Stereotypic Beliefs about Young People

S TEREOTYPIC BELIEFS ABOUT YOUNG PEOPLE: NATURE, SOURCES , AND CONS EQUENCES M elissa E. Sankey BSc (Psychol.)

Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Psychology, University of New South Wales August, 2000.

ii

Adolescents are grouped together by adults and defined as a problem, and yet we must ask ourselves whether this problem refers to something in the adolescent, or whether it is making a statement about our society. - E.Z. Friedenberg

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to my supervisor Associate Professor Gail Huon for her conscientious and thorough supervision of this work. Also, her constant support throughout my postgraduate career has been invaluable. I am also grateful to my co-supervisor, Professor Kevin McConkey for his continuing guidance and assistance throughout my doctoral studies. I am grateful to Dr Amanda Barnier for her helpful advice, especially in the early stages of my candidature. I would also like to thank Dr Kathryn Strong and Kylie Oliver for their ongoing encouragement and friendship. Further thanks must go to the principals and staff from the participating schools for their cooperation, and to the many hundreds of young people and adults who took part in the studies. Special thanks to my family and friends, and especially to M um and to Ron, for their overwhelming support over the past three years, and for their confidence in my capabilities. Finally, thanks to Goldy for his patience and cheerful support.

iv

ABSTRACT M ost stereotypes of youth depict them as problematic. Yet, the effects of those representations on behaviour are not understood. The nine studies conducted for this thesis investigated stereotypic beliefs about youth. This thesis aimed to specify the range of stereotypic beliefs about youth, the sources of those beliefs, and the consequences of those beliefs for adults' and young people's behaviour. Chapter 1 reviews the stereotype literature and provides information about our current understanding of stereotypic beliefs about youth. It also highlights the limitations of existing research and presents the rationale for this program of research. Chapter 2 presents studies 1 to 4, which explored the breadth in the content of four sets of stereotypic beliefs about youth. Study 1 investigated adults' knowledge of the cultural stereotype of youth and Study 2A specified adults' personal beliefs about youth. Adults' knowledge of the cultural stereotype was shown to consist of very negative content, although their personal beliefs were both positive and negative in content. Study 3A compared young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about youth with their personal beliefs about youth. Young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs were found to be extremely negative, and to be comparable with that identified as adults’ knowledge of the cultural stereotype of youth in Study 1. In contrast, young people’s personal beliefs about youth were found to be more positive. Study 4 investigated the extent to which adults and young people hold multiple stereotypes of youth. Adults and young people formed six conceptually similar subtypes of youth. They were labelled as ‘yuppies’, ‘lives for today and forget the consequences’, ‘depressed’, ‘problem kids’, ‘active’, and ‘conventional’. The ‘problem kids’ subtype

v

was the most salient; it had the greatest number of descriptors assigned to it and the greatest agreement across groups regarding the constellation of traits and behaviours comprising it. Studies 2B and 3B, also presented in Chapter 2, were carried out to develop two valid and reliable measures of stereotypic beliefs about youth. In Study 2B, the 20-item Beliefs about Adolescence Scale was developed to assess adults' personal beliefs about youth. Study 3B developed the 26-item Adolescents’ Perceptions of Adults’ Beliefs Scale to assess young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them. Both measures were shown to be internally consistent and to have good testretest reliability. The Beliefs about Adolescence Scale also demonstrated good convergent validity. Chapter 3 presents studies 5 and 6, which examined the media as a possible source of stereotypic beliefs about youth. Study 5 investigated media representations of youth as they appear in newspaper reports. Study 6 aimed to establish an empirical association between those representations and stereotypic beliefs about youth. In Study 5, newspaper reports of young people were found to be largely negative; the 'problem kids' stereotype was afforded the most news space. In Study 6, newspaper readership was shown to be predictive of stereotypic beliefs about youth. Further, stereotypic beliefs were found to discriminate between readers of broadsheet and tabloid newspapers. Chapter 4 presents Studies 7 and 8, which focused on the consequences of stereotypic beliefs about youth for evaluations and behaviour. Study 7 investigated the extent to which beliefs that young people are problematic affect adults'

vi

evaluations of young people. Subjects who were presented with sentences that described irresponsible and disrespectful behaviours later judged a youth target as more irresponsible and disrespectful than subjects who were presented with sentences that described neutral behaviours. Study 8 investigated whether beliefs that young people are problematic can result in self-fulfilling prophecies. Subjects were exposed to faces of male teenagers or adults and were then paired with partners who had been exposed to faces of male adults. Each pair of subjects played a word-guessing game and their interaction was recorded. Judges who were blind to the experimental hypotheses listened to the recordings and rated each participant for the degree of rudeness that was displayed. Subjects who had been exposed to the teenage faces were rated as ruder than those who had been exposed to adult faces. Moreover, those who interacted with subjects who had been exposed to teenage faces were rated as ruder than those who interacted with subjects who had been exposed to adult faces. In that way, stereotypic beliefs about youth were shown to produce self-fulfilling prophecies. Chapter 5 presents Study 9. Its focus was on young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about them. It examined the way those beliefs influence young people's engagement in problem behaviour, in interaction with established correlates of problem behaviour. This was explored via the testing of a structural model of problem behaviour. The findings provided partial support for the model, and the model accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in problem behaviour. Young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about them made an important contribution to the explanation of problem behaviour involvement. Subsidiary

vii

analyses determined that young people's perceptions that adults believe them to engage in problem behaviour was the 'active ingredient' of that construct. Chapter 6 presents the general discussion of the findings from this program of research. It also outlines their theoretical and practical implications, and points to specific research that is needed to add to the findings of this thesis. The findings emphasise the important influences of stereotypic beliefs about youth on adults' and young people's behaviour. Recommendations are made for improving adult-youth relations and preventing adolescent problem behaviour. In particular, the media and adult members of the community need to recognise the role that they play in the causation of adolescent problem behaviour. The media have a responsibility to disseminate accurate and balanced information about young people and youth-related issues. In addition, interventions aimed at reducing adolescent problem behaviour need to incorporate a community-based component that seeks to promote positive adult-youth relations within the wider community.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEM ENTS

iii

ABSTRACT

iv

LIST OF TABLES

xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

xv

1. INVESTIGATING STEREOTYPIC BELIEFS ABOUT YOUTH: AN INTRODUCTION

1

Introduction and overview

2

Perspectives on stereotyping

5

A conceptual framework

8

Stereotypes

9

As cultural beliefs and as personal beliefs

10

As perceived by the stereotyped group

11

M ultiple categories

13

Sources of stereotypic beliefs

15

Personal experience

15

Social learning: Family, friends, and the media

17

Consequences of stereotypic beliefs

19

Evaluations of stereotyped group members

20

Self-fulfilling prophecies

22

Current understanding of stereotypic beliefs about youth

25

Summary of aims

31

ix

2. STEREOTYPIC BELIEFS ABOUT YOUTH

34

INTRODUCTION

36

STUDY 1: Cultural stereotype of youth

37

Introduction

37

M ethod

38

Participants

38

M easures and Procedure

38

Results and Discussion

39

Phase one: Content generation

39

Phase two: Knowledge of the cultural stereotype of youth

40

Summary

42

STUDIES 2A & 2B: Personal beliefs about youth

43

Introduction

43

M ethod

44

Participants

44

M easures and Procedure

45

Study 2A

46

Results and Discussion

46

Adults' personal beliefs about young people

46

Cultural stereotype compared with personal beliefs

50

Study 2B

51

Results and Discussion

51

x

Summary

55

STUDIES 3A & 3B: Young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about youth

56

Introduction

56

M ethod

57

Participants

57

M easures and Procedure

57

Study 3A

58

Results and Discussion

58

Study 3B

63

Results and Discussion

63

Summary

66

STUDY 4: Investigating multiple stereotypes of youth

66

Introduction

66

M ethod

67

Participants

67

M easures and Procedure

68

Results and Discussion

68

Summary

76

DISCUSSION

77

3. SOURCES OF STEREOTYPIC BELIEFS ABOUT YOUTH

80

INTRODUCTION

81

STUDY 5: Newspaper reports of young people

84

xi

Introduction

84

M ethod

85

Newspapers

85

Procedure

86

Results and Discussion

88

M ajor issues in newspaper reports of young people

88

Detailed examination of newspaper reports of young people

94

Summary

103

STUDY 6: Newspaper readership and stereotypic beliefs about youth

104

Introduction

104

M ethod

104

Participants

104

M easures and Procedure

104

Results and Discussion

105

Predicting stereotypic beliefs from newspaper readership habits

106

Discriminating tabloid from broadsheet readers

107

Summary

109

DISCUSSION

110

4. CONSEQUENCES OF STEREOTYPIC BELIEFS ABOUT YOUTH

113

INTRODUCTION

114

STUDY 7: Effects of stereotypic beliefs about youth on evaluations of youth

120

Introduction

120

M ethod

122

xii

Participants

122

M aterials

122

Procedure

126

Results and Discussion

127

Summary

133

STUDY 8: Behavioural confirmation of stereotypic beliefs about youth

133

Introduction

133

M ethod

136

Participants

136

M aterials

137

Procedure

138

Observer ratings of the perceiver-target interaction

140

Results and Discussion

140

Outside observer ratings

141

Perceivers' and targets' ratings of each other

144

Summary

148

DISCUSSION

149

5. A STRUCTURAL M ODEL OF PROBLEM BEHAVIOUR: THE ROLE OF YOUNG PEOPLE'S PERCEPTIONS OF ADULTS' BELIEFS

151

INTRODUCTION

152

STUDY 9: Evaluating a model of problem behaviour

161

Introduction

161

M ethod

162

xiii

Participants

162

M aterials

162

Procedure

167

Results and Discussion

167

Characteristics of the sample

168

Evaluating the model of problem behaviour

171

Subsidiary path analyses

186

Summary

195

6. GENERAL DISCUSSION

197

Introduction

198

Understanding stereotypic beliefs about youth

200

Nature of stereotypic beliefs

200

Sources of stereotypic beliefs

203

Consequences of stereotypic beliefs

205

Limitations of current research and future directions

208

Improving adult-youth relations and preventing adolescent problem behaviour

209

REFERENCES

216

APPENDICES

241

Appendix A: Appendix to Chapter 2 (Studies 1 through to 4)

241

Appendix B: Appendix to Chapter 3 (Studies 5 and 6)

250

Appendix C: Appendix to Chapter 4 (Studies 7 and 8)

256

Appendix D: Appendix to Chapter 5 (Study 9)

297

xiv

LIST OF TABLES Page 2.1 The top ten descriptors of the cultural stereotype of youth

41

2.2 The top ten descriptors endorsed as young and older adults' personal beliefs about youth

47

2.3 Factors and item loadings representing personal beliefs about youth

54

2.4 The top ten descriptors endorsed as young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs and as young people's personal beliefs about youth

59

2.5 Factors and item loadings representing young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about youth

65

2.6 Predictive association (lambda) between cluster structures across age groups

76

3.1 Number (N) and percent (%) of each topic in the newspaper reports of young people

90

3.2 Number (N) and percent (%) of crime-related topics in the newspaper reports of young people

92

3.3 Predicting stereotypic beliefs about young people from newspaper readership habits

107

3.4 Discriminant function analysis predicting newspaper readership habits

108

4.1 M ean ratings of irresponsibility as a function of Prime type and Target age

127

4.2 M ean disrespectfulness ratings as a function of Prime type and Target age

128

5.1 Number (& %) of subjects belonging to each of the demographic categories, for males and females separately

169

5.2 M eans (& SD) of the participants' scores on the measures of engagement in problem behaviour and association with problem peers, presented for males and females separately

170

5.3 Predicting association with problem peers and engagement in problem behaviour from adolescents' perceptions of adults' beliefs about them

188

5.4 Relative contribution of predictors of association with problem peers and engagement in problem behaviour

190

xv

LIST OF FIGURES Page 2.1 Percentage of descriptors endorsed as the cultural stereotype that were rated negative, neutral, or positive in social desirability

43

2.2 Percentage of descriptors endorsed as young and older adults' personal beliefs that were rated negative, neutral, or positive in social desirability

49

2.3 Percentage of descriptors endorsed as young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs and as their personal beliefs that were rated negative, neutral, or positive in social desirability

61

2.4 Tree diagram of trait clusters produced by the older adult participants (Stereotypic traits are between dashed lines and stereotypic labels are at the left)

72

2.5 Tree diagram of trait clusters produced by the young adult participants (Stereotypic traits are between dashed lines and stereotypic labels are at the left)

73

2.5 Tree diagram of trait clusters produced by the young people (Stereotypic traits are between dashed lines and stereotypic labels are at the left)

74

4.1 The interaction between Time (before or after prime) and Prime (youth or adult) on observer ratings of participant rudeness

142

4.2 Target rudeness ratings as a function of prime type, mediated via perceiver rudeness ratings

144

5.1a Predicted (structural) model of problem behaviour

159

5.1b Hypothesised moderating effect of impulsiveness on commitment to school and problem behaviour involvement

160

5.2 Standardised structural model showing factor loadings, path coefficients and disturbance terms for the initial model for males

178

5.3 Standardised structural model showing factor loadings, path coefficients and disturbance terms for the model for males, excluding parental overprotection

180

xvi

5.4 Standardised structural model showing factor loadings, path coefficients and disturbance terms for the model for males, excluding alienation and parental overprotection

182

5.5 Standardised structural model showing factor loadings, path coefficients and disturbance terms for the model for females

184

5.6 Interaction between impulsiveness and perceptions of problem behaviour involvement on males' association with problem peers

192

5.7 Interaction between impulsiveness and perceptions of problem behaviour involvement on males' engagement in problem behaviour

193

5.8 Interaction between impulsiveness and liking for school on males’ engagement in problem behaviour

194

5.9 Interaction between venturesomeness and liking for school on males’ association with problem peers

195

1

CHAPTER 1 INVES TIGATING S TEREOTYPIC BELIEFS ABOUT YOUTH: AN INTRODUCTION

Page Introduction and overview

2

Perspectives on stereotyping

5

A conceptual framework

8

Stereotypes

9

As cultural beliefs and as personal beliefs

10

As perceived by the stereotyped group

11

M ultiple categories

13

Sources of stereotypic beliefs

15

Personal experience

15

Social learning: Family, friends, and the media

17

Consequences of stereotypic beliefs

19

Evaluations of stereotyped group members

20

Self-fulfilling prophecies

22

Current understanding of stereotypic beliefs about youth

25

Summary of aims

31

2

Introduction and overview Ever since Hall (1904) initiated the scientific study of adolescence, young people have been the focus of much research and media attention. This widespread interest has been assumed to derive from the popular construction of youth as ‘problematic’ (Griffin, 1997). M any representations of youth portray them as moody, rebellious, and troublesome (see Bessant, 1994), and as ‘naturally’ criminal or disrespectful (see White, 1997). Although Hall was the first to formally study the ‘storm and stress’ of adolescent development, Greek philosophers provided the earliest commentary on the problematic nature of young people. Aristotle, for example, claimed that young people are ‘fickle, irascible, and facetious’, and Plato gave advice concerning the control of their behaviour (M uuss, 1996). Socrates also described the tendency of adolescents to contradict their parents and to tyrannise their teachers (Willis, 1981). Hall (1904) popularised the idea of equating youth with trouble in his influential two-volume text, Adolescence. Drawing on Darwin’s concept of biological evolution, he believed that all human development was controlled by genetically determined factors and he emphasised the biological basis of adolescence. According to Hall, adolescence begins at puberty and is characterised by emotional turbulence caused by the hormonal upheavals that are associated with puberty (see also Atwater, 1988; M oran & Vinovskis, 1994; Muuss, 1996). Perhaps most importantly, Hall assumed that such difficulties and turmoil represented normal adolescent development (Griffin, 1997).

3

Since Hall’s (1904) work, psychoanalytic theorists have been the strongest proponents of the storm and stress account. Anna Freud (1958, 1969), for example, viewed storm and stress as universal and unchangeable and claimed that its absence indicated abnormality: ‘To be normal during the adolescent period is by itself abnormal’ (Freud, 1958; p.267). In recent years, however, studies of the storm and stress account have yielded mixed findings. M any studies have investigated the occurrence of storm and stress in adolescence (Gecas & Seff, 1990; Offer, Ostrov, Howard, & Atkinson, 1988; Powers, Hauser, & Kilner, 1989) and their findings have indicated that storm and stress is not a universal adolescent phenomenon, but rather that most youths successfully meet the challenges of this developmental period with relatively little disruption. Offer et al. (1988) conducted a cross-national survey on adolescents’ self-image. Approximately 73 percent of adolescents across ten countries were found to possess a healthy adolescent self-image; they reported that they were happy most of the time, enjoyed life, valued work and school, and had positive feelings toward their families. At a social level, the adolescents indicated that they cared about how others might be affected by their actions. Other studies have focused on public perceptions or stereotypes of adolescence (Buchanan, Eccles, Flanagan, M idgley, Feldlaufer, & Harold, 1990; Buchanan & Holmbeck, 1998; Holmbeck & Hill, 1988; Offer, Ostrov, & Howard, 1981). These have revealed that many people believe adolescence to be a time of storm and stress. Offer et al. (1981), for example, found that mental health professionals viewed adolescents as significantly more disturbed than adolescents viewed themselves. Indeed, these professionals believed that “normal” adolescents

4

had more problems than were reported by either psychiatrically disturbed or delinquent adolescents. In Buchanan and Holmbeck’s (1998) study, college students and parents of adolescents reported that adolescents were significantly more likely than elementary school children to engage in problem behaviours, display risk taking and rebellious characteristics, and internalising disorders such as anxiety and depression. Thus, despite research findings that adolescent storm and stress is not especially widespread, professional and public perceptions of young people are largely negative and tend to support the notion of adolescence as a time of storm and stress. Until now, however, there has been limited research directed toward understanding the consequences of negative perceptions or stereotypes about young people. In other words, although we have some understanding that ‘youth as problematic’ is the dominant stereotype, we do not know the effects of those beliefs on behaviour, that of the young people themselves, or that of other people, and especially, the holders of the stereotype. The central aim of this thesis was to gain an understanding of the way stereotypic beliefs about youth influence the behaviour of adults and of young people themselves. This thesis begins with a review of the literature concerning stereotypes. The review provides information about the major perspectives on stereotyping. It then highlights the different ways in which stereotypic beliefs must be explored when trying to understand the content of any group stereotype. The findings from research concerning the origins and the consequences of group-based stereotypes are summarised. The chapter then provides information about our current empirical understanding of stereotypic beliefs about youth and highlights the limitations of

5

existing research for understanding those beliefs. Finally, the chapter ends with a summary of the aims of the research that was conducted for this thesis.

Perspectives on stereotyping Lippmann (1922) introduced the term, ‘stereotype’, to refer to the ‘pictures in our heads’ that determine our perceptions of people and events. When applied to a group of people, stereotypes are preconceptions that the members of the group are all alike and not distinguishable from one another (Hamilton, Stroessner, & Driscoll, 1994). Four major conceptual approaches have dominated the stereotype literature: the psychodynamic, sociocultural, cognitive, and social cognitive orientations. From a psychodynamic perspective, stereotypes and stereotyping are of interest to the extent that they are related to prejudice and personality (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1981). According to the psychodynamic viewpoint, stereotypes serve the motivational needs of the perceiver (Snyder & Meine, 1994). This approach focuses on the use of defense mechanisms, such as projection and displacement of negative attributes of the self onto the members of some out-group. By perceiving an outgroup less favourably, one’s in-group becomes preferable (Hamilton & Sherman, 1994). Stereotypes therefore serve to make people feel better about themselves and less threatened by other groups of people (Wills, 1981); in that way, stereotypes are said to fulfill an ego-defensive function (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1981; Katz, 1960). The sociocultural orientation emphasises the role of social learning and reinforcement in the acquisition and maintenance of stereotypic beliefs. The focus is on how stereotypes can be learned and perpetuated through family and peer group

6

influences and media portrayals (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1981). The sociocultural orientation suggests that stereotypes serve the social function of helping people fit in and identify with their own social and cultural ingroups (Snyder & M eine, 1994). By specifying the nature of various social groups, stereotypes support norms about how those groups and individual group members are expected to behave and how they should be treated (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1981). From a cognitive perspective, stereotypes are belief systems about the attributes that characterise various social groups (Hamilton et al., 1994). The most distinctive feature of the cognitive orientation is that stereotypes are not different from other cognitive structures and processes (Ashmore & Del Boca; 1981). This approach suggests that individuals are limited in the amount of incoming information that they can process and therefore form stereotypes as a way of simplifying the environment (Spears, Oakes, Ellemers, & Haslam, 1997). Stereotypes, therefore, serve the function of ‘cognitive economy’ by helping their holders to categorise and manage incoming information (Snyder & Meine, 1994). The psychodynamic, sociocultural, and cognitive orientations have had little impact on guiding the nature of stereotype research (Hamilton et al., 1994). For example, research emerging from the psychodynamic orientation has been directed largely at determining the aetiology of prejudice rather than at explaining the nature of stereotypes. Research from the sociocultural orientation has been concerned mostly with specifying the extent to which people agree on the characteristics of social groups, and research from the cognitive orientation has focused on stereotypes as individual belief systems (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1981).

7

During the mid-1970s, a new conceptual and empirical approach to understanding social psychological phenomena began to emerge (Hamilton, Devine, & Ostrom, 1994). That approach became known as social cognition. A social cognitive approach attempts to explain social phenomena by investigating the cognitive structures and processes by which they operate (Sherman, Judd, & Park, 1989). In addition to providing a conceptual framework for the investigation of a wide range of social phenomena, social cognition provided a fourth conceptual orientation to thinking about stereotypes and stereotyping. From a social cognitive perspective, a stereotype is a cognitive structure that can influence the way in which information about groups and group members is processed (Hamilton, Sherman, & Ruvolo, 1990). This approach focuses not only on the nature and origins of the cognitive structure itself, but also on the way that structure influences subsequent information processing, perception, and behaviour. Thus, the social cognitive perspective advanced the stereotyping literature by broadening the research focus from the content and sources of stereotypic beliefs to include an examination of the processes underlying those beliefs (Hamilton et al., 1994). Research from this perspective has shown that stereotypes influence information processing in a number of ways. First, stereotypes affect what information is attended to and encoded. Specifically, people are more likely to process and encode information that is stereotype consistent (Bodenhausen, 1988). Stereotypes also affect the interpretation of information, especially ambiguous information. People often evaluate the ambiguous behaviour of stereotyped group

8

members in stereotype consistent ways (Banaji, Hardin, & Rothman, 1993; Darley & Gross, 1983). Finally, stereotypes also affect how people behave when interacting with members of a stereotyped group by influencing the way information is processed (Chen & Bargh, 1997; Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974). Although issues relating to the content and sources of stereotypic beliefs remain relevant today, the psychodynamic, sociocultural, and cognitive orientations did not consider the important influence of stereotypic beliefs on information processing, perception, and behaviour. The social cognitive orientation did do this. The program of research conducted for this thesis examined not only the content and sources of stereotypic beliefs about young people, but also the consequences of those beliefs for behaviour, that of the holders of the stereotype and that of young people themselves. I now turn to review the stereotype literature that relates to the content, sources, and consequences of stereotypic beliefs. In doing so, I outline the conceptual framework within which this program of research was conducted.

