two theoretical frameworks: Allport’s (1954) assumption that intergroup prejudice is a result of the lack of knowledge about outgroups, and Xxxxxx and Xxxxxx’x (1979) conceptualization of individual-intergroup interaction continuum (perceiving individuals as unique human beings vs. relying on mental images about their groups). Current study found multiple paths, direct and indirect, from the two manipulation variables (comedian racial group membership and joke content valence) to stereotype agreement. For comedian racial group membership, this study found a two-stage mediation path to stereotype agreement through interpersonal and intergroup anxiety. This path suggests White comedians, comparing to Asian comedians, can cause a higher level of stereotype agreement through the two anxiety variables. However, there is another, stronger, mediation path through joke offensiveness suggesting White comedians can cause higher level of joke offensiveness which lead to lower level of stereotype agreement. For joke content valence, negative-stereotype jokes were found to be funnier than positive stereotype jokes, and the former was found to be more offensive than the latter. This may indicate two distinct mental processes. The funniness judgment may be a reaction to the incongruity of humor and the offensiveness judgment may be a reaction based on social norms. Furthermore, the current study shows that joke funniness has a positive relationship with stereotype agreement, but joke offensiveness has negative relationship with stereotype agreement. Xxxxxxxxx (2005) uses the “sword and shield” metaphor to conceptualize racial humor. Such humor can be used to hurt outgroups and reinforce hierarchy and stereotypes, or it can be used to challenge prejudice and established beliefs. Based on the “sword and shield” metaphor and organized by the intention of a racial humor, Xxxxxxx et al. (2016) propose three possible outcomes of racial humor: antisocial (as a sword), prosocial (as a shield), or intended to be prosocial but failed. The current study extended the “sword and shield” metaphor by examining stereotype joke from an audience perspective. From Caucasian Americans’ perspective, Asian comedian telling a negative joke was rated the funniest, however that led to a higher level of stereotype agreement. On the other hand, White comedian tel...

Stereotype agreement. Humor styles and speaker character The current study attempted to understand White audience perceptions of Asian stereotype jokes as a function of the joke teller’s racial group membership (Asian/White) and the content valence of the stereotype joke about Asian Americans (negative/positive). From a humor style perspective, two of the four scenarios in the current study can be linked to the interpersonal humor styles proposed by Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx-Xxxxx, Larsen, Xxxx, and Xxxx (2003a). Specifically, 1) Asian comedians telling negative-valence jokes is a form of self-defeating humor; and 2) White comedians telling negative-valence joke is a form of aggressive humor. According to Xxxxxx et al.: [Self-defeating humor style] involves excessively self-disparaging humor, attempts to amuse others by doing or saying funny things at one’s own expense as a means of ingratiating oneself or gaining approval, allowing oneself to be the“butt” of others’ humor, and laughing along with others when being ridiculed or disparaged. (p. 54) Thus, this description fits the scenario in which Asian comedians telling negative-valence joke about own group to White audience. Furthermore, White comedians telling negative-valence jokes about Asian Americans to White audience fits Xxxxxx et al. description of aggressive humor that: In general, it relates to the tendency to express humor without regard for its potential impact on others (e.g., sexist or racist humor), and includes compulsive expressions of humor in which one finds it difficult to resist the impulse to say funny things that are likely to hurt or alienate others. (p. 54) Empirical studies on audience perceptions of public speaker’s use of self/other-disparaging humor have shown other-disparaging (i.e., aggressive humor style) speakers were perceived lower on character dimensions. On the other hand, self-disparaging speakers were perceived higher on character dimensions. Xxxxxxx (1988) manipulated the humor use in a speech script about “Effective Listening” to have three levels: 1) no examples of humor; 2) examples of self-disparaging humor; and 3) examples of other-disparaging humor. Undergraduate students (N = 126) were randomly assigned to one the three conditions. Following exposure to the experimental treatment (i.e., reading one version of the three scripts), the participants rated the sense of humor of the speaker, level of interest in the presentation, and character of the speaker. Xxxxxxx found that the no-humor speake...