A conceptual framework The present research sought to specify the nature and content of stereotypic beliefs about youth, identify the sources of those beliefs, and gather information about the consequences of those beliefs. This section outlines the different belief sets that can be examined by researchers seeking to establish the content of particular group stereotypes, summarises the different explanations that have been offered to account for the sources of stereotypic beliefs, and reviews our current understanding of the consequences of stereotypic beliefs for perception and behaviour.

9

Stereotypes The nature and content of a range of group stereotypes, including racial (Katz & Braly, 1933), ethnic (Gardner, Lalonde, Nero, & Young, 1988), and gender (Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, & Rosenkrantz, 1972), have been documented. Some researchers who have investigated the content of group -based stereotypes distinguish two sets of beliefs – cultural stereotypes and personal beliefs (Augostinous, Ahrens, & Innes, 1994; Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1994; Hort, Fagot, & Leinbach, 1990; Krueger, 1994). Cultural stereotypes refer to shared or community-wide patterns of beliefs, and personal beliefs refer to the beliefs held by an individual regarding a social group (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1981). As a related set of beliefs, stereotypes can be investigated from the perspective of the stereotyped group members in the form of reflected appraisals (M yers, 1999). Those beliefs are important because they provide information about the extent to which people are aware of the nature and content of stereotypic beliefs about themselves. Investigations of cultural stereotypes and personal beliefs, and of stereotypes as reflected appraisals, all assume that people have a single, general stereotype of a particular social group. It has been established, however, that people can have multiple stereotypes of social groups (Brewer, Dull, & Lui, 1981; Devine & Baker, 1991). In other words, stereotypes can be hierarchically organised, with an overriding global stereotype, and several distinct subtypes within the broad classification (Brewer et al., 1981). Thus, the investigation of multiple stereotypes is an important way in which to establish the nature and content of group-based stereotypes.

10

As cultural beliefs and as personal beliefs. Several researchers have claimed that knowledge about the stereotype of a particular group does not inevitably entail endorsement of the stereotype (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1981; Devine, 1989; Lepore & Brown, 1997). For instance, Devine (1989) viewed stereotypes and personal beliefs as separate cognitive structures and claimed that the two structures are governed by separate cognitive processes – automatic and controlled processes. On the one hand, stereotypes are learned early in childhood and therefore have a long history of activation (Allport, 1954; Katz, 1976). For that reason, Devine (1989) argued that they are automatically activated in the presence of a stereotyped group member. On the other hand, personal beliefs about a group are newer cognitive structures, developed after the initial learning of a stereotype and so they rely on controlled or intentional processes for their activation. Augostinous et al. (1994) obtained evidence to support the distinction between cultural stereotypes and personal beliefs. They found that high- and low-prejudiced people were equally knowledgeable of the cultural stereotype of Australian Aborigines, although they differed with respect to their personal beliefs. Highprejudiced subjects endorsed the negative aspects of the stereotype and lowprejudiced subjects endorsed the positive stereotype components. Similarly, Lepore and Brown (1997) showed that high- and low-prejudiced people shared the same knowledge of the stereotype of Black people. High-prejudiced subjects, however, formed a more negative and less positive impression of a Black person, whereas lowprejudiced subjects tended in the opposite direction. Those findings were important because they challenged the traditional perspective that there is an ‘inevitability of

11

prejudice’, that knowledge of a stereotype implies automatic prejudice toward the group (Allport, 1954; Hamilton, 1981). Investigations of the cultural stereotype of a social group and of people’s endorsement of that stereotype provide information about the beliefs of the holders of the stereotype. They do not, however, tell us the extent to which the stereotypic beliefs are known to the stereotyped group. Based on the assumption that people’s sense of self derives in part from their perceptions of how they are viewed by others, the principle of reflected appraisals provides a useful framework within which to consider individuals’ perceptions of stereotypic beliefs about them. As perceived by the stereotyped group. With his notion of the ‘looking glass self’, also known as reflected appraisals, Cooley (1902, 1964) proposed that people’s self-perceptions are largely a reflection of how they appear to others. M ead (1934) extended the concept by claiming that it is not what others actually think of us that is important, but rather what we think they are thinking. Shrauger and Schoeneman (1979) reviewed studies of the reflected appraisal process, and found that people’s self-perceptions correlate better with the way they think others view them than with how others actually view them. Davidson and Lang (1960), for example, compared fourth and sixth grade students' self-perceptions with their perceptions of how they were viewed by their teachers and found a correlation of .82. Bledsoe and Wiggins (1973) found no congruence between adolescents' self-image and their parents' actual perceptions of their self-image. Because people’s perceptions of how they are viewed by others can have important consequences for their self-perceptions (Felson, 1985;

12

Kinch, 1963), researchers of stereotypes need to understand group members’ perceptions of stereotypic beliefs about them. Cooley (1964) and M ead (1934) differed, however, in their views regarding which people’s beliefs were most important. Cooley (1964) believed that the self is constructed from the appraisals of significant individuals (for example, family and friends) whereas Mead’s (1934) looking glass self was reflective of a generalised other, referring to one’s whole sociocultural environment. DePaulo, Kenny, Hoover, Webb, & Oliver (1987) conducted a review of research into the reflected appraisal process and found that a majority of the studies supported M ead’s (1934) view that reflected appraisals are influenced by a generalised other. That is, the self is affected more by the beliefs of groups of people than by the beliefs of individuals. Similarly, Felson (1989) obtained evidence that children have a general sense of how others view them, although they are unable to judge how specific individuals view them. In his longitudinal study, Felson (1989) examined fourth to eighth grade children’s beliefs about how they were viewed by their parents. He focused on appraisals of children’s academic and sporting ability, their attractiveness, and their popularity, and found that although children’s self-appraisals were affected by reflected appraisals, children were not able to distinguish how each parent viewed them. Rather, their self-appraisals of their academic and sporting ability and of their attractiveness and popularity were affected by their reflected appraisals of their parents in general. Thus, the sense of self appears to be related more to people’s perceptions of how they are viewed by others in general than to their perceptions of how they are viewed by significant others. For that reason, researchers of stereotypes should investigate

13

group members’ perceptions of the cultural stereotype of themselves rather than perceptions of the beliefs held by specific individuals. M ultiple categories. Much research into the nature and content of stereotypic beliefs has been conducted under the assumption that people have very general conceptions of social groups (e.g., ‘elderly people’, ‘women’). An increasing number of researchers have suggested, however, that stereotypes exist within a hierarchical categorisation system (Rosch, 1978). In this system, broad or global stereotypes (e.g., ‘women’) are the highest or superordinate categories and beneath this level exist more distinct, subordinate levels or subtypes (e.g., ‘businesswoman’, ‘barmaid’, ‘housewife’; Hamilton & Sherman, 1994). Stereotyping can occur at any level within the hierarchy (Hamilton et al., 1994). Brewer et al. (1981) examined the hierarchical organisation of stereotypes, and hypothesised that people have several stereotypes for different types of elderly individuals. To test their hypothesis, Brewer et al. (1981) defined three elderly subtypes – ‘grandmother’, a nurturing, family-oriented woman; ‘elder statesman’, a distinguished, conservative man; and ‘senior citizen’, an inactive, isolated person. They then obtained photographs of elderly individuals to represent each of the categories. Brewer et al. (1981) found that college students sorted the photographs into subcategories fitting each of the expected stereotypes. Thus, people were shown to have multiple stereotypes of the elderly. Schmidt and Boland (1986) demonstrated that young adults have more representations of older adults than the three conceptualised by Brewer et al. (1981). In their study, college students generated all the descriptors that they associated with

14

the elderly; this yielded a list of 99 traits. Schmidt and Boland (1986) then asked an independent sample of college students to sort the traits into groups where each group represented an elderly subtype. A cluster analysis produced 12 elderly subtypes. Four of those were positive subtypes – ‘John Wayne conservative’, ‘liberal matriarch/ patriarch’, ‘perfect grandparent’, and ‘sage’. In addition, eight negative stereotypes were produced – ‘despondent’, ‘mildly impaired’, ‘vulnerable’, ‘severely impaired’, ‘shrew’, ‘recluse’, ‘nosy neighbour’, and ‘bag lady’. Hummert, Garstka, Shaner, and Strahm (1994) extended those findings by comparing the multiple stereotypes of the elderly held by young, middle-aged, and elderly adults. They found that the three separate age groups have many of the same stereotypes of the elderly, although the middle-aged and elderly adults have more complex stereotype sets than do the young adults. In light of those findings, group-based stereotypes should be specified at both global and subcategory levels. In summary, an inquiry into the nature and content of stereotypic beliefs about any social group requires attention to four separate sets of beliefs. The specification of the cultural stereotype of the group provides an important starting point. Having done that, it is important to investigate the extent to which individuals personally endorse the stereotype. Group members’ perceptions of stereotypic beliefs about themselves are a third important set of beliefs. Finally, researchers can explore the possibility that there are multiple stereotypes of the group.

15

Sources of stereotypic beliefs Whatever their content, most researchers have attempted to understand from where stereotypes come in the first place (Kunda, 1999). Two major explanations have been offered to account for the initial formation of stereotypic belief systems. In some instances, stereotypes are said to be formed through personal experience with group members. However, when interaction with stereotyped group members is limited, stereotypes are assumed to develop through social learning, from family and friends, and from the media (Smith & M ackie, 1995). Personal experience. To some extent, stereotypes develop through personal experience with group members. In interacting with other people, we often see them not as individuals, but rather as members of social groups (Hamilton & Sherman, 1994). In that way, stereotypes are formed through the categorisation of individuals into social groups (Kunda, 1999). Researchers have shown that basic cognitive processes underlie categorisation and the subsequent development of group stereotypes. For instance, our attention is drawn typically to the most salient or unusual characteristics of an individual (M cKnight & Sutton, 1994). Taylor (1981), for example, demonstrated the effects of attending to salient stimuli. In one study, subjects listened to an audiotape of a group conversation while viewing photographs of the individuals who supposedly made each comment. The photographs portrayed the group as either being composed of three Black and three White people, or one Black person and five White people. In the latter condition, the one Black person was highly salient due to group composition. The conversation was identical in both conditions, although the solo

16

Black person was perceived as being more prominent and was rated more extremely on trait scales than when he was part of the group consisting of the same number of Black and White people. Thus, attending to individuals who are unusual or salient in a context can lead to more extreme perceptions of that individual, and to more biased perceptions of group differences. Those biased perceptions can provide a basis for the formation of group stereotypes. Another process that can lead to perceptual differentiation between groups is the distinctiveness-based illusory correlation, which is the erroneous perception of the co-occurrence of rare characteristics (M cGarty & de la Haye, 1997). In a demonstration of the illusory correlation, Hamilton and Gifford (1976) presented subjects with a series of statements describing the behaviour of members of two groups, Group A and Group B. There were twice as many statements about Group A members as about Group B members. Approximately two-thirds of the statements described desirable behaviours and one-third described undesirable behaviours, although the same ratio of desirable to undesirable behaviours was present in both groups. Given that Group B occurred less frequently than Group A, and that undesirable behaviours occurred less often than desirable behaviours, when a member of Group B performed an undesirable behaviour, it constituted the occurrence of rare or distinctive stimulus events. Hamilton and Gifford (1976) found that when subjects were asked for their impressions of the groups, they reported more negative impressions of Group B. They had, therefore, formed an illusory correlation by perceiving an association between the two infrequent and distinctive characteristics – membership in the smaller group and undesirable behaviour.

17

Thus, stereotypes can develop through direct, personal contact with members of social groups. Basic cognitive processes, such as attending to salient stimuli or the co-occurrence of rare stimuli, can lead to the categorisation of individuals into social groups and to biased perceptions of group differences. By generating the initial perception of group differences, these cognitive mechanisms can contribute to the foundation for stereotype development (Hamilton et al., 1994). Social learning: family, friends, and the media. In many instances, people develop stereotypes about certain groups even if they have not had any direct experience with group members (Smith & M ackie, 1995). Parents, teachers, and friends provide initial information about group differences. When stereotypes are deeply embedded in the social norms of a culture, children learn them naturally as a part of growing up and there is strong evidence that stereotypes are well established in children’s memories before they develop the cognitive ability to question the validity or acceptability of the stereotypes (Allport, 1954; Katz, 1976; Smith & M ackie, 1995). In addition to family and friends, however, people acquire stereotypic beliefs about groups of people through media representations (Smith & M ackie, 1995). Because stereotypes are recognisable, the media often use popular stereotypes in material for mass production (M cMahon & Quin, 1987). Such media portrayals are most likely to influence people’s perceptions when they have little or no direct experience with the members of the stereotyped groups (Black & Bryant, 1995). M ost studies of the effects of media portrayals on people’s beliefs have been conducted within the context of gender and racial representations (Smith & M ackie,

18

1995). Historically, women have been dramatically underrepresented in prime-time television, in television news, and in newspaper coverage. Further, when women have been the focus of media representations, they have been depicted typically as housewives and mothers (Black & Bryant, 1995). Similarly, racial minorities have been underrepresented in the media relative to their proportions in the population. Asians, for example, appear very rarely and differences between Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are minimised or ignored (Smith & Mackie, 1995). There is evidence that media portrayals have subtle effects on people’s perceptions of groups. Morgan (1982), for example, conducted a longitudinal examination of television viewing and the development of sex-role stereotypes. He found that the more television adolescent girls watched, the stronger were their beliefs in traditional gender stereotypes one year later. The mechanisms by which media representations influence public perceptions are not clear. Sercombe (1997) claims that there is no one-to-one correspondence between media representations and public perceptions of a group. People’s use of the media, how they perceive a particular event, and what they believe and do not believe, depend on a range of complex factors. Media representations have been shown to exert the most powerful effects when they confirm existing opinions of audiences, or when audiences have few independent sources of information (Roshier, 1973). In summary, stereotypes are formed through interaction with group members, with other people who tell us about the group, or through the media. Once established, stereotypes can exert powerful effects on information processing, on

19

perception, and on behaviour. People tend to look for stereotype-confirming, not stereotype-disconfirming, evidence, and they tend to interpret ambiguous information as if it is consistent with existing stereotypes. Consequences of stereotypic beliefs To examine the consequences of stereotypes, researchers are increasingly focusing on stereotypic beliefs that are held implicitly. Implicit stereotypic beliefs are the ‘introspectively unidentified (or inaccurately identified) traces of past experience that mediate attributions of qualities to members of a social category’ (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; p.15). This recent integration of implicit cognition into social psychological theory has arisen as a consequence of the upsurge of interest in implicit memory (Banaji & Greenwald, 1994). As a result, a growing body of evidence points to the automatic operation of stereotypes (Dovidio, Evans, & Tyler, 1986; Gaertner & McLaughlin, 1983; Gilbert & Hixon, 1991; Greenwald, M cGhee, & Shwartz, 1998). Implicit stereotypes have important effects on information processing and on subsequent evaluations of individuals (Banaji, Hardin, & Rothman, 1993; Darley & Gross, 1983; Higgins, Rholes, & Jones, 1977). Implicit stereotypic beliefs can also affect social interaction, both the behaviour of the holder of the stereotype and the behaviour of the stereotyped group member. In such instances, stereotypes can direct behaviour in confirmatory ways, thereby creating self-fulfilling prophecies (Chen & Bargh, 1997). In other words, people may even elicit stereotype-consistent information from stereotyped individuals by the way they interact with them.

20

Evaluations of stereotyped group members. Social cognition researchers have used priming procedures to investigate the effects of stereotypic beliefs on people’s judgements and evaluations of individuals. Priming refers to any experience or procedure that brings a particular concept to mind (Higgins, 1996). A concept that has been primed is likely to be applied to the interpretation of novel information, even in unrelated contexts (Banaji et al., 1993; Higgins et al., 1977; Srull & Wyer, 1979, 1980). Srull and Wyer (1980), for example, asked subjects to unscramble a series of sentences that described either hostile or non-hostile behaviours. For half of the subjects, 35 sentences described hostile behaviours and for the remaining subjects only 15 sentences described hostile behaviours. In a seemingly unrelated task, subjects read a paragraph that described the behaviours of a hypothetical target person. The behaviours he engaged in were ambiguously hostile. Finally, subjects were required to judge the target person on a series of trait rating scales, some related to and others unrelated to hostility. Srull and Wyer (1980) found that subjects who received the 35 hostile primes judged the target person as more hostile than those who received the 15 hostile primes. Thus, increasing the accessibility of a trait category in memory increases the likelihood that the category will be used to interpret subsequent related behavioural information. Moreover, the effect of the trait category on the interpretation of information and on judgements appears to increase with the number of behavioural exemplars of the trait that are activated. In other instances, the priming procedure has been in the form of subliminal presentations (Bargh & Pietromonaco, 1982; Devine, 1989; Lepore & Brown, 1997). Bargh and Pietromonaco (1982) examined the possibility that information relevant to

21

a trait category that is presented outside of conscious awareness can temporarily increase the accessibility of the category. In an initial vigilance task, subjects reacted as quickly as possible to ‘flashes’ on a screen by pressing a button upon their appearance. The flashes were words, some related to and others unrelated to hostility. The word flashes stayed on the screen for 100 milliseconds and were then masked. Depending on the condition to which the subject had been assigned, either 0 percent, 20 percent, or 80 percent of the trials contained hostile words. Next, subjects read a behavioural description of a target person that was ambiguous with respect to the trait of hostility. Finally, they rated the target person on several trait rating scales, half of which were related to hostility and half of which were not. The researchers found that subjects in the 80 percent hostile-word group rated the target person as more hostile than did subjects in the other two groups. For hostility-unrelated traits, however, both the 80 percent and the 20 percent groups rated the target person more negatively than the 0 percent group. These findings emphasise that people do not have to be aware of the source of environmental information for it to influence judgements of other people. Stereotypes do not always affect the judgements that people make about other individuals. For instance, the complexity of the judgement task affects people’s use of stereotypes in making judgements. Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987), for example, found that stereotypes are more influential when judgements involve complex and diverse information than when they involve simple trait inferences. Thus, stereotypes influence the judgement process under complex and difficult conditions (Hamilton et al., 1990). In addition, when a perceiver encounters an

22

individual group member, two kinds of information could be used when evaluating that person. First, the perceiver could make use of the stereotype of the group to which the individual belongs. Second, the perceiver could use specific ‘individuating’ information about the particular person (Hamilton et al., 1990). The relative importance of these two kinds of information is dependent on the relation between them. Specifically, judgements of an individual are influenced more by stereotypes when the information describing the individual is ambiguous, consistent with the stereotype, or uninformative. Alternatively, evaluations of the individual are more likely to be based on individuating information when that information is inconsistent with stereotypic beliefs (Fiske, Neuberg, Beattie, & M ilberg, 1987). Overall, stereotypes can influence how information is interpreted. Those influences are particularly strong when the information is ambiguous, and can occur outside of awareness. The effects of stereotyping on information processing are not limited to judgements or evaluations of individuals. Self-fulfilling prophecies. When a person is categorised as a member of a group, a stereotype about the group is activated. The stereotype can then serve as a basis of expectancies about how that person is likely to behave, and as a guide to how one should behave when interacting with that person. Those expectancies can elicit stereotype-consistent behaviour from the holder of the stereotype. This in turn can affect the behaviour of the stereotyped individual who reciprocates with stereotypeconsistent behaviour (Hamilton et al., 1994). In that way, stereotypes can lead to selffulfilling prophecies (M erton, 1948), expectancies for which behavioural

23

confirmation by the stereotyped group member is induced through the actions of the holder of the stereotype (Hamilton et al., 1990). Word et al. (1974) demonstrated the effect of racial stereotypes on perceivers’ behaviour. White participants each interviewed a White and a Black job applicant, who were confederates trained to respond in a standard manner. Nevertheless, participants treated the White and Black applicants quite differently. When interviewing Black applicants, White participants conducted shorter interviews, made more speech errors, and made less eye contact. Given that the confederate applicants were trained to behave in a uniform manner, the differences in perceivers’ behaviour toward the Black and White confederates were due only to the perceivers’ stereotypebased expectancies. In a second study, Word et al. (1974) showed that perceivers’ behaviour can elicit self-fulfilling prophecy effects. Confederates were trained to use the two different interview styles that participants had exhibited in the first study. The first style was the manner in which participants interviewed Black confederates and conveyed a negative evaluation (short interview length, little eye contact, and more speech errors). The second style was the way in which participants had interviewed White confederates (increased interview length, more eye contact, and fewer speech errors). The researchers found that participants who were interviewed by a confederate using the negative interview style performed more poorly in the interview, as rated by outside observers, than those who were interviewed with the positive interview style; the positive or negative interview style produced differences in interviewee performance. Such self-fulfilling prophecy effects have been seen in

24

several other experiments (Neuberg, 1989; Snyder & Swan, 1978; Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977). Stereotypes that are activated outside of awareness can also produce behavioural confirmation effects. In a study by Chen and Bargh (1997), White participants were exposed subliminally to photographs of either White or African American males. Then they were paired with a partner who had not been exposed to any photographs. The pair of participants played a word-guessing game and their interaction was recorded on separate channels of a tape recorder. Two judges, who were unaware of the experimental hypotheses, listened to the audiotapes and rated each participant for the degree of hostility that was displayed. Participants who had been primed subliminally with photographs of African American males were rated as more hostile than those who had been primed with photographs of White males. The photographs had activated the African American stereotype, which includes the trait hostility, and this affected their behaviour. M oreover, those who interacted with participants who had been primed with the African American photographs exhibited greater hostility than those who interacted with participants primed with the photographs of White males. Thus, stereotypic beliefs can elicit self-fulfilling prophecy effects without any intention or awareness on the part of the holders of those beliefs. That is, perceivers may not even realise that their stereotypic beliefs have been activated or that they are behaving in accordance with those beliefs. This chapter has pointed thus far to the central issues that need to be considered in any investigation of stereotypic beliefs. This review has highlighted the different ways in which the content of stereotypic beliefs should be specified and the

25

need to explore both the sources and consequences of those beliefs. This chapter now details our current knowledge of the content, sources, and consequences of stereotypic beliefs about young people; in doing so, the chapter points to the limitations of the existing research.

Current understanding of stereotypic beliefs about youth Only a handful of empirical studies has investigated stereotypic beliefs about young people (Buchanan et al., 1990; Buchanan & Holmbeck, 1998; Holmbeck & Hill, 1988; Offer et al., 1981; Stoller, Offer, Howard, & Koenig, 1996). Almost all of these have addressed people’s endorsement of the notion of ‘youth as problem’ and of adolescence as a time of storm and stress (Arnett, 1999). Buchanan et al. (1990), for example, assessed parents’ and teachers’ beliefs about adolescence. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed with a series of statements such as 'Changes in hormones make early adolescence a difficult period of life' and 'There are lots of things parents can do to make their relationship with their adolescents a good one'. Buchanan et al. (1990) found that parents and teachers had both positive and negative beliefs about adolescence. On the one hand, most participants believed adolescence to be a difficult time of life. On the other hand, they indicated that parents can do things to assist their relationship with their adolescents. Holmbeck and Hill (1988) assessed the extent to which a sample of college students endorsed the notion of adolescence as a time of storm and stress, and found that beliefs in storm and stress notions were quite prevalent. For example, 72 percent gave the item 'Adolescence is a stormy and stressful time' a rating of 5 or higher on a 7-point scale.

26

Only one study has sought to assess the range of attributes that are assigned to young people as a category. Buchanan and Holmbeck (1998) asked participants to generate a list of descriptors to characterise both the ‘stereotypical’ and ‘average’ young person. An independent sample of college students and parents of adolescents then indicated the extent to which they believed the descriptors to be accurate. Those responses were then entered into a factor analysis, the purpose of which was to produce a measure to assess stereotypic beliefs about adolescence. The factor analysis yielded nine subscales: Risk-taking/Rebellious, Friendly, Problem Behaviours, Classic Adolescent Behaviours, Social, Internalising, Active, Conforming, and Upstanding/Prosocial. Buchanan and Holmbeck’s (1998) findings are important because they revealed that stereotypic beliefs about youth include a range of traits and behaviours, including positive as well as negative attributes. Their study, however, was limited to personal beliefs about young people. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they believed each descriptor to be characteristic of young people. This does not provide information about the cultural stereotype of young people. Because a person may have knowledge of the content of a stereotype without endorsing that stereotype as his or her personal belief (Devine, 1989), it is important to specify both the cultural stereotype of youth and personal endorsement of the stereotype. Further, existing research has given no attention to young people’s perceptions of stereotypic beliefs about themselves. Therefore, we have no knowledge of the extent to which young people are aware of the nature and content of the youth-related stereotype. Finally, Buchanan and Holmbeck’s (1998) research was limited in that they sought

27

participants’ personal beliefs about the ‘typical’ teenager. As a result, we lack information about the extent to which people have multiple stereotypes of youth. Our current understanding of the content of stereotypic beliefs about young people is limited to adults’ personal beliefs. Investigations of the cultural stereotype of youth, young people’s knowledge of the stereotype, and multiple stereotypes of youth are essential if we are to gain a comprehensive understanding of stereotypic beliefs about young people. This thesis aims to provide that information. Beliefs about young people as problems are assumed to originate in part from media representations of young people (Bessant & Hil, 1997). In general, media portrayals of youth are negative and often sensationalise a ‘juvenile crime wave’ (Buttrum, 1997), typically neglecting the positive and important contributions that young people can make. A growing body of work has documented that the Australian media is replete with ‘bad’ news about young people (Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, 1992; Hil, 1997; M cM ahon, 1997; Rendell, 1997; Sercombe, 1997; Webber, 1998). Increasing drug problems, gang-related violence, juvenile crime rates, and youth unemployment saturate media reports. It has been claimed often that such reporting fosters negative community beliefs about young people (Bessant & Hil, 1997; Omaji, 1997). Yet the empirical evidence to support those claims is limited. Stereotypic beliefs about any group develop either through interactions with members of the stereotyped group or through learning about the group from other people and the media. Further, Sercombe (1997) has claimed that many adults are separated from the experiences of young people due to the general exclusion of young people from most aspects of society. M edia

28

portrayals of young people are therefore likely to be an important source of stereotypic beliefs about youth. Thus, the relationship between media representations and stereotypic beliefs about youth needs to be examined empirically. I do this in this thesis. There has been virtually no research directed toward understanding the consequences of stereotypic beliefs about youth for information processing, perception and behaviour. This thesis aims to provide information about those consequences. The research conducted for this thesis examined the consequences of stereotypic beliefs about youth for adults’ evaluations of young people and for selffulfilling prophecies Some studies have investigated the consequences of young people’s perceptions of others’ beliefs about them, or their reflected appraisals, for the behaviour that they engage in (Bartusch & M atsueda, 1996; Heimer & Matsueda, 1994; M atsueda, 1992). Matsueda and his colleagues found that young people’s perceptions that significant others perceive them to be problematic can increase the likelihood that they will engage in problem behaviour. M atsueda (1992) hypothesised that problem behaviour is largely a function of the meanings of self that are relevant to problem behaviour. He further claimed that these meanings arise in part through labeling. In other words, reflected appraisals of the self as problematic are affected by the actual appraisals made by significant others, including parents, teachers, and peers. Heimer and M atsueda (1994) found that reflected appraisals of the self as problematic had a large effect on problem behaviour. Young people who saw themselves from the standpoint of parents and peers as problematic were more likely

29

to engage in problem behaviour. Reflected appraisals, in turn, were determined by parents’ actual appraisals. Bartusch and Matsueda (1996) confirmed those findings. Thus, young people’s perceptions of others’ beliefs about them can elicit selffulfilling prophecy effects. The research by Matsueda and his colleagues was limited to the reflected appraisals of significant others. The sense of self, however, is more related to people’s perceptions of how they are viewed by others in general (see DePaulo et al., 1987). Thus, it is important to investigate the extent to which young people’s perceptions of others’ beliefs in general contribute to their problem behaviour. Further, young people’s engagement in problem behaviour is influenced by a range of factors (Sullivan & Wilson, 1995). Recent research into the causes of problem behaviour has been focused on theoretical integration and on the exploration of the relationships between social structural, person-centred, and environmental factors that are known to play significant roles (Jessor, Van Den Bos, Vanderryn, Costa, & Turbin, 1995; O’Donnell, Hawkins, & Abbott, 1995). Among such attempts, Thornberry (1987) proposed an interactional theory of delinquency that examines reciprocal causal structures. The theory proposes that human behaviour occurs in social interaction and in order to provide a comprehensive explanation of delinquent behaviour it is necessary to formulate models that focus on interactive processes. Thus, rather than viewing delinquency simply as an outcome variable, predictor variables are reciprocally related, with delinquent behaviour exerting a causal influence over the other factors. Thornberry combined social control (Hirschi, 1969) and social learning (Bandura, 1973; Akers, 1977) theories. He claimed that the

30

attenuation of social bonds to conventional society provides young people with greater behavioural freedom, including the opportunity to engage in problem behaviour. For that to occur, an environment is required in which delinquency is learned and reinforced. Thornberry (1987) proposed that associations with delinquent peers provide that environment. Most importantly, however, this entire process develops over time, such that delinquency is not only affected by, but it also affects the bonding and learning variables. Thus integrated theories of delinquency, especially with an interactional focus, acknowledge that there are multiple causal pathways to delinquency. Surprisingly, however, among the many factors that have been implicated as exerting an influence over delinquency involvement, the role of young people’s perceptions of stereotypic beliefs about them has been neglected. Our current understanding of the relationship between stereotypic beliefs and young people’s engagement in delinquent behaviour is limited to the knowledge that young people’s perceptions that significant others perceive them to be rule-violators increases their involvement in problematic behaviour. The relative contribution of young people’s perceptions of stereotypic beliefs about them to their engagement in problem behaviour therefore needs to be determined. I examine this in this thesis.

31

Summary of aims The research conducted for this thesis had four overriding aims. The first was to specify the nature and content of stereotypic beliefs about youth using four converging approaches: (a) examining adults’ knowledge of the cultural stereotype of youth, (b) investigating adults’ personal beliefs, (c) exploring young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs, and (d) investigating multiple stereotypes of youth. By way of specifying stereotypic beliefs about young people, the first aim of the program of research was also to develop two psychometrically sound measures to assess those beliefs. One measure would assess adults’ personal beliefs about youth. Buchanan and Holmbeck's (1998) measure was thought to be inadequate for two reasons. First, their measure derives from a factor analysis in which the authors included all items, regardless of the extent of endorsement among the sample of college students and parents of adolescents. What makes stereotypes social, however, is that they are widely shared, or consensual in nature (Haslam, 1997). An alternative approach is therefore to include only those traits and behaviours that are widely held to be characteristic of young people. Second, Buchanan and Holmbeck's measure derived from the responses of college students and parents of adolescents. The overriding question in the present research concerned the content of general stereotypic beliefs about young people. For that reason, the goal was to develop a measure based on the responses of a sample of adults who were drawn from the broader community. The second measure to be derived from the program of research was to provide an index of young people’s perceptions of stereotypic beliefs about them.

32

The second aim of the present program of research was to investigate the media as a source of stereotypic beliefs about youth. Specifically, this research sought to establish an empirical relationship between media representations and stereotypic beliefs about youth. The third aim was to investigate the consequences of stereotypic beliefs about youth for adults' evaluations of young people and for their interactions with young people. A fourth and final aim of the program of research was to explore the extent to which young people's perceptions of stereotypic beliefs about them interact with established correlates of delinquency to influence the propensity of young people to engage in problem behaviour. This was examined within the context of Thornberry’s (1987) interactional theory of delinquency. The next four chapters of this thesis describe the studies that were carried out to investigate the nature, sources, and consequences of stereotypic beliefs about young people. Chapter 2 presents the studies that investigated the nature and content of stereotypic beliefs about youth. The second chapter also presents the two measures that were developed to assess adults’ stereotypic beliefs about youth and young people’s perceptions of those beliefs. Chapter 3 presents the studies that investigated media representations of young people as sources of stereotypic beliefs about youth. The fourth chapter in this thesis presents the studies that investigated the consequences of adults' stereotypic beliefs about youth for their evaluations of young people and for self-fulfilling prophecies. Chapter 5 presents the final study that was conducted for this program of research. It involved a more narrow focus on the consequences of stereotypic beliefs about youth. Specifically, the culmination of the

33

research program was concerned with the effects of young people’s perceptions of stereotypic beliefs about them on their engagement in problem behaviour.

34

CHAPTER 2 S TEREOTYPIC BELIEFS ABOUT YOUTH Page INTRODUCTION

36

STUDY 1: Cultural stereotype of youth

37

Introduction

37

M ethod

38

Participants

38

M easures and Procedure

38

Results and Discussion

39

Phase one: Content generation

39

Phase two: Knowledge of the cultural stereotype of youth

40

Summary

42

STUDIES 2A & 2B: Personal beliefs about youth

43

Introduction

43

M ethod

44

Participants

44

M easures and Procedure

45

Study 2A

46

Results and Discussion

46

Adults' personal beliefs about young people

46

Comparing the cultural stereotype and personal beliefs

50

35

Study 2B

51

Results and Discussion

51

Summary

55

STUDIES 3A & 3B: Young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about youth

56

Introduction

56

M ethod

57

Participants

57

M easures and Procedure

57

Study 3A

58

Results and Discussion

58

Study 3B

63

Results and Discussion

63

Summary

66

STUDY 4: Investigating multiple stereotypes of youth

66

Introduction

66

M ethod

67

Participants

67

M easures and Procedure

68

Results and Discussion

68

Summary

76

DISCUSSION

77

36

INTRODUCTION Little attention has been afforded to investigating the range of community beliefs about young people. M ost of the existing research has focused on beliefs of adolescence as a time of storm and stress (Buchanan et al., 1990; Holmbeck & Hill, 1988; Offer et al., 1981). This chapter presents the studies that sought to specify the breadth in the content of stereotypic beliefs about youth. Stereotypic beliefs about youth refer to two separate, but related sets of beliefs - knowledge of the cultural stereotype and endorsement of that stereotype. The first study that was conducted for this thesis established adults’ knowledge of the cultural stereotype of youth. Adults may have knowledge of the cultural stereotype without endorsing that stereotype as their personal beliefs (Devine, 1989; Krueger, 1994). Study 2A investigated adults’ personal beliefs about youth. In essence, an exploration of the cultural stereotype asks participants to rate young people ‘as society sees them’, while an investigation of personal beliefs requires participants to rate young people ‘as they personally see them’. Study 2B sought to develop a measure to assess adults' personal beliefs about youth. People’s sense of self, however, derives in part from their perceptions of how they are viewed by others (Schwalbe & Staples, 1991). A related set of beliefs therefore concerns young people’s reflected appraisals, or their perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them. An examination of young people’s perceptions complement the findings relating to adults’ actual beliefs, and help to establish whether young people are aware of the nature and content of stereotypic beliefs about themselves. Thus,

37

Study 3A investigated young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them. Study 3B developed a measure to assess those perceptions. Investigations of adults’ knowledge of the cultural stereotype of youth, of their personal beliefs, and of young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs require people to think in terms of a ‘typical teenager’. As has already been discussed in Chapter 1 of this thesis, stereotypes have been researched at both the global and subcategory (multiple) levels. Researchers of multiple stereotypes claim that global stereotypes, including age-based stereotypes, are often too broad to capture the complexity of social groups. Empirically derived data indicate that social stereotypes can be hierarchically organised, consisting of subcategories of group members (Brewer et al., 1981; Devine & Baker, 1991; Hummert, 1990; Schmidt & Boland, 1986). An investigation of multiple stereotypes of youth was therefore important to complete the inquiry into stereotypic beliefs about young people. This was carried out in Study 4. S TUDY 1 Cultural stereotype of youth Introduction Study 1 aimed to identify the cultural stereotype of young people. There were two phases in this study. In the content generation phase, participants were asked to produce a list of trait and behaviour descriptors that people use to characterise youth. In phase two, an independent sample of participants rated those descriptors to indicate their knowledge of the cultural stereotype of youth. Essentially, this required that participants respond to each item in the way they thought most adult members of the

38

community would respond if they were making judgements about the ‘typical’ teenager. The notion of ‘youth as problematic’ has been the prevailing representation of youth (Willis, 1981). It was therefore expected that adults’ knowledge of the cultural stereotype of youth would consist of negative traits and behaviours. M ethod Participants Ninety-six adults took part in the content generation phase (Phase 1). There were 46 young adults (ages 18-34, 23 males and 23 females) and 50 older adults (ages 35-75, 26 males and 24 females). The investigation of the cultural stereotype of youth (Phase 2) involved 86 adults. Fifty-six of those were young adults (ages 18 to 34, 13 males and 43 females) and 30 were older adults (ages 35-75, 6 males and 24 females). In both phases, participants were recruited from undergraduate psychology students at the University of New South Wales and from local community drop-in and leisure centres. M easures and Procedure For content generation, participants were asked to write down all the words and short phrases they could think of to describe the ‘typical’ teenager of today. They were told to include both favourable and unfavourable characteristics, which they may or may not personally believe to be true. To assess knowledge of the cultural stereotype of youth, a questionnaire was developed using the items derived from the content generation phase. Participants rated each item twice. First, they were asked to indicate the extent to which most adults in the community would judge each item

39

to be characteristic of a ‘typical’ teenager. They were told that their ratings may or may not correspond with their personal beliefs. They made their ratings on an 8-point scale that ranged from 0 (‘Extremely uncharacteristic’) to 7 (‘Extremely characteristic’). Second, participants rated the social desirability of each item on a 7-point scale that ranged from 0 (‘Very good’) to 6 (‘Very bad’). The order in which the items were presented was different for the two questionnaires, and those orders were reversed for half of the participants. Results and Discussion The findings are presented in two sections. The first details the content generation phase. The second presents the results of the investigation of the nature and content of adults’ knowledge of the cultural stereotype of youth. All analyses that were performed for this study (and for all of the studies presented in this chapter), used SPSS for Windows (Norusis, 1993). Phase one: Content generation A total of 369 words and short phrases was provided by the participants in Phase one. Those descriptors were examined for semantic similarities by three independent judges. Wherever any two or more items were judged to be similar, a single word or phrase was identified to characterise the set. When the judges did not agree on similarity, or when they judged an item as having a distinct meaning, the item was retained in its original wording. The final set was prepared only after complete agreement had been reached. Items that were mentioned by at least three participants were retained for Phase two. This reduced the total number of items to be investigated in Phase two to 108. Those items included positive and negative

40

descriptors, and covered personality traits (e.g. selfish, competitive), behaviours (e.g. uses alcohol, listens to loud music), and emotional states (e.g. happy, confused). The 108 descriptors, together with their mean social desirability ratings, are presented in Appendix A. Phase two: Knowledge of the cultural stereotype of youth Given that this research was concerned with the youth-related stereotype, descriptors rated as extremely characteristic and extremely uncharacteristic were of most interest. Descriptors thought to be neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic have less relevance to an investigation of stereotypic beliefs. In addition, a defining feature of a social stereotype is that the beliefs are held by a majority of people (Haslam, 1997). For that reason, only those descriptors rated as extremely characteristic or uncharacteristic by more than 50 percent of the sample were examined. When the 86 adults were asked to indicate their beliefs about the cultural stereotype of youth, 61 of the 108 items were rated 5, 6, or 7 (extremely characteristic) by more than 50 percent of the sample. Those 61 items are the basis for the cultural stereotype of youth. No descriptor was given a rating of 0, 1, or 2 by more than 50 percent of the sample. The 10 most widely endorsed descriptors, together with the percentage of participants who endorsed them and their mean social desirability ratings, are presented in Table 2.1. The complete list of 61 descriptors is presented in Appendix A.

41

Table 2.1 The top ten descriptors of the cultural stereotype of youth

Descriptor

Percentage of Social desirability participants (N=86) M SD

Eats junk food

94.3

4.5

1.2

Listens to loud music

91.8

3.0

1.1

Wants freedom

91.3

2.0

1.2

Watches too much TV

89.6

4.5

1.0

Is boy-girl crazy

89.5

3.0

1.3

Uses alcohol

89.5

4.2

1.2

Is influenced by American culture

89.5

4.3

1.2

Is impulsive

89.5

4.9

1.1

Is computer literate

88.4

1.1

1.2

Stays out late

88.3

3.5

1.3

Note: 1. The percentage of participants refers to those who gave the descriptors ratings of 5, 6, or 7 (extremely characteristic) on the rating scale. 2. Social desirability ratings can range from 0 to 6. A higher rating indicates that the descriptor is judged as more socially undesirable.

Table 2.1 shows that some of the most widely endorsed descriptors referred to popular notions of adolescence, which Buchanan and Holmbeck (1998) have labelled classic adolescent behaviours (e.g., ‘listens to loud music’, ‘wants freedom’). Other descriptors most widely endorsed as belonging to the cultural stereotype of youth included problematic behaviours and personality traits (e.g., ‘uses alcohol’, ‘is impulsive’). Table 2.1 also lists the mean social desirability ratings for the top ten

42

descriptors of the cultural stereotype of youth. Participants rated the social desirability of each descriptor on a scale that ranged from 0 (‘Very good’) to 6 (‘Very bad’). Table 2.1 shows that five of the top ten descriptors have mean ratings of 4.2 or higher. Those descriptors are clearly socially undesirable traits and behaviours. Only two of the top ten descriptors are socially desirable (‘is computer literate’ and ‘wants freedom’). The 61 descriptors that comprised adults’ knowledge of the cultural stereotype of youth were categorised according to their social desirability ratings. Descriptors with a mean rating of less than 3.0 were classed as positive. Those with a mean rating between 3.0 and 3.9 were classed as neutral, and descriptors with a mean rating of 4.0 or more were classed as negative. Figure 2.1 shows the percentage of the 61 descriptors in the positive, neutral, and negative categories. Almost two thirds of them (64%) were judged to be negative or undesirable, and many of those (e.g., ‘is violent’, ‘is lazy’, ‘is disrespectful’, ‘uses drugs’) were judged to be very negative, that is, with mean ratings of 5 or above. Items that were judged as positive (e.g., ‘is computer literate’, ‘is talkative’) and as neutral (e.g., ‘is fashion conscious’, ‘wants to be popular’) by the participants were fewer in number. Summary Adults’ beliefs about the components of the cultural stereotype of youth are, for the most part, very negative. That is as was predicted. M ost items endorsed as belonging to the cultural stereotype had been assigned very negative social desirability ratings by the adult sample. Very few items that were afforded positive

43

social desirability ratings were found to comprise adults’ beliefs about the cultural

% of Descriptors

stereotype of youth.

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Negative

Neutral

Positive

Social Desirability Figure 2.1 Percentage of descriptors endorsed as the cultural stereotype that were rated negative, neutral, or positive in social desirability

S TUDIES 2A AND 2B Personal beliefs about youth Introduction Study 2 had two parts. The first part (Study 2A) specified the nature and content of adults’ personal beliefs about young people and compared those beliefs with the knowledge of the cultural stereotype identified in Study 1. Study 2A adopted the same approach as that used to specify the cultural stereotype. The questionnaire that was used in Study 1 was also employed in the present study. This time, however, participants were asked to provide their personal beliefs about youth.

44

Based on those responses, Study 2B aimed to develop a psychometrically sound measure for assessing adults’ personal beliefs about youth. Although Buchanan and Holmbeck’s (1998) measure was developed only recently, it has two limitations. First, during the measure refinement, Buchanan and Holmbeck (1998) included all items in their factor analysis, regardless of how strongly they were endorsed by the sample. What makes stereotypes social, however, is that they are widely shared (Haslam, 1997). For that reason, it was thought to be important to develop a measure containing only items that are widely held to be characteristic of young people. Second, Buchanan and Holmbeck’s (1998) measure derives from the responses of college students and parents of adolescents. The overriding question in this research concerned the nature and content of general community beliefs about young people. Thus, the measure developed in this research derives from a sample adults who were drawn from the broader community. In Studies 2A and 2B, and consistent with the findings of Buchanan and Holmbeck (1998), it was expected that participants would endorse both positive and negative descriptors as their personal beliefs about youth. It was expected, however, that participants would endorse more negative than positive descriptors as their personal beliefs. M ethod Participants Study 2A involved 382 adults: 176 were young adults (ages 18-34, 73 males and 103 females) and 206 participants were older adults (ages 35-82, 100 males and 106 females). To allow a direct comparison of participants’

45

beliefs about the cultural stereotype of youth and their own personal beliefs, the 86 participants in Study 1 also participated Study 2A. Participants were recruited from undergraduate psychology students at the University of New South Wales, their parents, and from local community centres. In Study 2B, the responses of the participants of Study 2A were used to develop a measure to assess adults’ personal beliefs about youth. An independent sample of 30 undergraduate psychology students (ages 18-42, 15 males and 15 females) was used to estimate the test-retest reliability of the final measure. A subgroup of 74 (ages 18-62, 18 males and 56 females) participants from Study 2A was used to assess the convergent validity of the measure. M easures and Procedure In Study 2A, participants completed the 108-item questionnaire that was used in Study 1. They provided their personal beliefs about the ‘average’ or ‘typical’ teenager, by rating each item on an 8-point scale where 0 was ‘Extremely characteristic’ and 7 was ‘Extremely uncharacteristic’. The order in which the items appeared on the questionnaire was reversed for half of the participants. In Study 2B, the descriptors that were endorsed as participants’ personal beliefs about youth were entered into a factor analysis, the purpose of which was to produce a measure to assess adults’ personal beliefs about youth. After the development of the measure, test-retest reliability and convergent validity were assessed. To assess convergent validity, the association between the measure and Holmbeck and Hill’s (1988) ‘storm and stress’ scale was examined.

46

Study 2A Results and Discussion The data that derive from this study are presented in two sections. The first details the findings that relate to the nature and content of adults’ personal beliefs about youth. The second presents the results of the comparison between adults’ personal beliefs about youth and adults’ beliefs about the cultural stereotype that were identified in Study 1. Adults’ personal beliefs about young people Using the same selection criterion as in Study 1, only items for which more than 50 percent of the sample provided a rating of 5, 6, or 7 (‘Extremely characteristic’), or 0, 1, or 2 (‘Extremely uncharacteristic’) were retained for further examination. When participants were asked to indicate their personal beliefs about youth, 35 of the 108 items were rated 5, 6, or 7 by more than 50 percent of the young adult sample. Forty-nine items were rated 5, 6, or 7 by more than 50 percent of the older adult sample. The 10 descriptors most widely endorsed by young adults and those endorsed by older adults are presented in Table 2.2, together with the percentage of participants who endorsed them and their mean social desirability ratings. The complete list of descriptors that were rated as extremely characteristic of youth by both adult samples is presented in Appendix A.

47

Table 2.2 The top ten descriptors endorsed as young and older adults’ personal beliefs about youth

Descriptor

Percentage of adults Young Older (N=176) (N=206)

Social desirability M

SD

Wants freedom

91.0

93.0

2.0

1.2

Wants to be popular

90.0

93.0

3.2

1.1

Listens to loud music

78.0

93.0

3.0

1.1

Is influenced by American culture

78.0

85.0

4.3

1.2

Watches too much TV

76.0

89.0

4.5

1.0

Is computer literate

76.0

80.0

1.1

1.2

Is boy-girl crazy

74.0

87.0

3.0

1.3

Is fashion conscious

83.0

---

3.4

1.3

Swears

78.0

---

4.7

1.1

Uses alcohol

76.0

---

4.2

1.2

Stays out late

---

84.0

3.5

1.3

Is materialistic

---

82.0

4.4

1.5

Is under pressure

---

80.0

4.3

1.3

Note: 1. The percentage of participants refers to those who gave the descriptors ratings of 5, 6, or 7 (extremely characteristic) on the rating scale. 2. Social desirability ratings can range from 0 to 6. A higher rating indicates that the descriptor is judged as more socially undesirable.

48

The descriptors in Table 2.2 include popular notions of adolescence (e.g., ‘watches too much TV’) as well as problematic behaviours (e.g., ‘uses alcohol’). Thus, the descriptors that were most widely endorsed as adults’ personal beliefs about youth are very similar to those most widely endorsed as belonging to the cultural stereotype (see Table 2.1). Table 2.2 also shows that seven of the top ten descriptors endorsed as young adults’ personal beliefs were also endorsed as older adults’ personal beliefs. The social desirability ratings of the top ten descriptors reveal that both young and older adults endorsed four negative descriptors, although only two of those (‘is influenced by American culture’ and ‘watches too much TV’) were common to both samples. Just two of the top ten descriptors endorsed by both samples (‘wants freedom’ and ‘is computer literate’) were clearly socially desirable traits or attributes. The 35 descriptors that comprise young adults’ personal beliefs and the 49 that comprise older adults’ personal beliefs were categorised according to the social desirability ratings that were provided by the participants in Study 1. Figure 2.2 shows the percentage of descriptors that were categorised as positive, neutral, or negative according to the social desirability ratings. Both young and older adults endorsed more negative than positive descriptors, although the older adults endorsed almost twice as many positive descriptors as did the young adults. Some examples of the negative traits and behaviours that were endorsed by both groups include ‘is rebellious’, ‘swears’, and ‘hates authority’. All of those had mean social desirability ratings of around 4.5 (on the scale that ranged from 0 to 6). Some examples of

49

positive items that were endorsed by the older, but not the young adults, include ‘is ambitious’, ‘is enthusiastic’, and ‘works hard to achieve goals’. Interestingly, both adult samples endorsed several very negative descriptors as extremely uncharacteristic of young people (that is, ratings of 0, 1, or 2 on the 8-point scale). Specifically, the descriptors ‘steals’, ‘graffitis’, ‘becomes pregnant’, and ‘is a drug addict’ were rated as extremely uncharacteristic of young people by more than 50 percent of both adult samples. ‘Belongs to gangs’ was judged by the young adults, and ‘is dishonest’ by the older adults, as extremely uncharacteristic of youth. All of those items were afforded mean social desirability ratings of 5 or above (on the scale

% of Descriptors

that ranged from 0 to 6).

young adults older adults

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Negative

Neutral

Positive

Social Desirability Figure 2.2 Percentage of descriptors endorsed as young and older adults’ personal beliefs that were rated negative, neutral, or positive in social desirability

50

Comparing the cultural stereotype and personal beliefs To examine the correspondence in the cultural stereotype and personal beliefs, the responses of the 86 participants who took part in both studies were recoded so that ratings of 0, 1, or 2 were taken to indicate ‘extremely uncharacteristic’ of youth, ratings of 3 or 4 represented ‘neither characteristic nor uncharacteristic’, and responses of 5, 6, or 7 were taken as ‘extremely characteristic’ of youth. Personal belief and cultural stereotype ratings were then cross-tabulated for each item. Twenty-nine of the 108 items were rated as extremely characteristic of young people according to participants’ personal beliefs and their beliefs about the cultural stereotype. M ost of those items were ‘popular notions of adolescence’ (e.g. ‘wants to be popular’, ‘is moody’), although some were problem behaviours and traits (e.g. ‘uses alcohol’, ‘is sexually active’). Twenty-eight of those 29 descriptors were either neutral or slightly negative in social desirability. No descriptor was rated as extremely uncharacteristic (rated 0, 1, or 2) according to both sets of beliefs. These findings highlight the substantial overlap between the content of participants’ personal beliefs and their beliefs about the cultural stereotype, at least for those traits and behaviours that are neutral or slightly negative in social desirability. In contrast, traits and behaviours that were rated as extremely socially undesirable were endorsed as the cultural stereotype but not as personal beliefs. Ten items were rated as extremely characteristic of youth according to participants’ beliefs about the cultural stereotype, but were not endorsed by those participants as personal beliefs. All 10 descriptors had been assigned extremely negative social desirability ratings (e.g. ‘is destructive’, ‘is irresponsible’, ‘is rude’). In other words,

51

participants’ beliefs about the cultural stereotype of youth were more negative than their personal beliefs. Study 2A specified adults’ personal beliefs about youth and compared those beliefs with what the same adults identified as belonging to the cultural stereotype. This research sought to go beyond description and comparison. It aimed to develop a psychometrically sound measure that would facilitate future investigations of the predictors and consequences of stereotypic beliefs about youth. Study 2B details the steps that were taken to produce a measure to assess adults’ personal beliefs about young people, and then presents that measure. Study 2B Results and Discussion The first step in developing a measure to assess adults’ personal beliefs about young people was the selection of the items to be entered into the factor analysis. The responses of the young and older adult samples in Study 2A were combined. The 39 items that were afforded ratings of 5, 6, or 7 (extremely characteristic) by more than 50 percent of the total sample of young and older participants were entered into the factor analysis. The factor analytic procedure followed the methodological guidelines of Fabrigar, Wegener, M acCallum, and Strahan (1999), which focus on the type of factor analysis to be conducted, the model-fitting procedure to be used, and the rotation method to be employed. When there are no a priori hypotheses about the number of factors expected to emerge, an exploratory factor analysis is appropriate. Because there were no such expectations in the present study, an exploratory factor

52

analysis was chosen over a confirmatory factor analysis. In terms of the choice of the model fitting procedure, maximum likelihood is the preferred method. Because this method assumes multivariate normality, the variables in the present data set were tested for normal distribution. All variables were found to be within the normal range (skewness < 2, kurtosis < 7), and so maximum likelihood was chosen as the model fitting procedure. Finally, Fabrigar et al. (1999) claim that oblique rotation should be used over orthogonal rotation, especially when the factors are expected to be correlated; oblique rotation was used. The first maximum likelihood factor analysis failed to converge using oblique rotation. An analysis using orthogonal rotation resulted in 11 factors that accounted for 44.4 percent of the variance. The first five were easily interpretable, although the remaining six consisted of small numbers of items (three or fewer) that were not readily interpretable. In addition, the scree plot suggested that the optimal number of factors was five. It was therefore decided that items that did not load above .40 on any of the first five factors should be deleted (Stevens, 1986). Eighteen items were eliminated in that process. A second maximum likelihood factor analysis was conducted using the remaining 21 items. This time the solution converged using oblique rotation. Five factors were produced, which accounted for 41.1 percent of the variance. All items except one (‘has poor communication with parents’) loaded above .40 on one of the 5 factors and below .40 on all others. The item ‘has poor communication with parents’ was therefore dropped, bringing the final solution to 20 items. Table 2.3 presents the items and their factor loadings. To facilitate interpretation, each factor has a label

53

that captures the main content of its items. Four of the five factors are similar to those in Buchanan and Holmbeck’s (1998) Beliefs about Adolescent Personality and Behaviour Scale. First, in their measure, the ‘Conventionalism’ subscale (identified in the present study) was labelled ‘Upstanding/Prosocial’. In the social psychological literature the term ‘prosocial’ refers to helping behaviour (Deaux & Wrightsman, 1988). Although the descriptor ‘helpful’ appears on Buchanan and Holmbeck’s factor, it was not present in this research. For that reason, the label ‘Conventionalism’ was thought to be more appropriate. Two additional factors were produced in the present study that were similar to those produced in the Buchanan and Holmbeck study, although were afforded different factor labels in the present study. Specifically, Buchanan and Holmbeck referred to the factor that was labelled ‘(Seeking) Independence’ in the present study as ‘Risk-taking/Rebellious’. Similarly, the ‘Popular Notions’ factor was called ‘Classic Adolescent Behaviours’ by Buchanan and Holmbeck. The ‘Problem Behaviours’ factor, produced in the present study, was very similar to Buchanan and Holmbeck’s ‘Problem Behaviours’ factor. For that reason, the same factor label was used. The ‘(Lack of) Discipline’ factor produced in the present study was not present in Buchanan and Holmbeck’s scale. The items that loaded on each factor were taken to suggest five subscales. Together, those five subscales were labelled the Beliefs about Adolescence Scale. Table 2.3 presents the Cronbach alpha coefficients of the resulting subscales. All subscales have acceptable to high internal consistency reliability. For factors with few items, values as low as .56 are acceptable (Kurdek & Fine, 1994), although the lowest alpha coefficient in this study is .65.

54

Table 2.3 Factors and item loadings representing personal beliefs about youth Factor 1: (Lack of) Discipline (α = .65)

Factor 2: Conventionalism (α = .71)

Is unsupervised

.53

Is educated

.76

Stays out late

.73

Is undisciplined

.50

Is smart

.63

Uses alcohol

.73

Is noisy

.45

Is competitive

.53

Is sexually active

.63

Is assertive

.51

Is sporty

.40

Factor 4: (Seeking) Independence (α = .65)

Factor 3: Problem Behaviours (α = .75)

Factor 5: Popular Notions (α = .65)

Is testing limits

.58

Eats a lot of junk food

.66

Wants freedom

.58

Watches too much TV

.62

Is rebellious

.48

Wants to be popular

.41

Is risk-taking

.45

Listens to loud music

.40

Friends more important than family

.40

Correlations among the five factors ranged from -.19 to .41. Test-retest reliability of the overall measure and its subscales was estimated over a 4-week period with 30 undergraduate psychology students. The Pearson correlation coefficient was .66 for the overall measure and ranged from a low of .61 for the Problem Behaviours subscale to a high of .75 for the (Seeking) Independence subscale. All correlations were significant (p< .01), indicating that the measure has good temporal stability.

55

To establish the convergent validity of the Beliefs about Adolescence Scale, its relationship with Holmbeck and Hill’s (1988) 9-item scale was examined. That scale assesses people’s endorsement of the view that adolescence is a time of ‘storm and stress’. A subgroup of adult participants (N=74) who completed the 108-item questionnaire that was used to develop the Beliefs about Adolescence Scale, also completed the ‘storm and stress’ scale (Cronbach alpha = .70 in the present sample). The ‘storm and stress’ scale was found to correlate with the (Lack of) Discipline (r=.29), (Seeking) Independence (r=.25), and Problem Behaviours subscales (r=.25). All of those correlations were significant at the .05 level. The ‘storm and stress’ scale was negatively correlated with the Conventionalism subscale, although that relationship was not significant. Finally, the ‘storm and stress’ scale also was uncorrelated with the Popular Notions subscale. Summary Study 2A gathered information about the nature and content of adults’ personal beliefs about young people. As predicted, the young and older adults endorsed both positive and negative descriptors as their personal beliefs. The young adults endorsed more negative than positive traits and behaviours as extremely characteristic of young people. Contrary to expectation, however, the older adults rated more positive descriptors as characteristic of youth than did the young adults. Thus, the older adults’ personal beliefs appear to be somewhat more favourable. Neither of the adult samples endorsed extremely negative descriptors (e.g. 'uses drugs', 'is violent') as characteristic of young people. Indeed, the adult participants

56

endorsed several very negative descriptors (e.g. 'steals', 'graffitis') as extremely uncharacteristic of young people. Study 2B developed the Beliefs about Adolescence Scale. It assesses the extent to which members of the community believe the 20 traits and behaviours to be characteristic of young people. The measure is multidimensional and includes both positive and negative characteristics. It has satisfactory internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, and good convergent validity. S TUDIES 3A AND 3B Young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about youth Introduction Study 3 consisted of two parts. The first part (Study 3A) investigated young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them and compared those perceptions with young people’s beliefs about themselves. Study 3A adopted the same approach as that used to specify the cultural stereotype of youth and adults’ personal beliefs about youth. A sample of adolescent participants completed the same questionnaire as that completed by the adult participants in Studies 1 and 2A. Study 3B aimed to develop a measure to assess young people’s perceptions of community beliefs about them. Because people’s perceptions about how others view them can have severe consequences (Horowitz, 1962; Schwalbe & Staples, 1991), young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs were the focus of the measure. In Studies 3A and 3B, and consistent with the findings of Study 1, it was expected that young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs would consist of largely negative traits and behaviours. Consistent with the findings of Study 2A, it was

57

expected that participants would endorse both positive and negative descriptors as their personal beliefs about youth. M ethod Participants Study 3A involved 102 young people (ages 12-17, 51 males and 51 females). Participants were the relatives or family friends of first year psychology students. The students administered the questionnaire to the young people in return for course credit. In Study 3B, the responses of the participants in Study 3A were used to develop the measure to assess young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them. An independent sample of 51 young people (ages 14-15, 24 males and 27 females) was used to estimate the test-retest reliability of the final measure. They were recruited from a private fee-paying high school in Sydney. M easures and Procedure Study 3A used the 108-item questionnaire that was used in Studies 1 and 2A. The young people completed the measure twice. First, they responded to each item in the way they thought an adult in our community would respond if they were making judgements about the ‘typical’ teenager of today. Second, they provided their personal beliefs about the ‘typical’ teenager of today. Each item was rated on the same 8-point scale as in Studies 1 and 2A, which ranged from 0 (‘Extremely uncharacteristic’) to 7 (‘Extremely characteristic’). The order in which the items were presented was different for the two questionnaires, and those orders were reversed for half of the participants. The responses that participants provided to indicate their perceptions of adults’ beliefs about youth were entered into a factor analysis in Study

58

3B to develop the measure to assess young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them. Study 3A Results and Discussion As in Studies 1 and 2A, only items for which more than 50 percent of the sample provided a rating of 5, 6, or 7 (extremely characteristic), or 0, 1, or 2 (extremely uncharacteristic) were retained. When young people were asked about their perceptions of adults’ beliefs, 44 descriptors were rated 5, 6, or 7 by more than 50 percent of the sample. They gave similar ratings to 29 descriptors to indicate their personal beliefs about young people. Table 2.4 shows the 10 traits and behaviours most widely endorsed as young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about youth, as well as young people’s beliefs about themselves, together with the percentage of young people who endorsed the descriptors and their mean social desirability ratings. The complete lists of descriptors endorsed as young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about them, and as young people's beliefs about themselves, are presented in Appendix A.

59

Table 2.4 The top ten descriptors endorsed as young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs and as young people’s personal beliefs about youth

Social desirability

Descriptor

Belief set Perceptions of Personal adults’ beliefs beliefs

M

SD

Watches too much TV

85.0

67.0

4.5

1.0

Wants freedom

85.3

87.0

2.0

1.2

Swears

81.3

78.0

4.7

1.1

Listens to loud music

80.5

69.0

3.0

1.1

Eats junk food

73.6

67.0

4.5

1.2

Hates authority

78.4

---

4.6

1.1

Is moody

75.5

---

4.5

0.9

Is noisy

74.6

---

3.9

1.1

Stays out late

74.5

---

3.5

1.3

Is impulsive

73.6

---

4.9

1.1

Wants to be popular

---

79.0

3.2

1.1

Is fashion conscious

---

77.0

3.4

1.3

Hangs out in large groups

---

66.0

3.1

1.3

Is under pressure

---

65.0

4.3

1.3

Is boy-girl crazy

---

63.0

3.0

1.3

Note: 1. The percentage of participants refers to those who gave the descriptors ratings of 5, 6, or 7 (extremely characteristic) on the rating scale. 2. Social desirability ratings can range from 0 to 6. A higher rating indicates that the descriptor is judged as more socially undesirable.

60

Table 2.4 shows that descriptors most widely endorsed as young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs included many of the popular notions of adolescence (e.g. ‘is boy-girl crazy’) that were also among those most widely endorsed as belonging to the cultural stereotype (Study 1) and as adults’ personal beliefs (Study 2A). Several problem behaviours (e.g. ‘uses alcohol’) that were widely endorsed as young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs were also widely endorsed by the adult participants in Studies 1 and 2A. Table 2.4 also shows that five of the top ten descriptors endorsed as young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs were endorsed also as young people’s personal beliefs. Three of those were socially undesirable behaviours (‘watches too much TV’, ‘swears’, and ‘eats junk food’). The descriptors that constituted young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs and those as young people’s personal beliefs were categorised according to the social desirability ratings that were provided by the participants of Study 1. The percentage of descriptors that were categorised as positive, neutral, or negative according to the social desirability ratings are presented in Figure 2.3. Young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs were largely negative, and many of those were judged to be very negative (e.g., ‘is dishonest’, ‘is irresponsible’, ‘is disrespectful’, ‘doesn’t care about school’), that is, with mean ratings of 5 or above (on the scale that ranged from 0 to 6). Far fewer positive traits and behaviours were shown to comprise young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs (e.g., ‘is sporty’, ‘is talkative’). In contrast, young people’s beliefs about themselves were distributed more equally across positive and negative descriptors. It is important to note that the negative items endorsed as young people’s personal beliefs (e.g., ‘is moody’, ‘is materialistic’) were rated lower in

61

negative social desirability (that is, mean ratings between 4.1 and 4.7) than those endorsed as young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs. Some examples of positive items that were endorsed as young people’s personal beliefs, but not as young

% of Descriptors

people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs, include ‘is educated’ and ‘is keen to travel’.

Young people's perceptions Young people's beliefs

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Negative

Neutral

Positive

Social Desirability

Figure 2.3 Percentage of descriptors endorsed as young people's perceptions of adults’ beliefs and as their personal beliefs that were rated negative, neutral, or positive in social desirability

When young people provided their perceptions of adults’ beliefs, no descriptors were endorsed as extremely uncharacteristic (0, 1, or 2). Seven items were, however, rated as extremely uncharacteristic of youth according to young people’s beliefs about themselves. Five of those, ‘steals’, ‘graffitis’, ‘becomes pregnant’, ‘is a drug addict’, and ‘belongs to gangs’, were among those rated as

62

extremely uncharacteristic of young people according to the personal beliefs of the adult samples. The young people also rated ‘is uneducated’ and ‘is a dole bludger’ to be extremely uncharacteristic of youth. All of those items were rated as extremely socially undesirable. Overall, young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs were more negative than young people’s personal beliefs about themselves. A comparison of the results of the present study with the findings of Studies 1 and 2A revealed that young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs were very similar in content to the cultural stereotype that was identified in Study 1. In other words, the extremely negative content that comprises the youth-related stereotype was actually known to young people themselves, although young people did not endorse the very negative components as their personal beliefs. Study 3A was concerned with specifying young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them. Those perceptions were then compared with the actual beliefs that were expressed by the adult participants (Studies 1 and 2A), and with young people’s beliefs about themselves. Study 3B aimed to develop a measure to assess young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them. Such a measure is essential in any investigation of the influence of young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them on their behaviour.

63

Study 3B Results and Discussion In order to develop the measure to assess young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs, the steps that were involved in the development of the Beliefs about Adolescence Scale in Study 2B were also adopted in the present study. The first step was therefore to select the items for entry into the factor analysis. Using as the criterion, items for which more than 50 percent of the sample gave a rating of 5, 6, or 7 (‘Extremely characteristic’) on the rating scale, 44 items were retained. The remaining decisions related to the type of factor analysis to be conducted. As in the development of the Beliefs about Adolescence Scale (Study 2B), the methodological guidelines of Fabrigar et al. (1999) were followed. At first, the analysis using oblique rotations failed to converge, although an analysis using orthogonal rotation did converge, resulting in 9 factors that accounted for 62.3 percent of the variance. The scree plot suggested that only the first three factors should be retained. In addition, factors 4-9 were not readily interpretable, consisting of small numbers of mixed loading items. It was therefore decided to drop all items that did not load above .40 on any of the first three factors and below .40 on the remaining factors (Stevens, 1986). That resulted in the elimination of 16 items. The second factor analysis converged using oblique rotation, and three factors were produced that accounted for 56.7 percent of the variance. Two items ‘is foolish’ and ‘is impulsive’ had factor loadings less than .40. This reduced the number of items to 26. Table 2.5 presents the items and their factor loadings. To facilitate interpretation, each factor has a label that captures the main content of its items. The first factor was interpreted as

64

‘Egocentrism’, as the items that loaded on that factor clearly represent self-centred traits and behaviours. The second factor was conceptually similar to the ‘Problem Behaviours’ factor in the Beliefs about Adolescence Scale that was developed in Study 2B and was therefore afforded the same label. Although some of the items (e.g. ‘hangs around in large groups’, ‘listens to loud music’) clearly do not represent problem behaviours, it is widely acknowledged that the notion of, for example, young people hanging around in groups is evidently considered to be problematic by many adult members of the community (White, 1997). The third factor was similar to the ‘Popular Notions’ factor that was identified in the Beliefs about Adolescence Scale and was therefore afforded that label. Given that the factors clearly represented meaningful clusters of traits and behaviours, the items that loaded on each factor were employed to form three subscales. Those subscales comprise the Adolescents’ Perceptions of Adults’ Beliefs Scale. Table 2.5 presents the Cronbach alpha coefficients of the resulting subscales. All factors have very high Cronbach alpha coefficients, indicating that the subscales have good internal consistency reliability.

65

Table 2.5 Factors and item loadings representing young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about youth Factor 1: Egocentrism (α=.95)

Factor 2: Problem Behaviours (α=.88)

Factor 3: Popular notions (α=.84)

Selfish

.87

Uses alcohol

.95

Watches too much TV

.83

Trouble-maker

.85

Goes to dance parties

.81

Eats a lot of junk food

.75

Rude

.81

Smokes

.73

Easily led

.60

Dishonest

.78

Stays out late

.70

Has too easy a life

.60

Risk-taking

.80

Hangs out in large groups

.46

Materialistic

.52

Wild

.73

Listens to loud music

.45

Fashion victim

.43

Noisy

.71

Wants to be popular

.40

Disrespectful

.66

Spoilt

.65

Irresponsible

.64

Rebellious

.60

Hates authority

.46

Swears

.40

Correlations among the three subscales ranged from -.48 to .67. Tes t-retest reliability of the overall measure and its subscales was estimated over a 4-week period with 51 young people aged between 14 and 15 years. The Pearson correlation coefficient was .88 for the overall measure, and ranged from .83 to .87 for the subscales. All correlations were significant (p< .001), indicating that the measure has good temporal stability.

66

Summary Study 3A investigated the nature and content of young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them and compared those with young people’s beliefs about themselves, and with the actual beliefs that were expressed by the adult participants in Studies 1 and 2A. As predicted, young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them were found to be extremely negative, and to be comparable with that identified as adults’ knowledge of the cultural stereotype of youth in Study 1. In contrast, and consistent with expectations, young people’s beliefs about themselves were found to be more positive. Study 3B developed the Adolescents’ Perceptions of Adults’ Beliefs Scale. Two of its three subscales, ‘Egocentrism’ and ‘Problem Behaviours’ are made up of extremely negative traits and behaviours. The measure was shown to have very good internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability.

S TUDY 4 Investigating multiple stereotypes of youth Introduction Study 4 investigated the extent to which people hold multiple stereotypes of youth. Several studies have confirmed the existence of multiple stereotypes of the elderly. For instance, Schmidt and Boland (1986) and Hummert (1990) found that young adults identified five negative (‘Severely Impaired’, ‘Shrew/Curmudgeon’, ‘Recluse’, ‘Despondent’, ‘Vulnerable’) and three positive (‘John Wayne Conservative’, ‘Liberal M atriarch/Patriarch’, ‘Perfect Grandparent’) elderly subtypes. Hummert et al. (1994) extended those findings by showing that adults of different

67

ages (young, middle-aged, and elderly) had many of the same stereotypes of the elderly, although the middle-aged and elderly adults had more complex stereotype sets than did the young adults. This has been explained in terms of an ingroup/outgroup phenomenon (Heckhausen, Dixon, & Baltes, 1989) whereby individuals have more complex schemas for their own age group (or age groups close to their own) than they do for members of an outgroup. The methodology of the present study was similar to that used by Hummert et al. (1994). Participants engaged in a sorting task that involved descriptors of youth. They were asked to sort into different piles a total of 108 descriptors, where each pile represented a different youth subcategory. The investigation was conducted with young and older adult participants, as well as young people themselves. It was expected that all age groups would have multiple representations of youth. Consistent with the ingroup/outgroup phenomenon (Heckhausen et al., 1989), it was further expected that the young adults and young people would have more complex stereotype sets than the older adults. M ethod Participants One hundred and sixty people took part in this study. There were 40 young adults (ages 18-34, 19 males and 21 females), 80 older adults (ages 35-72, 40 males and 40 females), and 40 young people (ages 12-17, 20 males and 20 females). The young people were recruited from Police and Community Youth Clubs. The young adults were first year psychology students, who participated in return for course

68

credit. The older adults were recruited from various community organisations and clubs. M easures and Procedure The 108 descriptors generated in Phase 1 of Study 1 were placed on separate index cards. Each participant was given a set of the 108 cards, and an extra card labelled ‘miscellaneous’. They were instructed to sort the descriptors into groups. They were asked to do this by placing all descriptors of the same type of young person into one group or pile. If they thought that a descriptor belonged to more than one group, they were instructed to place it so that it touched both (or all) of those groups. If they believed that a descriptor did not belong to any of the groups, they were to place it with the card marked ‘miscellaneous’. Participants were allowed to form as many groups as they wished. They were also permitted to rearrange the groupings as they completed the task. No time limit was placed on completion of the task, although most participants took between 30 and 45 minutes to form their groups. Upon completion, participants were encouraged to think of a label that best described each group of young people they had created. Results and Discussion The number of groups into which participants sorted the descriptors was analysed in a one-way ANOVA with participant age (young people, young adults, older adults) as the between-subjects factor. The analysis revealed that the number of groups varied significantly with participant age [F (2, 157) = 10.11, p<.0001]. Scheffe post hoc contrasts showed that the young people (M =7.3) and young adults (M =7.9) formed significantly more groups than the older adults (M =4.8).

69

There are three methodological stages involved in the identification of multiple stereotypes (Hummert et al., 1994). First, the data from the sorting task are placed into similarity matrices, one for each age group. A similarity matrix counts the number of times the same two descriptors were sorted into the same group. During the sorting task, if a participant felt that a particular descriptor did not belong to any of the youth subcategories, they were instructed to place it in a pile labelled ‘miscellaneous’. In developing the similarity matrices, each descriptor that was sorted into the miscellaneous pile was scored as if it was grouped separately from all other descriptors, including others in the miscellaneous pile. The second stage involves transforming the similarity matrices into squared Euclidean distances between each pair of descriptors. In the third stage, the resulting matrices are analysed separately for each age group by hierarchical cluster analysis, using the average linkage between groups criterion. This criterion combines descriptors into clusters whereby the average distance between all pairs of descriptors in a cluster is smaller than the average distance from each descriptor in the cluster to descriptors in other clusters (Hummert et al., 1994). The three 108 x 108 similarity matrices that were produced from the data deriving from this study were subjected to 3 separate hierarchical cluster analyses. The clusters that were produced by each age group are presented in Figures 2.4 to 2.6. Those figures represent tree diagrams of each hierarchical cluster solution. Descriptors joined at the lowest level are most similar. Only mid-level clusters are considered as providing enough information to describe a subcategory or stereotype (Hummert et al., 1994).

70

As shown in Figures 2.4 to 2.6, the older adult group formed 6 mid-level clusters, the young adults formed 8, and the young people formed 7. Six of those (and all of those formed by the older adult group) were similar across the age groups. To provide labels for the clusters, the labels that participants had provided for their subgroups were examined. Using those labels, the first cluster was interpreted as the ‘yuppies’ subtype; other labels that participants provided for that stereotype included ‘snobby’ and ‘private school kids’. The ‘yuppies’ stereotype had a common core of six descriptors, although the young and older adult groups had 8 common descriptors. That is, six of the descriptors that were shown to comprise the stereotype were the same across all three age groups. These were ‘is skinny’, ‘is spoilt’, ‘is snobby’, ‘is a fashion victim’, ‘is fashion conscious’, and ‘wants to be popular’. The descriptors, ‘is boy-girl crazy’ and ‘is under pressure’ were present in both the young and older adults’ ‘yuppies’ subtype, but not in that of the young people. The second stereotype conceptualised by all three age groups was labelled the ‘lives for today and forget about the consequences’ young person. It was for this stereotype, however, that there was least agreement among the three groups regarding the actual characteristics comprising it. Other labels offered for that stereotype were ‘experimenters’, ‘risk-takers’ and ‘fun loving’. The third stereotype that was created by all age groups was the ‘depressed’ youth. It had a common core of 4 descriptors (‘is depressed’, ‘is unhappy’, ‘has low self-esteem’, ‘lacks confidence’), although the young people and older adult groups shared an additional two descriptors (‘is confused’ and ‘is moody’). Some adult participants also called those young people ‘introverts’.

71

The fourth stereotype that was formed by all three age groups was the ‘problem kids’ stereotype (also called ‘potential criminals’, ‘deviant’, and ‘troublebound’). It had a common core of 18 descriptors. There was greatest agreement among the groups regarding the descriptors comprising this stereotype. The ‘problem kids’ stereotype also contained the greatest number of descriptors. The fifth stereotype was the ‘active’ youth, referring to physical (e.g. ‘sporty’) and social (e.g. ‘talkative’) activity. The final stereotype that was formed by all three age groups was labelled the ‘conventional’ youth (also called ‘achievers’ and ‘welladjusted’). It had a common core of 8 descriptors, although it was most similar between the older adults and young people who shared 14 descriptors. One stereotype, referred to as ‘skaties’, was common to only the young adults and young people. M any of the descriptors that participants identified as characteristic of ‘skaties’ were among those mentioned by young people in a study by Denholm, Horniblow, and Smalley (1992), for example, ‘skates’, ‘listens to loud music’, ‘watches too much TV’, and ‘uses marijuana’. Finally, the stereotype ‘drug user’ was unique to the young adult group and appears to be a subcategory of the broader ‘problem kids’ and ‘lives for today forget the consequences’ stereotypes held by the other age groups.

72

Figure 2.4 Tree diagram of trait clusters produced by the older adult participants (Stereotypic traits are between dashed lines and stereotype labels are at the left)

is skinny is snobby is spoilt is under pressure wants to be popular explores new things YUPPIES

is boy-girl crazy wants freedom stays out late becomes pregnant listens to loud music is sexually active is fashion conscious is a fashion victim is dreamy

is adventure-seeking is outspoken eats junks food watches too much TV influenced by American culture skates LIVES FOR TODAY FORGET THE CONSEQUENCES

has too easy a life smokes is selfish uses alcohol uses marijuana is bored is outrageous shows off is carefree is layed back

has a bad attitude has problems at home poor parental communication has behaviour problems has low self-esteem DEPRESSED

is moody lacks confidence is confused has a defeatist attitude is depressed is unhappy

lacks ambition is lazy friends more important than family is scruffy is unsupervised is annoying hangs around in large groups is foolish PROBLEM KIDS

is easily led surfs swears is noisy is arrogant is risk-taking goes to raves is nerdy tests limits is uneducated is wild is irresponsible doesn't care about school is rebellious is undisciplined is disrespectful is rude graffitis hates authority is a trouble-maker belongs to gangs is a dole bludger is impulsive bullies uses drugs is aggressive steals is a drug addict is dishonest is destructive is violent

is an individual is talkative is materialistic ACTIVE

is attractive is funny is healthy is keen to travel is sporty is environmentally minded

is computer literate is caring is independent has casual jobs is competitive CONVENTIONAL

is assertive is well mannered is happy is helpful is smart is enthusiastic is open minded is confident does the right thing is ambitious works hard to achieve goals is educated is studious

73

Figure 2.5 Tree diagram of trait clusters produced by the young adult participants (Stereotypic traits are between dashed lines and stereotype labels are at the left)

YUPPIES

LIVES FOR TODAY FORGET THE CONSEQUENCES

DEPRESSED

ACTIVE

CONVENTIONAL

DRUG USERS

SKATIES

PROBLEM KIDS

is attractive is boy-girl crazy has too easy a life is under pressure is skinny is arrogant wants to be popular is selfish shows off is a fashion victim is fashion conscious is materialistic is spoilt is snobby wants freedom stays out late is risk-taking is outspoken is sexually active is outrageous goes to raves tests limits is dreamy is funny is an individual is talkative is carefree explores new things is adventure-seeking is easily led is unhappy is depressed lacks confidence has low self-esteem is ambitious is competitive is environmentally minded is helpful is confident is open minded is assertive is healthy is enthusiastic is keen to travel has casual jobs is happy is sporty is independent does the right thing is well mannered is caring is computer literate isnerdy is smart works hard to achieve goals is educated is studious friends more important than family smokes uses alcohol uses drugs is rebellious is noisy is wild hangs around in large groups influenced by American culture is layed back surfs listens to loud music uses marijuana skates is lazy is annoying is moody has a defeatist attitude eats junk food is bored becomes pregnant watches too much TV is foolish is confused is dishonest is a drug addict is a dole bludger is scruffy is irresponsible is uneducated has problems at home lacks ambition poor parental communication hates authority steals bullies has a bad attitude is rude is unsupervised is impulsive has behaviour problems doesn't care about school is aggressive is destructive is disrespectful is undisciplined graffitis is violent belongs to gangs is a trouble maker swears

74

Figure 2.6 Tree diagram of trait clusters produced by the young people (Stereotypic traits are between dashed lines and stereotype labels are at the left)

YUPPIES

ACTIVE

CONVENTIONAL

PROBLEM KIDS

DEPRESSED

SKATIES

LIVES FOR TODAY FORGET THE CONSEQUENCES

is skinny is spoilt is snobby is a fashion victim is fashion conscious wants to be popular eats a lot of junk food surfs is dreamy watches too much TV is enthusiastic is independent is nerdy is an individual is outspoken is sporty is talkative is competitive is attractive is materialistic is funny is assertive is keen to travel explores new things is adventure-seeking does the right thing works hard to achieve goals is computer literate is caring is healthy has casual jobs is confident is environmentally minded is open minded is ambitious is helpful is happy is studious is smart is educated is well mannered is disrespectful doesn't care about school graffitis is undisciplined is a drug addict uses alcohol is rebellious is wild hangs around in large groups smokes has a bad attitude is dishonest uses marijuana swears is unsupervised is destructive is rude is aggressive has behaviour problems hates authority uses drugs is irresponsible bullies steals belongs to gangs is a trouble maker is violent is lazy is moody is bored has low self-esteem is confused is depressed lacks confidence is unhappy listens to loud music skates is annoying is easily led has too easy a life is boy-girl crazy shows off is under pressure is arrogant is selfish is carefree is sexually active tests limits stays out late is risk-taking lacks ambition poor parental communication is impulsive is uneducated has problems at home has a defeatist attitude friends more important than family becomes pregnant is scruffy is foolish wants freedom is layed back influenced by American culture is noisy is outrageous goes to raves is a dole bludger

75

To test the correspondence of the clusters across the age groups, three contingency tables were constructed. Each table contained rows corresponding to the clusters of one age group, and columns corresponding to the clusters of another age group. Table entries were the number of descriptors that fell into the same cluster for the two age groups. Lambda coefficients were computed for each contingency table as measures of predictive association (Hays, 1981). That is, lambda tested the degree to which the cluster organisation of one age group predicted the cluster organisation of another age group. Lambda ranges in value from 0 (no predictive relationship) to 1.00 (a perfect predictive relationship). As shown in Table 2.6, those analyses revealed that the stereotype organisation of each age group provided a moderate to good model of the organisation of the stereotypes in the other age groups. Predictive accuracy ranged from a low of 34.6 percent when the older adults’ clusters were used as a model for the young adults’, to a high of 46.4 percent when the young people’s cluster organisation was used as a model for the older adults’. In other words, the stereotype sets of young people held by the young and older adult groups, and by young people themselves were largely similar.

76

Table 2.6 Predictive association (lambda) between cluster structures across age groups Age group of criterion structure _____________________________________________________ Age group of predictor structure

Young person

Young adult

Older adult

Young person

-

.370*

.464*

Young adult

.432*

-

.450*

Older adult

.420*

.346*

-

*p< .00001

Summary As predicted, the findings from this study show that different age groups do hold multiple stereotypes of youth. M oreover, the different age groups formed many of the same subtypes of young people. Consistent with expectation, however, the younger age groups had more complex stereotype sets than did the older adults. The young people, young adult and older adult age groups formed six conceptually similar subtypes of youth. They were ‘yuppies’, ‘lives for today forget the consequences’, ‘depressed’, ‘problem kids’, ‘active’, and ‘conventional’. The younger age groups also shared the ‘skaties’ stereotype, while ‘drug users’ was unique to the young adults. The ‘problem kids’ subtype had the greatest number of descriptors assigned to it and the greatest agreement across groups regarding the constellation of traits and behaviours comprising it. This could be taken as further evidence that stereotypic beliefs about young people are largely negative.

77

DISCUS S ION The studies in this chapter yielded several important findings regarding the nature and content of stereotypic beliefs about young people. First, adults’ beliefs about the cultural stereotype of youth contained, for the most part, very negative content (Study 1), although their personal beliefs about youth were found to be both positive and negative in content (Study 2A). Surprisingly, however, older adults' personal beliefs were found to consist of more positive traits and behaviours than the young adults. Second, young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them were found to be extremely negative, although young people’s beliefs about themselves were somewhat more positive (Study 3A). Third, both adults and young people had different subtypes of youth, although ‘problem kids’ was the most salient, in terms of both numbers of attributes assigned to it, and consensus regarding those attributes (Study 4). This first section of the program of research has also generated two measures for assessing stereotypic beliefs about young people. The Beliefs about Adolescence Scale measures adults’ personal beliefs about young people. The Adolescents’ Perceptions of Adults’ Beliefs Scale assesses young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them. Both have adequate internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability, and the Beliefs about Adolescence Scale was shown to have good convergent validity. Both of those measures are employed in later stages of the program of research. The findings of the four studies go beyond those of previous research. Buchanan and Holmbeck (1998) gathered adults’ personal beliefs. Those beliefs

78

were gathered in the present program of research, as was adults’ knowledge of the cultural stereotype. Both are crucial given that cultural stereotypes and personal beliefs are conceptually distinct (Devine, 1989). M oreover, acknowledging that adults’ beliefs alone are insufficient, young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs were also sought. Finally, the investigation of multiple stereotypes revealed that people have rather sophisticated representations of young people. Thus, the four studies in this chapter have provided a more comprehensive set of findings about the nature and content of stereotypic beliefs about young people than in existing literature. Given the finding that people hold multiple stereotypes of youth (Study 4), some might wish to argue that there is little or no need to gather people’s beliefs about the ‘typical teenager’ (Studies 1-3). It has been claimed, however, that stereotyping occurs at both the superordinate (i.e. young person) and subcategory levels. Taylor (1981) and Brewer et al. (1981) have suggested that stereotyping is most likely to occur at the superordinate level when we describe individuals about whom we have little information. Yet increasing contact with members of a social group enables us to make finer discriminations within the group, which leads to the more sophisticated subtyping of group members. Thus, the level of stereotyping changes as a function of experience with a particular group. In the case of stereotypes of young people, individuals who have regular contact with young people (e.g., parents, teachers, young people themselves) will most likely have multiple stereotypes of youth that have greater descriptive value than the global youth-related stereotype. There are many adult members of the community

79

who have little or no regular contact with young people (Sercombe, 1997), and as a result, are likely to conceive of a ‘typical teenager’. It then becomes important to know which traits and behaviours comprise the global stereotype. Brewer et al. (1981) claim that one or two subtypes within any superordinate category are likely to be regarded as most salient or most typical of the general category. They further claim that when individuals have little or no information about young people, those subtypes serve as the ‘default value’ for categorising young people. The findings from Study 4 suggest that the ‘problem kids’ subtype is the most salient of the youth subtypes. Moreover, the findings of Studies 1 to 3 indicate that when people are asked to describe the typical teenager, images of 'p roblem kids' predominate. It would seem that the ‘problem kids’ subtype serves as the ‘default value’ for categorising young people. The broader implications of the studies reported in this chapter will be considered in more detail in Chapter 6.

80

CHAPTER 3 S OURCES OF S TEREOTYPIC BELIEFS ABOUT YOUTH Page INTRODUCTION

81

STUDY 5: Newspaper reports of young people

84

Introduction

84

M ethod

85

Newspapers

85

Procedure

86

Results and Discussion

88

M ajor issues in newspaper reports of young people

88

Detailed examination of newspaper reports of young people

94

Summary

103

STUDY 6: Newspaper readership and stereotypic beliefs about youth

104

Introduction

104

M ethod

104

Participants

104

M easures and Procedure

104

Results and Discussion

105

Predicting stereotypic beliefs from newspaper readership habits

106

Discriminating tabloid from broadsheet readers

107

Summary

109

DISCUSSION

110

81

INTRODUCTION The two studies in this chapter focused on media representations of young people, and on the relationship between those representations and stereotypic beliefs about youth. The findings reported in Chapter 2 suggested that people have multiple stereotypes of youth, one of which is the ‘problem kids’ stereotype. It was further revealed that when thinking in terms of typical teenagers, people rely heavily on the ‘problem kids’ subtype. Because that subtype appears to be the most salient of the youth subtypes, it is important to establish a possible source of those stereotypic beliefs. A major source of information is the media; public opinion is, to a large extent, informed by media discourse (Howitt, 1982). For that reason, a widely held view is that stereotypic beliefs about any social group evolve through the mass media (Black & Bryant, 1995; McM ahon & Quin, 1987; Smith & M ackie, 1995). To date, however, the relationship between media representations and stereotypic beliefs about youth has not been examined empirically. In other words, the link between media representations of youth and stereotypic beliefs about them has been assumed rather than established. The first study in this chapter investigated media representations of youth as they appear in newspaper reports. The second study sought to empirically establish an association between those representations and stereotypic beliefs about youth. Four stages need to be undertaken to establish a link between newspaper reports of young people and stereotypic beliefs. First, the nature and content of newspaper reports of youth must be systematically documented. Because newspapers can differ substantially in their coverage of a particular issue (O’Connell,

82

Invernizzi, & Fuller, 1998), this study compared and contrasted the content of several newspapers. The second stage involves a sampling of people’s stereotypic beliefs about youth. For the third stage, the newspaper readership habits of the sample must be determined. Finally, statistical tests need to demonstrate an association between newspaper readership and stereotypic beliefs. Only three studies have analysed the content of Australian newspaper reports of young people. The Australian Centre for Independent Journalism (ACIJ, 1992) analysed a sample of articles appearing in Sydney newspapers and magazines from January 1988 to February 1992. The researchers found that both the newspapers and magazines presented negative information about young people. Articles associating young people with crime accounted for a major proportion of media coverage. Sercombe (1997) analysed newspaper reports of young people that appeared in the West Australian between 1990 and 1992. He found that 61.3 percent of articles identified young people with criminal activity. Webber (1998) examined reports in four Australian newspapers over a two-year period. Her analysis focused on reports that portrayed young people as ‘problematic’, including those that depicted young people as perpetrators of crime, victims of crime, or as victims of circumstances (that is, harming themselves or being harmed by society). The major focus of Webber’s research was on the sources most frequently cited in newspaper reports of young people. She found that police spokespersons were most frequently quoted in newspaper reports, closely followed by members of Parliament and ‘advocates’ (including youth workers, psychologists and psychiatrists). In contrast, the views of young people were cited less frequently. The ACIJ (1992) and Sercombe (1997)

83

identified the issues that receive the most media coverage, and Webber’s (1998) analysis was limited to ‘youth as problem’ reports alone. None of the studies acknowledged the existence of multiple stereotypes of youth. Moreover, although ACIJ (1992) and Webber (1998) examined several newspapers (and magazines), similarities and differences in their coverage of youth-related issues were not highlighted. Study 5 in the present thesis involved a more detailed content analysis of newspaper reports of young people than those previously conducted. The analysis took as its starting point the multiple stereotypes of youth that people possess. Study 5 sought to establish whether three major daily Sydney newspapers differed in the proportion of space that is allocated to the different stereotypes of youth. Having established the nature and content of newspaper reports of young people, it is then important to investigate the extent to which those reports are a source of stereotypic beliefs about youth. A great deal of theoretical and research attention has examined media influence on people’s beliefs, values and opinions (see Davison, Boylan, & Yu, 1976; Heath & Petraitis, 1987; Morgan, 1982; O'Keefe & Reid-Nash, 1987, Surette, 1990). Those investigations have revealed that the relationship between the media and public opinion is a complex one. People's use of media output, how they interpret a particular event, what they believe and do not believe, depends on a range of factors (Sercombe, 1997). M edia representations have been shown to exert the most powerful effects when they confirm the existing beliefs of their audiences (Roshier, 1973). Research within the social cognitive orientation has shown that people seek information that is consistent with their beliefs and expectations, and they do so in

84

order to maintain their existing views of the world (see Kenrick, Neuberg, & Cialdini, 1999). Similarly, newspaper journalists and editors select news content that is consistent with the beliefs and values of their readership, and they do so in order to attract the same loyal and predictable audience (Windschuttle, 1988). In that way, the media function to maintain or to reinforce existing beliefs, attitudes, and values (Howitt, 1982). Thus, the nature of the relationship between media representations and community beliefs is almost certainly bi-directional. Study 6 empirically tested the association between newspaper reporting of young people and stereotypic beliefs about youth. Specifically, Study 6 investigated the extent to which newspaper readership predicts people’s stereotypic beliefs about youth. It also examined which aspects of stereotypic beliefs about youth predict people’s choice of newspaper. S TUDY 5 Newspaper reports of young people Introduction Study 5 specified the nature and content of reports of young people appearing in three major daily Sydney newspapers. It involved a two-stage investigation. The first stage aimed to capture the range of topics covered in newspaper reporting of young people over a three-month period. This included an examination of the relative space afforded to the different youth-related stereotypes. M ost importantly, the three newspapers were compared and contrasted in terms of their coverage of young people and youth-related issues. Based on previous research findings that media representations of youth typically associate young people with crime (ACIJ, 1992;

85

Sercombe, 1997), it was predicted that a majority of the newspaper reports would portray young people as problematic. The second stage of the investigation aimed to examine in detail the content of the newspaper reports. In contrast to the first stage that categorised the reports into major topics, the second stage explored the content of the articles. Particular attention was paid to the language used to describe young people, the sources that were cited, and to recurring patterns and themes in the reports. By identifying principal themes and key patterns underlying the newspaper reports, this stage of the investigation sought to shed some light on how media representations of young people are shaped and from whose perspective. M ethod Newspapers A distinction is commonly drawn between 'tabloid' and 'broadsheet' newspapers. Tabloid papers are mass market products whereas broadsheet papers primarily target an upmarket readership. Broadsheet papers often have longer and more in-depth articles and give some attention to minority interests (Bonney & Wilson, 1983). In the present study, three major daily Sydney newspapers were selected for analysis, as well as the Saturday editions of those papers. Two of those, the Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald, are broadsheet papers, and the Daily Telegraph, is a tabloid. From July to December 1999, circulations for the three newspapers were: Australian, 129 494; Sydney Morning Herald, 226 315; Daily Telegraph, 426 600 (Audit Bureau of Circulations, 2000).

86

Differences in the three newspaper readerships can be made on the basis of sex, level of education, and socioeconomic status. First, 68.0 percent of Australian readers are male. In contrast, males comprise 55.0 percent and 56.0 percent of Daily Telegraph and Sydney Morning Herald readers respectively (Roy M organ Research, 2000). Second, 61.0 percent of Australian readers and 51.8 percent of Sydney Morning Herald readers have a degree or diploma. In contrast, 19.8 percent of Daily Telegraph readers have a degree or diploma (Roy Morgan Research, 2000). Socioeconomic quintiles, based on income, education, and occupation, are a third way in which the readerships are distinguished. The population is divided into five categories; AB, C, D, E, and FG. AB people tend to be managerial and professional people, whereas the FG group consists of the unemployed and pensioners (Bonney & Wilson, 1983). A little over 61.0 percent of Australian readers and 46.7 percent of Sydney Morning Herald readers are in the AB quintile. Just over 18.0 percent of Daily Telegraph readers belong to the AB quintile (Roy Morgan Research, 2000). Procedure All articles about young people (aged 10-17) between July 1 and September 30, 1998 were collected for analysis. There were 660 reports with a primary focus on young people: 157 appeared in the Australian, 218 were drawn from the Sydney Morning Herald, and 285 reports were from the Daily Telegraph. Two major types of reports were collected, ‘case reports’ and ‘commentary reports’ (cf. McConkey, Roche, & Sheehan, 1989). The case reports, including local, world, and brief news articles, presented details of particular incidents. Five hundred and twenty-two case reports were gathered. Of those, 106 came from the Australian, 168 were drawn from

87

the Sydney Morning Herald, and 248 were from the Daily Telegraph. The commentary reports provided an analysis of a particular incident involving a young person or persons, or general commentary on young people or on youth-related issues. Some of the commentary reports included information on specific cases to illustrate a point. Commentary reports appeared in the form of feature and opinion articles, editorials, and letters to the editor. One hundred and thirty-eight commentary reports were gathered. Of those, 51 were from the Australian, 56 came from the Sydney Morning Herald, and 37 were drawn from the Daily Telegraph. All newspaper articles were entered into a data file to be analysed within the qualitative data analysis package NUDIST (Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and Theorising; Richards & Richards, 1994). The data analyses involved two stages that corresponded to the two stages of investigation of the newspaper reports. First, to identify the range of youth-related topics covered in the reports, basic text and index searches were conducted that enabled the identification of recurring issues. Those searches located occurrences of any of a range of words or categories. The second stage of the investigation that sought to more closely examine the content of the newspaper reports involved more sophisticated index searches. Those searches gathered material on related topics, explored the overlap and proximity of ideas, and teased apart and discovered patterns in the data. In that way, the second stage of analyses permitted the asking of specific questions, theory development and hypothesis testing, and the drawing of specific conclusions about the shaping of media representations of youth.

88

Results and Discussion The data that derive from this study are presented in two sections. The first section presents an account of the major issues dealt with in the newspaper reports of young people. It highlights the similarities and differences among the three newspapers in their representations of young people and draws attention to the relative space afforded to the different youth-related stereotypes. The second section provides a detailed analysis of the content of the newspaper reports. Particular attention is given to the sources that are cited, the language that is used, and to the recurring themes. M ajor issues in newspaper reports of young people Similarities and differences among the newspapers. A wide range of youthrelated issues was depicted in the newspaper reports. Table 3.1 gives a breakdown of the topics covered in the newspapers. Crime was the most frequently occurring topic. Of the three newspapers, however, the Daily Telegraph contained the majority of reports of young people and crime, registering more than double the number of crime reports as that in the Australian, and almost twice as many reports as the Sydney Morning Herald. Education was the second most frequently occurring issue, but only for the Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald. Both papers contained more than twice the number of education reports as that in the Daily Telegraph. High achievement was the third most frequently mentioned issue for the Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald, and the second most frequently mentioned issue for the Daily

89

Telegraph. Almost all of those related to high sporting achievement, although a few reports concerned high achievement in the arts. The examination of the topics covered in the reports shows that news reporting of young people is relatively uninfluenced by official statistics and issues of concern to young people. For instance, New South Wales Court statistics show that less than 2 percent of 10-17 year olds appeared before the Children’s Courts between July 1994 and June 1995 (Freeman, 1996). Yet reports on youth crime represented approximately one fifth of Australian and Sydney Morning Herald reports and just over two fifths of Daily Telegraph reports. In contrast, in November 1999, the unemployment rate for young people aged between 15 and 19 years in New South Wales was 20.7 percent (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2000). Yet unemployment was an issue in just 1 percent of Australian and Daily Telegraph reports and in 6 percent of Sydney Morning Herald reports. Similarly, in 1996, suicide accounted for 22 percent of all deaths among 15-24 year olds Australia wide. M oreover, suicide is known to be the second most common cause of death among 15-24 year olds, after motor vehicle accidents (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997). Despite the seriousness of this, suicide was barely mentioned in newspaper reports over the period of this study. Similar arguments could be made about mental illness and homelessness, both acknowledged in less than 1 percent of the reports that appeared in each of the three newspapers. Thus, the amount of news space devoted to a particular issue does not correspond to the recorded occurrence of that issue.

90

Table 3.1 Number (N) and percent (%) of each topic in the newspaper reports of young people

T opic

Australian N=157 N %

Newspaper SMH N=218 N %

T elegraph N=285 N %

Crime

31

19.7

46

21.1

117 41.1

Education

28

17.8

37

17.0

20

High achievement

21

13.4

26

11.9

46 16.1

General problems of youth

18

11.5

15

6.9

9

3.2

Demonstrations/protests

15

9.6

21

9.6

21

7.4

Alcohol/other drugs

11

7.0

12

5.5

6

2.1

Accidents

7

4.5

3

1.4

12

4.2

Public nuisance

4

2.5

2

0.0

11

3.9

Ill health/disability

3

1.9

2

0.0

4

1.4

Unemployment

2

1.3

13

6.0

4

1.4

Suicide

2

1.3

6

2.8

2

0.0

T eenage sex

2

1.3

2

0.0

4

1.4

Youth and technology

2

1.3

3

1.4

4

1.4

Intergenerational relations

2

1.3

4

1.8

0

0.0

Young people as soldiers

2

1.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

Young people and the arts

2

1.3

0

0.0

0

0.0

Missing young people

1

0.0

9

4.1

8

2.8

Mental illness

1

0.0

0

0.0

1

0.0

Homelessness

1

0.0

0

0.0

2

0.0

Cross-cultural comparisons

1

0.0

1

0.0

1

0.0

Policing practices

1

0.0

3

1.4

3

1.1

Abuse

0

0.0

2

0.0

5

1.8

School sport

0

0.0

11

5.0

5

1.8

7.0

91

Table 3.2 presents a breakdown of the reports that related to young people and crime separately for each of the three newspapers. It can be seen that, despite the fact that young people are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of crime (Cunneen & White, 1995), they are depicted as perpetrators of crime far more frequently than they are as victims, at least in the Australian and the Daily Telegraph. In contrast, the Sydney Morning Herald focused more on young people as victims of crime than as perpetrators. In addition, among the offences reported, murder was most frequently cited. Official crime statistics indicate, however, that between January 1986 and December 1994, fewer young people were arrested for murder than for any other offence. Murders made up 0.1 percent of most serious offences at proven criminal appearances during that period (Cain, 1996). Again, this finding reflects the fact that the amount of news space devoted to a particular youth issue does not correspond to the recorded occurrence of that issue. Finally, with respect to Table 3.2, it is noteworthy that important issues, such as the causes of crime and the prevention of crime, received much less news coverage than the offending behaviour of young people.

92

Table 3.2 Number (N) and percent (%) of crime-related topics in the newspaper reports of young people

T opic

Australian N=31 1 N %

Newspaper SMH N=46 N %

T elegraph N=117 N %

Youth as perpetrator

20

64.5

16

34.7

73

62.4

Youth as victim

10

32.3

22

47.8

27

23.1

Murder

9

29.0

18

39.1

30

25.6

Miscellaneous crimes2

7

22.6

6

13.0

41

35.0

Sex crimes

6

19.4

10

21.7

6

5.1

Attempted murder

3

9.7

0

0.0

5

4.3

Manslaughter

2

6.5

3

6.5

9

7.7

Armed robbery

0

0.0

0

0.0

5

4.3

Robbery

0

0.0

0

0.0

5

4.3

Punishment

3

9.7

0

0.0

0

0.0

Crime prevention

2

6.5

7

15.2

9

7.7

Causes of crime

1

3.2

1

2.2

2

1.7

Rights of offenders

1

3.2

2

4.3

1

0.0

Rehabilitation

0

0.0

0

0.0

2

1.7

Note: 1. Articles were coded under more than one crime subcategory. F or example, a report ofayoung person charged with m urder, where the victim was also a young person, was coded under three subcategories. For that reason, the sum of the reports coded under the crim e subcategories is not equal to the number ofreports coded under the general category of crim e. 2. Exam ples of offences coded under m iscellaneous crim es include theft, abduction, and concealing offences.

93

Relative space granted to the youth subtypes. In Study 4 of the research program, six youth subtypes were documented by young and older adults, and by young people themselves. They were labelled as ‘yuppies, ‘lives for today and forget the consequences’, ‘depressed’, ‘problem kids’, ‘active’, and ‘conventional’. The ‘problem kids’ subtype was, however, the most salient in terms of having the greatest number of descriptors assigned to it, and the greatest agreement across the age groups regarding the traits and behaviours comprising it. From a review of the topics listed in Tables 3.1 and 3.2, it is apparent that the ‘problem kids’ subtype is given the most space in all three newspapers. This is evident, in part, by the fact that crime dominated news reporting of young people. In addition, various other topics, including ‘general problems of youth’, ‘demonstrations/protests’, ‘alcohol/other drugs’ and ‘public nuisance’ also depicted young people as problematic. Indeed, by summing the articles that reported on young people in relation to each of those topics, it becomes apparent that young people are portrayed as problematic in over half of Australian (53.3%) and Daily Telegraph (50.3%) reports, and in 44.1 percent of Sydney Morning Herald reports. The remaining stereotypical images of youth were granted comparatively less news space. The stereotype of young people as ‘conventional’, conveyed in reports about education, young people and technology, and the arts, was afforded less than half the amount of news space than that given to the ‘problem kids’ subtype. The subtype of the ‘active’ youth was conveyed only in reports of high sporting achievement and school sport. The remaining three youth subtypes, ‘yuppies’, ‘lives for today, forget the consequences’, and ‘depressed’ were given either trivial amounts or no news space at all.

94

From an analysis of the proportion of news space afforded to each of the youth subtypes, it is perhaps not surprising that in Study 4 ‘problem kids’ was shown to be the most salient of the youth subtypes. Young people were depicted in that way in over half of news reports about them. Of course, in order to attribute people’s stereotypic beliefs to their exposure to media representations about youth, a link must be established between their newspaper readership habits and their stereotypic beliefs. This is explored in Study 6. The remainder of the Results section of this study presents the findings that derive from the detailed analyses of the content of the newspaper reports of young people. Detailed examination of newspaper reports of young people The second stage of the analysis focused on the content of the newspaper reports of young people. Given that the case reports presented details of particular incidents, this section focused on commentary reports. At the broadest level, the commentary reports could be divided into those that portrayed young people negatively, and those that reflected positively on the youth of today. Three distinct themes emerged from the analyses that were conducted on the negative reports. Those include reports that conveyed young people as problems to society, reports that depicted the institutional indifference that young people experience, and reports that discounted young people as having a voice. Young people as problems to society. Just over 20 percent of commentary reports conveyed the notion that young people are problems to society. Of those, 14.5 percent were drawn from the Daily Telegraph, 3.6 percent came from the Sydney Morning Herald, and 2.2 percent were from the Australian. Politicians, police, and

95

members of the general public were the major sources that were cited. Some of those individuals revealed their beliefs that young people are problematic through their support for the introduction of laws to allow police officers to intervene in the activities of young people, even when they have not engaged in any wrongdoing. For example, in commenting on the newly established powers enabling police to return young people wandering the streets to their homes, a police spokesperson was apparently unaware of the irony in his statement to the Daily Telegraph that ‘as it now stands, children have to be virtually committing a crime before the police can intervene’ (September 21, p.19). Other sources highlighted the tendency to view young people as problems to society through their advocacy of more discipline for the youth of today. A feature article in the Daily Telegraph presented new guidelines for London schoolteachers enabling them to use ‘reasonable force’ against unruly pupils. Under those guidelines, teachers are permitted to ‘push, pull, or hold classroom thugs and potential absconders’ and they will be ‘protected against accusations of assault if they take limited action to prevent youngsters causing havoc…’(July 28, p.20). The widespread belief that young people are problems to society is summed up in the words of a Letter to the Editor of the Daily Telegraph. This letter writer believes that he has the answer to the question of why ‘we have a major problem with today’s youth’. ‘Am I wrong to believe that all minors these days have far too many rights and freedoms, and this is the main reason why so many of them are going astray?’ (July 10, p.12).

96

Institutional indifference. Accounting for only 8.0 percent of reports overall, some reports underscored the institutional indifference that is evident in the handling of many youth-related issues. Just under 3.0 percent came from the Daily Telegraph, 2.2 percent were drawn from the Sydney Morning Herald, and 2.9 percent were from the Australian. Almost always, the reports referred to the Government’s indifference toward young people. For example, a few articles highlighted the tendency for the Government to cut back on funding for youth initiatives whenever they are in need of money. One article by the Daily Telegraph reported on the imminent closing of a program that teaches musical skills to disadvantaged youths (July 9, p.20). The organisers were in danger of having to discontinue the program due to government funding cut backs, despite the fact that more than 90 percent of young people who had completed the course had gone on to find jobs. Several members of the broader community also expressed concerns regarding the Government’s indifference toward its young people via Letters to the Editor. ‘Young people get a horrid deal from all main parties. If Labor, Liberal, or Nationals need money, they hit the kids.’ (September 17, Australian, p.8) ‘Year after year the political position of youth is compromised: homeless youth with not enough accommodation become society’s scapegoats, young recipients of government benefits take further cuts to stop them ‘being dole bludgers’ and ‘milking the system’….’ (July 2, Sydney Morning Herald, p.16) Perhaps of greatest concern, young people perceive the Government to be indifferent to their needs, although this was evident in only one Sydney Morning Herald report. In that article, it was reported that the results of the 1998 Youth Poll revealed an overwhelming number of young people were frustrated with politicians

97

for trivialising youth interests and not taking them seriously. The comments made by two 17-year-olds illustrate as examples. ‘M ake REAL policies to assist young people, not just shallow attempts to appear caring.’ ‘Although the Government appears to be interested in what the youth of Australia wants, their youth conventions don’t make any difference and are not benefitting us.’ (August 29, p.2) Discounting the voice of young people. The third group of negative reports of young people related to adults’ propensity to discount young people as having the ability to form their own valuable opinions. Almost 15 percent of reports included this theme (7.2 % from the Daily Telegraph, 4.3% from the Sydney Morning Herald, and 3.0% from the Australian). At the time of collecting the newspaper articles, there was widespread debate across Australia over student demonstrations that had taken place against the racist views of the political party 'One Nation'. M any politicians and journalists took the view that young people were too young to understand the issues and therefore must have been pressured by adults into partaking in the protests. ‘It is no more paternalistic to claim that the young Germans were manipulated than it is to note the same sort of manipulation at play in the phony demonstration last week’. (July 9, Daily Telegraph, p.11) Similar views were expressed in several Letters to the Editor: ‘The children involved have all their adult lives to protest about things they don’t agree with. Until then, they should be busy learning of such things as the art of manipulation and brain-washing used very skillfully by a lot of adults.’ (July 10, Daily Telegraph, p.12). ‘So, the national co-ordinator of a socialist group had the recent demonstrations against One Nation “demanded” of him by school kids. Sure. The bold statements, clever placards and references to “Facism”, “Racism” and occasionally “Nazism” could really only be foisted upon those too young and innocent to know better.’ (August 12, Sydney Morning Herald, p.12).

98

Several young people expressed their disappointment regarding the community reaction to their demonstrations against One Nation. In Letters to the Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, two young people revealed their frustration regarding the invalidation of their opinions. ‘So. One hundred lunatic school students, dangerously armed with schoolbags and bicycles, descend in an uncontrollable pack upon Howard’s office. Hurry, send in the riot squad and special operations, they’re a national security threat. Pathetic. The actions of July 2 showed with absolute clarity the irrational, prejudiced and moronic attitude the community, more specifically police and government, have towards young people. Imagine the uproar if the voices of the pensioner lobby, or the heritage groups, had been stifled in such a way, and then trivialised and infantilised by various media….’ (July 7, p.12) ‘How reassuring it is to know that Australia is in the safe hands of a wise, aged voting populace. Presumably, when I turn 18 in three months’ time, I, too, will be imbued with a new wisdom, insight and understanding denied to me so far…age does not necessarily equate with greater knowledge, or a grasp of what is right for the country…Protests are about the only means for young people to get their views and feelings across in this “democracy”. When we are given greater recognition, support and representation, then we’ll calm down.’ (August 17, p.14) Adults’ tendency to discount the views of young people spread beyond the student demonstrations. For instance, one journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald claimed that young people rarely have anything worthy to say. ‘…we never seem to be able to get away from teenagers and stories on “what young people really think”. Yet no one seems to have noticed in this orgy of interest in the opinions of adolescents that they rarely have anything interesting to say…they’re kids in the grip of their hormones who spend their day worrying about school assignments, pimples, and how many M accas stores they can visit next weekend.’ (July 10, p.17) A Sydney Morning Herald report presented the results of a research project into child abuse (August 31, p.5). The findings indicated that, in the eyes of young people, discounting their opinions is a form of abuse.

99

‘Children put less emphasis on physical beatings than on the experience of being discounted by adults, of being let down, not listened to, and treated as inferiors, a child abuse study has found.’ According to one of the researchers: ‘There was recognition that being battered black and blue was wrong but these children talked more about their feeling of (being) powerless and of not being taken seriously.’ The results suggested that narrow definitions of abuse, such as physical and sexual abuse, might be incomplete. ‘The children felt abused by the unequal power relationship between adults and children, and by adults’ tendency to patronise and treat them as “less of a person”’. Below are some of the comments of the young people themselves. ‘You’re just a kid, you don’t count.’ ‘We’re similar to a minority group but we don’t get as many rights.’ ‘The majority of young people are crying out for a say.’ Not all adults, however, have negative beliefs about youth. Although relatively few in number, the reports that reflected positively on young people could also be grouped into three categories that represented the opposing categories of the negative reports. First, some positive reports expressed support for young people, as opposed to depicting young people as problems to society. Second, commitment to the needs of young people was conveyed, as opposed to institutional indifference. Third, rather than discounting the views of young people, some adults were of the belief that young people can form valuable opinions.

100

Youth support: Young people are not problems to society. This category was evident in 13.8 percent of reports overall. Among those, 6.5 percent were from the Sydney Morning Herald and 5.8 percent were from the Australian. Only 1.5 percent were drawn from the Daily Telegraph. Most of the support expressed for young people was in the form of condemning the widened police powers for dealing with young people. Some adults were of the belief that the police would abuse their new powers. For example, in a Sydney Morning Herald feature article, a retired Children’s Court Magistrate claimed that she has ‘zero tolerance of zero tolerance’, particularly when applied to children. ‘Kids never let me down…Adults, politicians, Magistrates, judges… schoolteachers, principals. They all let me down.’ (August 8, p.3)

In a Letter to the Editor, a Sydney Morning Herald reader expressed similar views regarding the increased powers being afforded to police. ‘There is much potential to misuse police powers in dealing with young people, particularly Aboriginal and migrant adolescents…If M r Ryan wants intolerant policing, then I want stronger, easier, independent complaints handling.’ (August 6, p.14)

Commitment to the needs of young people. Only 2.2 percent of reports illustrated that some individuals and community groups are committed to helping young people in need. All of the reports in this category derived from the Australian. For example, one feature article reported on a school that was set up as an alternative for young people who are not fitting in to the mainstream education system. One of the founders of the school commented on the typical progression of students who fall behind in mainstream schools.

101

‘The children become uninterested and hide their inability in literacy by disconnecting themselves from classroom activities and from their peers. Teacher abuse and antisocial activity become a veil to cover ignorance and this sort of behaviour has often led in the past to truancy and expulsion.’ (August 17, p.17)

In this school, however, individual programs are written according to the needs of students. ‘The students thrive in the non-institutionalised environment…In a “lastchance” situation, it is important the students don’t experience the same sort of competition and peer pressure which have led to earlier failures. The real linchpin of the system is the approach of the teachers, the experience they bring and the multiple roles they play in these small schools. The teachers are, in effect, counsellors as well as teachers, without the students realising. This is the key to the whole program.’ Young people can form valuable opinions. In 12.3 percent of articles (6.5% from the Sydney Morning Herald, 5.1 % from the Australian, and 0.7% from the Daily Telegraph) various adult members of the community claimed that young people are capable of forming their own worthwhile opinions and that they should not be discounted. In a Sydney Morning Herald Opinion article, a lawyer expressed his support for the students who took part in the protests against One Nation, and his disapproval of those who condemned their actions. ‘The view that young minds are so malleable that the merest suggestion will spur action is laughable. Young people are responsive to new ideas, and they do have extraordinary levels of energy. This is one of the reasons why youth can be such an exciting time. It is a period when people experiment, try new things, test boundaries and form opinions. Some of those opinions will become lifelong allegiances, others will fade quickly as more convincing ideas take root. We should not be afraid of this dynamism; rather we should celebrate it…young people had something to say about intolerant politics and their general exclusion from the community debate, and yet media reporting focused on peripheral issues that trivialised their concerns.’ (August 18, p.13)

102

The writers of the following Letters to the Editor that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald were in agreement. ‘Surely the simplest among TV “journalists” can see that this is why young people are protesting, to make their opinions heard when there are few other avenues of communication. The opinions of all people are valid in our society, and should be allowed to be expressed…I would like to see a dialogue begin on why we have constructed the young as such pariahs in our society, and why the media find so much success in playing on those themes.’ (August 20, p.14) ‘The generation that for so long has been accused to care little about anything else than computer games and the latest trend in clothes and music has showed all that there is an immense social awareness among them…I think we should be proud of our young people.’ (July 28, p.12) Overall, a closer examination of the content of newspaper reports of young people revealed that negative representations of youth far outweigh the positive portrayals. Negative beliefs about young people were expressed by police, journalists, and by members of the general public. Some of those beliefs highlighted the negative views that the Government has regarding young people. Positive sentiments were, for the most part, conveyed by members of the general public, although two professionals (one lawyer and one magistrate) also expressed positive feelings toward youth. Perhaps most importantly, young people’s own views regarding issues that relate to them were acknowledged in only four reports. It is revealing that all of those related to young people’s negative perceptions of their position in society. Finally, it is important to point out that the views expressed in the Daily Telegraph were far more negative than those portrayed in the Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald. Most of the positive reports derived from the Australian

103

and the Sydney Morning Herald. In contrast, a majority of the negative reports were drawn from the Daily Telegraph. Summary As predicted, an analysis of the major topics covered in newspaper reports of young people revealed that they were typically depicted in a negative context. This is particularly true of the Daily Telegraph reports. When young people were the subject of positive news reporting, it was almost always in relation to high sporting achievement. Across all three newspapers, however, the ‘problem kids’ stereotype was afforded the most news space. M ore detailed examination of the content of the newspaper reports of young people revealed a similar pattern. The views portrayed by the Daily Telegraph were considerably more negative than those revealed in the other two papers. Further, young people’s opinions were noticeably absent from all three newspapers. The findings that news reporting of young people is largely negative and that the ‘problem kids’ stereotype is most frequently mentioned in those reports corresponds to the findings of the studies that were presented in Chapter 2. In those studies it was revealed that adults’ stereotypic beliefs about youth are largely negative, and that the ‘problem kids’ subtype is the most salient of the youth subtypes.

104

S TUDY 6 Newspaper readership and stereotypic beliefs about youth Introduction Study 6 investigated the relationship between newspaper readership and stereotypic beliefs about youth. A sample of adults first indicated their personal beliefs about young people, and then nominated the newspaper they read most often. Study 6 had two specific hypotheses. First, people’s newspaper readership habits were expected to predict their beliefs about young people. Second, people’s beliefs about youth were expected to determine their choice of newspaper. M ethod Participants One hundred and nineteen adults (ages 18-76, 81 females and 38 males) took part in this study. Participants were recruited from undergraduate psychology students at the University of New South Wales and from local community drop-in and leisure centres. M easures and Procedure To indicate their personal beliefs about youth, participants completed the 20item Beliefs about Adolescence Scale that was developed in Study 2B. That measure has five subscales - ‘(Lack of) Discipline’ (consisting of items such as ‘is undisciplined’, ‘is unsupervised’), ‘Conventionalism’ (including items such as ‘is educated’, ‘is smart’), ‘Problem Behaviours’ (for example, ‘uses alcohol’, ‘is sexually active’), ‘(Seeking) Independence’ (for example, ‘is risk-taking’, ‘is rebellious’), and ‘Popular Notions’ (for example, ‘watches too much TV’, ‘listens to loud music’).

105

Participants were required to indicate the extent to which they believed each of the 20 traits and behaviours was characteristic of young people. They responded on an 8point scale that ranged from 0 (‘Extremely uncharacteristic’) to 7 (‘Extremely characteristic’). Having done that, participants were then asked, ‘Of the major Sydney newspapers, which one do you read most frequently?’ Results and Discussion Of the 119 participants, 56 (47.0%) individuals indicated that their primary newspaper was the Sydney Morning Herald, 42 (35.3%) revealed that they mainly read the Daily Telegraph, and 3 (2.5%) read the Australian most often. Of the remaining participants, 11 (9.2%) primarily read local newspapers, 1 (0.8%) person read only the Australian Financial Review, and 6 (5.0%) respondents indicated that they did not read any newspaper. Given that meaningful comparisons could be drawn only between Daily Telegraph and Sydney Morning Herald readers, the responses of only those participants are included in the analyses. The data that derive from this study are presented in two sections. The first presents the findings from the analyses that sought to determine whether newspaper readership habits predict stereotypic beliefs about young people. This was examined via a series of regression analyses, with participants’ subscale scores on the Beliefs about Adolescence Scale as the outcome variables. The second section details the findings of the analyses that investigated the extent to which stereotypic beliefs about youth predict newspaper readership habits. This was explored by a discriminant function analysis, of which the major purpose is to predict group membership from a set of predictors (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1989). Thus, the discriminant function

106

analysis tested which components of stereotypic beliefs about youth were able to distinguish between tabloid (Daily Telegraph) and broadsheet (Sydney Morning Herald) readers. All analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows (Norusis, 1993). Summaries of statistical analyses are presented in Appendix B. Predicting stereotypic beliefs from newspaper readership habits When newspaper readership (Daily Telegraph or Sydney Morning Herald) was regressed against each of the five Beliefs about Adolescence subscale scores, it was found to be predictive of beliefs that young people lack discipline, that they adhere to popular notions of adolescence, and that they engage in problem behaviour. Table 3.3 presents those findings. It can be seen that Daily Telegraph readers reported stronger beliefs that young people lack discipline (β = -.32) and that they adhere to popular notions of adolescence (β = -.24) than did Sydney Morning Herald readers. Daily Telegraph readers also reported stronger beliefs that young people engage in problem behaviours than did Sydney Morning Herald readers (β = -.20). Those three sets of beliefs are, for the most part, negative in content. Given that Study 5 determined that the Daily Telegraph contains more negative representations of youth than does the Sydney Morning Herald, it is perhaps not surprising that newspaper readership was significantly associated with negative belief sets. Newspaper readership was not, however, predictive of beliefs that young people are conventional or seeking independence. The remainder of the Results section presents the findings from the analyses that sought to determine the extent to which stereotypic beliefs about youth are predictive of newspaper readership habits.

107

Table 3.3 Predicting stereotypic beliefs about young people from newspaper readership habits

Belief set

2

Adj R

F

Sig.

Beta

t

Sig.

(Lack of) Discipline

.10

11.3

.01

-.32

-3.4

.01

Popular Notions

.05

6.1

.05

-.24

-2.5

.05

Problem Behaviours

.03

3.8

.05

-.20

-2.0

.05

(Seeking) Independence

.01

1.9

ns

-.14

-1.4

ns

Conventionalism

-.01

0.3

ns

.06

0.6

ns

Discriminating tabloid from broadsheet readers A discriminant function analysis uses linear combinations of predictor variables in order to describe major differences among groups (Stevens, 1986). In any discriminant function analysis, two types of coefficients are produced. Standardised coefficients are used to study the relative contribution of the variables to the discrimination between the groups (Pedhazur, 1997). The larger the coefficient, the greater the contribution of the variable. Standardised coefficients are, however, problematic because they are affected by the variability of the variables with which they are associated, and as a result, lack stability (Pedhazur, 1997). As an alternative, structure coefficients are often used to interpret the nature of the dimension or dimensions on which the groups are discriminated. As a rule of thumb, structure coefficients that are greater than or equal to .30 are treated as meaningful (Pedhazur, 1997). Those coefficients are then used to interpret the discriminant function. That

108

interpretation is based upon an examination of the variables as is done in factor analysis. Table 3.4 presents the results of the discriminant function analysis that was carried out for the present study. Table 3.4 Discriminant function analysis predicting newspaper readership habits Group Tabloid Broadsheet Belief set

M

SD

M

SD

Stand. Coeff.

Struct. Coeff.

(Lack of) Discipline

14.6**

3.1 12.5**

3.2

.94

.74

Popular Notions

22.7*

3.2 21.1*

3.4

.19

.55

Problem Behaviours

15.8*

2.5 14.8*

2.7

.33

.50

(Seeking) Independence

26.5

4.0 25.5

3.5

-.14

.32

Conventionalism

23.0

4.1 23.5

3.6

-.67

-.13

* p < .05 ** p < .01. Mean score for tabloid readers is significantly different from mean score for broadsheet readers based on F ratio with dfs of 1 and 95. Wilks’s λ = .83, canonical correlation = .42.

Table 3.4 shows that tabloid readers reported stronger beliefs that young people lack discipline, that they adhere to popular notions of adolescence and that they engage in problem behaviours than broadsheet readers. The function significantly predicted group membership (Wilks’s λ = .83, p < .00), and the predictors accounted for 42 percent of the variance within the discriminant function (as revealed by the canonical correlation). From the standardised coefficients, it appears that beliefs that young people lack discipline and that they are conventional made the greatest contributions to the discrimination between the two groups.

109

However, all of the belief sets except ‘conventionalism’ had structure coefficients that were greater than or equal to 3. All of those belief sets are largely negative in content. Given that for two groups there can be only one discriminant function (Stevens, 1986), the structure coefficients clearly show that this function is interpretable as primarily a negative belief set function. In other words, the function that discriminates between tabloid and broadsheet readers primarily reflects their differences in negative beliefs about young people. Beliefs that young people lack discipline, and to a lesser degree, beliefs that they adhere to popular notions of adolescence and that they engage in problem behaviours, provided the most unique contribution to this discriminatory power. Summary Study 6 sought to determine the nature of the relationship between newspaper readership habits and stereotypic beliefs about youth. As predicted, newspaper readership was predictive of stereotypic beliefs about adolescence. Subjects who indicated that their primary newspaper was the Daily Telegraph reported stronger beliefs that young people lack discipline, that they adhere to popular notions of adolescence, and that they engage in problem behaviours than did subjects who indicated that they primarily read the Sydney Morning Herald. Further, the five sets of stereotypic beliefs about youth combined to discriminate between tabloid (Daily Telegraph) and broadsheet (Sydney Morning Herald) readers. The major difference between the two readership groups could be explained in terms of their negative beliefs about young people. Beliefs that young people lack discipline, adhere to

110

popular notions of adolescence, engage in problem behaviours, and that they are seeking independence was shown to predict tabloid readership.

DISCUS S ION The studies that have been reported in this chapter investigated the content of newspaper reports of young people and examined the relationship between newspaper readership and stereotypic beliefs about youth. The findings of Study 5 revealed that newspaper reports of young people are largely negative and that the ‘problem kids’ stereotype is afforded the most news space relative to the other youth-related stereotypes. A closer examination of the content of the newspaper reports further revealed that negative representations dominate media portrayals of youth. Those representations were, for the most part, shaped by adult members of the community, including journalists, police, and members of the general public. The views of young people received comparatively fewer acknowledgements. Thus, the hypothesis that a majority of newspaper reports would portray young people as problematic was supported. It is important to note, however, that the reports that appeared in the Daily Telegraph were substantially more negative than the reports from either the Australian or the Sydney Morning Herald. In Study 6, newspaper readership was shown to be predictive of three sets of stereotypic beliefs about adolescence. Daily Telegraph readership was associated with stronger beliefs that young people lack discipline, that they adhere to popular notions of adolescence, and that they engage in problem behaviours. In addition, stereotypic beliefs about adolescence were shown to discriminate between tabloid and

111

broadsheet readers. That discrimination was attributed to the more negative beliefs that were held by tabloid readers (Daily Telegraph). In drawing conclusions from these findings, two important limitations must be noted. First, in relation to the content analysis of newspaper reports, the articles that were analysed were collected over a three-month period. It cannot be said with certainty that those three months are representative of all time periods. Sercombe (1997), however, analysed the content of reports in the West Australian over a twoyear period, and found that crime was the major issue in over three fifths of reports. In the present analysis, crime was the major issue in approximately one fifth of Australian and Sydney Morning Herald reports and in just over two fifths of Daily Telegraph reports. Thus, the findings from the present research program are more likely to be an underestimate than an overestimate of the prevalence of news reporting of young people as ‘problematic’. The second limitation relates to the nature of the relationship between newspaper readership and stereotypic beliefs about youth. In the Introduction to this Chapter, it was suggested that that relationship is bi-directional, such that newspaper readership shapes stereotypic beliefs, and that those beliefs in turn, predict newspaper readership. It is acknowledged, however, that reciprocal relationships can only be established with confidence through time-extended research. Thus, a longitudinal study is required to clarify the nature of the relationship between media representations and stereotypic beliefs about youth. Nevertheless, the association between newspaper readership and stereotypic beliefs about youth that was demonstrated in Study 6 is consistent with the social

112

cognitive perspective that people seek information that supports their beliefs and values (Kenrick et al., 1999). Newspaper journalists and editors select news stories that they know will attract their regular audiences (Windschuttle, 1988). In that way, stereotypic beliefs are perpetuated, making them more resistant to change. The broader implications of this will be considered in more detail in Chapter 6.

113

CHAPTER 4 CONS EQUENCES OF STEREOTYPIC BELIEFS ABOUT YOUTH Page INTRODUCTION

114

STUDY 7: Effects of stereotypic beliefs about youth on evaluations of youth

120

Introduction

120

M ethod

122

Participants

122

M aterials

122

Procedure

126

Results and Discussion

127

Summary

133

STUDY 8: Behavioural confirmation of stereotypic beliefs about youth

133

Introduction

133

M ethod

136

Participants

136

M aterials

137

Procedure

138

Observer ratings of the perceiver-target interaction

140

Results and Discussion

140

Outside observer ratings

141

Perceivers' and targets' ratings of each other

144

Summary

148

DISCUSSION

149

114

INTRODUCTION The two studies in this chapter focused on the consequences of stereotypic beliefs about youth. Stereotypic beliefs about specific groups have been shown to influence people’s evaluations of those groups (Darley & Gross, 1983; Lepore & Brown, 1997). Stereotypic beliefs can also affect people’s behaviour toward members of a stereotyped group (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996). In many instances, that behaviour can generate responses from stereotyped individuals that validate people’s stereotypic beliefs (Chen & Bargh, 1997; Snyder et al., 1977). The result is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The studies that are reported in this chapter had two overriding aims. The first was to determine the extent to which stereotypic beliefs about youth affect adults’ evaluations of young people. The second aim was to establish whether stereotypic beliefs about young people result in self-fulfilling prophecies. M uch research evidence indicates that people use their stereotypic beliefs about specific groups when making judgements about individual members of a group (Banaji et al., 1993; Darley & Gross, 1983; Higgins et al., 1977). M oreover, the stereotypical information is often used automatically, without people’s awareness of its influence. For instance, in their pioneering experiment, Higgins et al. (1977) demonstrated that the presentation of trait category information in one context influences judgements of an ambiguously described target person in an unrelated context. Participants were first unobtrusively primed with stimuli related to the traits ‘reckless’ or ‘adventurous’. In a seemingly unrelated task, participants read a story that described a person who performed behaviours that were ambiguously relevant to

115

the primed trait (reckless or adventurous). Participants who had been primed with the stimuli related to recklessness rated the target as more reckless, but those who had been exposed to the traits related to adventurousness rated the target as more adventurous. Banaji et al. (1993) extended those findings by showing that the influence of a primed stereotype on subsequent judgement depends on the relationship between a target’s social category and the stereotype. They were able to show that priming the trait 'dependent' has different effects on evaluations of male and female targets. Subjects who were exposed to primes that described dependent behaviours rated a female target as more dependent than did subjects who rated the same target after exposure to neutral primes. Subjects exposed to the same dependence primes, however, judged a male target as less dependent than did subjects who rated the target after exposure to neutral primes. Further, based on the stereotype that associates males with aggressiveness, Banaji et al. (1993) found that subjects who were exposed to aggressive primes judged a male target as more aggressive than subjects who rated the same target after exposure to neutral primes. Judgements of a female target did not differ between subjects who were exposed to aggressive primes and those exposed to neutral primes. The findings of Higgins et al. (1977) and of Banaji et al. (1993) demonstrated that stereotypic beliefs about social groups can influence judgements of group members, without people’s awareness of such influence. Those findings have potential implications for adult-youth relations. Adults are exposed to information about young people in a variety of ways, including past experiences with young people and through the media. If that information portrays certain young people as

116

problematic (as the findings from the previous chapter indicated), it may produce negative evaluations of all young people. Study 7 in the program of research therefore sought to determine the effects of exposure to stereotypic information about youth on evaluations of young people. More specifically, Study 7 investigated whether the activation of traits comprising the ‘problem kids’ stereotype in one context influences the judgements that adults’ make about young people in an unrelated context. The effects of stereotypic beliefs are not limited to judgements or evaluations of stereotyped group members. Several research findings indicate that stereotypic beliefs can also affect behaviour toward members of the stereotyped group. For instance, Bargh et al. (1996) found that participants who had been subliminally exposed to faces of African American males subsequently reacted with greater hostility to a request of the experimenter to redo a tedious experimental task, compared to participants in a control group. Thus, the activation of stereotypic beliefs can produce stereotype-consistent behaviour in the holders of those beliefs. Furthermore, perceivers' stereotype-consistent behaviour can cause members of the stereotyped group to reciprocate with the same stereotype-consistent behaviour, thereby confirming perceivers' stereotypic beliefs about the group. In such instances, stereotypes create self-fulfilling prophecies (M erton, 1948) or behavioural confirmation of perceiver expectancies (Snyder, 1992). There are three stages involved in the behavioural confirmation process. First, expectancies about a member of a stereotyped group must be activated in the perceiver. Second, the activation of the stereotype-based expectancies must affect the

117

perceiver’s behaviour toward the member of the stereotyped group. The final step in the self-fulfilling process is that the perceiver’s behaviour causes the member of the stereotyped group to reciprocate with stereotype-consistent behaviour (Hamilton et al., 1990). For example, in an early and now classic experiment, Snyder et al. (1977) led male perceivers to believe that they would be engaging in a telephone conversation with either an attractive or an unattractive female target. After engaging in a ‘getting acquainted’ conversation, males tended to rate their interaction partners as attractive, warm, and sociable when they had initially believed them to be attractive. Furthermore, independent raters, blind to the experimental hypotheses also rated those females, and their perceiver partners, as more warm and sociable. The stereotypic information therefore affected the behaviour of the perceivers, which influenced the actual behaviour of the targets so that perceivers’ expectancies were confirmed. Several researchers have questioned the validity of the behavioural confirmation effect. According to M iller and Turnbull (1986), laboratory experiments have been designed to maximise the likelihood of finding self-fulfilling prophecies. Targets are never informed about perceivers’ expectancies toward them, which has been shown to increase the effect (Hilton & Darley, 1985). M iller and Turnbull (1986) further argued that self-disconfirming prophecies are just as likely as self-fulfilling ones to develop. If we expect someone to behave in a hostile manner toward us, we may behave in a friendlier manner so as to prevent a negative interaction. Jussim (1990) has also criticised the traditional behavioural confirmation methodology by claiming that nearly all of the experimental studies showing

118

behavioural confirmation effects are flawed because they have given perceivers false expectancies. In other words, we do not know the extent to which naturally occurring expectations produce behavioural confirmation effects. In an attempt to deal with those limitations, Chen and Bargh (1997) proposed a ‘nonconscious model of behavioural confirmation’. They suggested that the mere presence of an individual member of a stereotyped group can cause the automatic activation of that stereotype. The activation of that stereotype is then hypothesised to lead the perceiver to behave in accordance with the activated stereotype. Finally, by acting in line with the stereotype, but without realising he or she is doing so, the perceiver elicits similar behaviour from the stereotyped group member in response. Chen and Bargh (1997) obtained support for their ‘nonconscious model of behavioural confirmation’ by showing that the automatic activation of the African American stereotype produces automatic behavioural confirmation effects. In their experiment, pairs of participants first worked separately on an identical computer task. One participant was assigned the role of ‘perceiver’ and the other participant was assigned the role of ‘target’. In the course of the computer task, perceiver participants were subliminally presented with photographs of either male African American faces or male Caucasian faces. Target participants were not presented with any subliminal photographs in the course of the task. In the next phase, the two participants (placed in separate rooms) engaged in a verbal game via headphones. The object of the game was for one individual, the ‘clue-giver’, to elicit a series of words from the other individual, the ‘guesser’. After the game, the two participants gave their impressions of each other on a series of trait rating scales, some related to,

119

and others unrelated to the trait of hostility. They found that target participants who interacted with perceivers in the African American priming condition were rated as more hostile than were targets who interacted with perceivers in the Caucasian priming condition. The hostility ratings were made by perceivers themselves, and by outside judges who were blind to the experimental hypotheses. M oreover, mediational analyses showed that the increase in target participants' hostility was due to increases in perceivers' hostility, thereby confirming the nonconscious behavioural confirmation model. Study 8 in the present program of research sought to re-examine Chen and Bargh's (1997) nonconscious behavioural confirmation model with stereotypic beliefs that young people are problematic. Study 8 investigated the extent to which automatic activation of the ‘problem kids’ stereotype can result in behavioural confirmation of perceivers' expectancies. Thus, the two studies presented in this chapter addressed two specific questions. The first determined the extent to which stereotypic beliefs about youth influence the judgements that adults make about young people (Study 7). The second question was concerned with the effects of stereotypic beliefs about youth on adults' interactions with young people (Study 8). The focus was on the ‘problem kids’ subtype, given the earlier findings of this research program that indicate it is the most salient of the youth subtypes.

120

S TUDY 7 Effects of stereotypic beliefs about youth on evaluations of youth Introduction Study 7 examined the extent to which people’s implicit stereotypic beliefs about youth influence their evaluations of young people. The study adopted the methodology employed by Banaji et al. (1993) in their examination of the influence of implicit gender stereotypes on evaluations of male and female targets. In their study, subjects took part in two seemingly unrelated studies. During the first study, subjects unscrambled sentences that were neutral or that described behaviours stereotypical of dependence or aggression. In the second study, subjects formed impressions of a target person as part of a reading comprehension task. The target paragraphs described a male or female target who performed behaviours weakly related to the primed traits (dependent or aggressive). They found that although ratings of female and male targets did not differ after exposure to neutral primes, subjects who were exposed to dependence primes rated the female target as more dependent than the male target who performed identical behaviours. Similarly, subjects rated a male, but not a female, target as more aggressive after exposure to aggression primes compared with neutral primes. The present study sought to replicate the findings of Banaji et al. (1993) with implicit stereotypic beliefs about youth. Adult subjects performed two seemingly unrelated tasks. First, they were required to unscramble a series of sentences that were neutral or that described irresponsible and disrespectful behaviours. Earlier findings of the program of research established that the traits ‘irresponsible’ and

121

‘disrespectful’ are stereotypically associated with youth. Both were rated as extremely characteristic of young people according to adults’ knowledge of the cultural stereotype (Study 1), and the examination of multiple stereotypes of youth (Study 4) showed that the traits ‘irresponsible’ and ‘disrespectful’ were identified as belonging to the ‘problem kids’ subtype. For that reason, the unscrambling of sentences that described irresponsible and disrespectful behaviours in the first task were used to activate the stereotype of young people as ‘problem kids’. After they had completed the scrambled sentence task, subjects were presented with an impression formation task. For that task, subjects read a paragraph that described a youth or an adult target who performed behaviours weakly related to the traits irresponsible and disrespectful. After reading the paragraph, subjects rated the target on a series of trait rating scales that were semantically related to either irresponsible or disrespectful, or were semantically unrelated to those traits, but evaluatively negative. Banaji et al. (1993) determined that the influence of a primed stereotype on a subsequent target evaluation is dependent on the relationship between a target’s social category and the stereotype. That is, incidentally exposed stereotype information is used only if the social category of the target is relevant to that information. Based on those findings, Study 7 had two specific hypotheses. First, it was predicted that the youth target would be rated as more irresponsible and disrespectful by subjects who were exposed to irresponsible and disrespectful primes than by subjects who were exposed to neutral primes. Alternatively, because the traits irresponsible and disrespectful are not stereotypical of adulthood, it was predicted that there would be

122

no effect of prior exposure to the primes on subjects’ ratings of the adult target. That is, ratings of the adult target on irresponsibility and disrespectfulness would be lower than ratings of the youth target on those traits, and should not differ between subjects who were exposed to the irresponsible and disrespectful primes and those exposed to neutral primes. M ethod Participants Sixty undergraduate psychology students (ages 18-30, 35 females and 25 males) at the University of New South Wales took part in the study. They participated either individually or in groups of two or three. M aterials Scrambled sentence task. Two sets of scrambled sentences served as the youth and neutral prime conditions. The sentences comprising the neutral prime condition were taken from those used by Banaji et al. (1993) in their study of the effect of gender stereotypes on evaluations of males and females. Ten adults generated two lists of behaviours to obtain an initial pool of irresponsible and disrespectful behaviours that would comprise the scrambled sentences for youth prime condition. The first was characteristic of ‘irresponsibility in young people’, while the second described ‘disrespectfulness in young people’ (see Appendix C for the instructions). The adult sample produced 61 irresponsible and disrespectful behaviours. Each was modified to form a three-word phrase (for example, ‘has bad manners’, ‘leaves electricity running’). An independent sample of 10 adults rated how typical each behaviour was of youth to ensure that the phrases were describing

123

behaviours that were stereotypical of youth. They made their ratings on a scale that ranged from 1 (‘Completely describes adults’) to 7 (‘Completely describes youth’). On that scale, a rating of 4 indicated that the behaviour was equally characteristic of adults and young people (the measure is included in Appendix C). Items with mean ratings of greater than or equal to 5 were selected for inclusion in the final measure. To create the scrambled sentences for the priming task, a fourth word was added to each three-word phrase, and the order of the four words was scrambled. For all sentences the fourth word was grammatically incorrect. In other words, in order for subjects to unscramble the words to form a meaningful sentence, they had to eliminate the incorrect fourth word. Each set of scrambled words began with the word ‘he’. Some examples of sentences in their scrambled form are ‘He the an answered phone’ and ‘He uses drugs a illegal’. The task required subjects to number, in their correct order, the three words (excluding the word ‘he’ as it appeared in all sentences) that formed a complete sentence. The youth and neutral prime conditions were created by varying the content of the scrambled sentences. The youth prime condition consisted of 11 disrespectful behaviours (for example, ‘vandalises public property’, ‘is never grateful’), 8 irresponsible behaviours (such as, ‘leaves electricity running’, ‘has unprotected sex’), and 9 neutral behaviours (for example, ‘prepared for it’, ‘read the book’). The neutral prime condition consisted of 28 neutral behaviours. The complete sets of youth and neutral primes are presented in Appendix C. Target paragraph. The target paragraph described a series of activities involving the target person to be judged. The paragraph was designed to convey the target person as ambiguously irresponsible and disrespectful. The individual

124

behaviours comprising the paragraph (6 disrespectful and 4 irresponsible) were pretested with 10 subjects for degree of representativeness of the target traits. Ratings were made on a 7-point scale that ranged from 1 (‘Not at all disrespectful or irresponsible) to 7 (‘Extremely disrespectful or irresponsible’). Only behaviours that were afforded mean ratings of between 4 and 5 were retained in the paragraph. This ensured the inclusion of behaviours that were ambiguously related to the relevant trait. The irresponsible and disrespectful behaviours were embedded in the paragraph among neutral behaviours. As a final pretest, 10 subjects read the entire paragraph and rated the target on disrespectfulness and irresponsibility. Ratings were made on the same 7-point scale as that used to pretest the individual behaviours comprising the paragraph. The obtained mean ratings were 5.1 and 5.3 for disrespectfulness and irresponsibility, respectively. Two versions of the target paragraph were created. The content was identical, however, in one version the target was a young person and in the other version he was an adult (the final adult and youth versions of the paragraph are included in Appendix C). Trait ratings. Subjects rated the target on 14 trait rating scales. The primary traits of interest were irresponsible and disrespectful. In addition, four traits were semantically related to the trait disrespectful (rude, insulting, offensive, insolent). Another four were semantically related to the trait irresponsible (unreliable, selfish, thoughtless, distrustful). All traits were first pretested for their relatedness to the relevant trait (that is, disrespectful or irresponsible). Ten subjects rated the extent to which each was related to either disrespectful or irresponsible. Ratings were made on a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 (‘Not at all related’) to 5 (‘Extremely related’). All

125

traits were afforded mean ratings of 3.7 or above. The final four traits were semantically unrelated to the traits disrespectful and irresponsible, although evaluatively negative (boring, superficial, greedy, narrow-minded). All 14 traits were equated on ratings of likeability (Anderson, 1968). Subjects made their ratings on a 10-point scale that ranged from 1 (‘Not at all’) to 10 (‘Extremely’). The scales are included in Appendix C. Filler task. After reading the target paragraph and before rating the target on the trait rating scales, subjects were required to complete a filler task that lasted for 6 minutes. The task was a speed and accuracy number checking test. Subjects were presented with 100 pairs of numerical strings. In each pair, the strings were either exactly the same or different. Their task was to indicate whether each pair was exactly the same or different by writing the letter ‘S’ or ‘D’ alongside the pair. They were instructed to complete as many pairs as they could in the allocated time, and were told to work as quickly as possible, but to be as accurate as possible (the task is included in Appendix C). M emory for primes. Banaji et al. (1993) note that it is crucial that subjects are unaware that the priming stimulus is related to the evaluation of the target. For that reason, a check was incorporated to ensure that subjects' ratings of the target were not influenced by their explicit memory for the priming stimuli (that is, the scrambled sentences). At the end of the experiment, subjects were asked to recall the sentences that they had unscrambled at the beginning of the session. They were asked to write down any sentence or part of a sentence, even single words that they could recall from the unscrambling task.

126

Procedure Subjects were informed that they would be taking part in a study that was concerned with individual differences in language and numerical ability. Their participation required that they complete four separate tasks. First, they were presented with the scrambled sentence task. Upon completion, the target paragraph was introduced. Subjects were told that the experimenter was interested in how people form impressions of others. They were then given 5 minutes to read the target paragraph. After completing the 6-minute filler task, subjects rated the target on the 14 trait rating scales. Finally, subjects were asked to recall as many sentences as they could from the scrambled sentences task. They were then screened for an awareness of the relationship between the scrambled sentence task and the target paragraph and fully debriefed. Results and Discussion None of the subjects indicated that they were aware of the connection between the priming and the evaluation tasks. Responses from all 60 subjects were therefore included in the analyses. Subjects’ ratings on the two target traits, irresponsible and disrespectful, were analysed separately. Ratings on the remaining 12 traits were analysed by the following categories – semantically related to irresponsible, semantically related to disrespectful, and semantically unrelated evaluatively negative. Ratings on the four traits within each of those categories were summed to compute a total score. Each data set was then analysed as a two-way, betweensubjects analysis of variance (Prime type: youth or neutral ✕ 2 Target age: youth or adult), with subject age entered as a covariate. All analyses were performed using

127

SPSS for Windows (Norusis, 1993). Summaries of statistical analyses are presented in Appendix C. Analyses of target ratings on the trait irresponsible revealed no main effects of Prime type or of Target age. The predicted Prime type ✕Target age interaction was not obtained, t (58) = 1.73, p=.09. Table 4.1 shows, however, that subjects in the youth prime condition rated the youth target as slightly more irresponsible than did subjects in the neutral prime condition. Although that difference was expected, it was not significant. As predicted, however, ratings of the adult target on irresponsible did not differ between subjects in the youth and neutral priming conditions. Table 4.1 also shows an unexpected trend toward subjects in the neutral prime condition rating the adult target as more irresponsible than the youth target. Finally, although unpredicted, a significant effect was obtained for the covariate, subject age, t (58) = -3.41, p<.01. Higher ratings of the target on irresponsible were associated with younger subjects. Table 4.1 M ean ratings of irresponsibility as a function of Prime type and Target age Prime type Target age M

Youth SD

Neutral M SD

Youth

7.47

1.5

6.53

1.8

Adult

7.00

2.1

7.20

2.0

Note: Means should be compared horizontally and vertically. A higher mean score reflects greater irresponsibility.

128

There were no main effects of Prime type or Target age on disrespectful. The predicted Prime type ✕Target age interaction was not obtained t (58) = 1.47, p=.15. In accordance with predictions, however, ratings of the youth target were higher on disrespectfulness for subjects in the youth prime condition than for subjects in the neutral prime condition, t (28) = 2.33, p<.05. Further, ratings of the adult target on disrespectfulness were statistically equivalent for subjects in the youth and neutral prime conditions. Contrary to expectation, however, for subjects in the neutral prime condition, ratings of the adult target on disrespectfulness were marginally, but not significantly, higher than were ratings of the youth target. For subjects in the youth prime condition, ratings of the youth target on disrespectfulness were only slightly higher than ratings of the adult target. The pattern of means is presented in Table 4.2. Consistent with the findings of the first analysis, a significant main effect of subject age on disrespectful was obtained t (58) = -3.52, p<.01. Younger subjects gave higher target ratings of disrespectfulness than did older subjects. Table 4.2 M ean disrespectfulness ratings as a function of Prime type and Target age Prime type Target age M

Youth SD

Neutral M SD

Youth

7.60a

1.3

6.20b

1.8

Adult

7.27a

2.0

7.07a,b

2.0

Note: Means should be compared horizontally and vertically. Means that differ significantly have different subscripts. A higher mean score reflects greater disrespectfulness.

129

Ratings of the target on the traits that were semantically related to irresponsible and disrespectful were consistent with the findings from the first two analyses. No main effects of Prime type or Target age were obtained. In addition, the Prime type ✕Target age interaction was not significant in either analysis. For the analysis of target ratings on traits that were semantically related to disrespectful, no trends in the pattern of means were obtained. However, for the analysis of traits that were semantically related to irresponsible, ratings of the youth target on traits that were semantically related to irresponsible were significantly higher for subjects in the youth prime condition than subjects in the neutral prime condition, t (28) = 2.01, p=.05. Ratings of the adult target were also in accordance with predictions. Those ratings were almost identical for subjects in the youth prime and neutral prime conditions. There was a trend towards subjects in the youth prime condition rating youth targets (M = 7.57) marginally higher than adult targets (M = 7.08). Further, subjects in the neutral prime condition rated the adult target (M = 7.15) slightly higher than the youth target (M = 6.28) on traits that were semantically related to irresponsible, although once again, that difference was not significant. Finally, significant effects for subject age were obtained (t (58) = -3.46, p<.01 and t (58) = -2.99, p<.01, for traits that were semantically related to irresponsible and disrespectful, respectively). Younger subjects gave higher ratings of the target on traits that were semantically related to irresponsible and disrespectful than did older subjects. The final analysis was performed using the ratings of the target on traits that were evaluatively negative, but semantically unrelated to irresponsible and

130

disrespectful. No significant main effects for Prime type or Target age were obtained. The effect for subject age was significant, t (58) = -1.98, p=.05. Once again, younger subjects gave higher target ratings on traits that were evaluatively negative but semantically unrelated to irresponsible and disrespectful than did older subjects. No other significant results or trends were obtained. Taken together, the findings of the present study provide partial support for the experimental hypotheses. It was predicted that a youth target but not an adult target would be evaluated as more irresponsible and disrespectful after exposure to irresponsible and disrespectful primes than after exposure to neutral primes. In all analyses, a youth target was judged to be more irresponsible and disrespectful by subjects who were exposed to irresponsible and disrespectful primes than by subjects who were exposed to neutral primes. Significant differences were only obtained, however, for target ratings on the trait disrespectful and on traits that were semantically related to irresponsible. Contrary to expectation, however, for subjects exposed to irresponsible and disrespectful primes, ratings of the youth target were never statistically different from ratings of the adult target, although they were always marginally higher. There are at least two plausible explanations for this finding. First, the increased ratings of the adult target on disrespectful and irresponsible might have been due to subjects’ superior explicit memory for the primes in the adult target condition. If subjects who rated the adult target recalled more of the irresponsible and disrespectful primes than subjects who rated the youth target, that could account for their higher than expected target ratings on irresponsible and disrespectful. To explore this possibility, subjects' memory for the primes was examined.

131

Two coders independently rated each subject's recall of the priming sentences. The responses of subjects in the youth prime condition only were coded, given that the neutral primes could not have influenced target ratings. The 5-point scoring system that was employed by Banaji et al. (1993) was used in the present study. For each sentence, the coders assigned one of five possible scores: 1 (perfect recall), 2 (conceptually identical recall), 3 (at least one key word recalled), 4 (at least one key word recalled, but with altered meaning), or 5 (incorrect recall). Ninety-four percent of independent codings were in agreement. The remainder was resolved by discussion. Following Banaji et al. (1993), a subject was considered to have recalled a prime if the sentence was coded as belonging to any one of the first three categories in the scoring scheme. The total number of irresponsible and disrespectful primes recalled was computed for each subject. Memory for the primes was then compared between subjects in the youth and adult target conditions. Subjects who rated the adult target did not recall significantly more youth primes (M = 3.40) than did subjects who judged the youth target (M =2.27), t (28) = -1.59, p=.12. Thus, the higher than expected disrespectful and irresponsible ratings of the adult target could not be explained in terms of explicit memory for the primes. There is an alternative explanation for the increased irresponsible and disrespectful ratings of the adult target. Judgements of the adult target by subjects in both the youth and neutral prime conditions may have approached the ratings of the youth target by subjects in the youth prime condition because adults, in general, are expected to behave in a responsible and respectful way. Given that we expect adults to be responsible and respectful, it is possible that when an adult behaves in an

132

irresponsible and disrespectful manner we might judge him or her as negatively as we would a teenager. To pursue this possibility, 40 adults (mean age = 42.3, SD = 17.2) read the target paragraph that was used in this study. This time, however, any identifying information regarding the age of the target was omitted. After reading the paragraph, subjects were required to indicate whether they would judge an adult or a teenager more harshly for engaging in those behaviours. Thirty-four of 40 subjects indicated that they would judge an adult more harshly than they would a teenager. In addition, an independent sample of 30 adults (mean age = 37.5, SD = 11.5) read the target paragraph and indicated whether they thought that the target was more likely to be a teenager or an adult. Twenty-eight of 30 subjects revealed that the target was most likely a teenager. Taken together, those findings suggest that the behaviours engaged in by the target were stereotypical of adolescence, although because adults are not expected to engage in those behaviours, they are evaluated more negatively than a teenager for doing so. Future investigations should therefore employ a different comparison group. Buchanan and Holmbeck (1998) compared beliefs about adolescents with the same people’s beliefs about primary school children. They found that adolescents were rated more negatively than were primary school children. Adolescents were, for example, judged as more risk-taking and rebellious and as more involved in problem behaviours than were primary school children. In addition, due to their age, primary school children are likely to be judged more leniently than teenagers for irresponsible or disrespectful behaviour. Primary school children may

133

therefore serve as a more appropriate comparison group in future investigations of stereotypic beliefs about adolescence. Summary Contrary to expectation, subjects in the present study did not rate a youth target as more irresponsible and disrespectful than an adult target following exposure to irresponsible and disrespectful primes. As predicted, however, subjects who were exposed to irresponsible and disrespectful primes did rate a youth target as more irresponsible and disrespectful than did subjects who were exposed to neutral primes. This suggests that implicit stereotypic beliefs about youth do have an effect on the judgements that adults make about young people. S TUDY 8 Behavioural confirmation of stereotypic beliefs about youth Introduction Study 8 investigated the extent to which stereotypic beliefs about young people contribute to self-fulfilling prophecies, or the behavioural confirmation of perceiver expectancies. There were two overriding goals. The first was to determine whether the automatic activation of stereotypic beliefs about youth can cause the holders of those beliefs to act in stereotype-consistent ways. The second goal was to examine whether perceivers' stereotype-consistent behaviour can cause members of the stereotyped group to reciprocate with stereotype-consistent behaviour, thereby confirming perceivers' stereotypic beliefs. Chen and Bargh (1997) examined the automatic behavioural confirmation of the African American stereotype. That methodology, which has already been described in the Introduction to this chapter,

134

was modified for use in the present investigation. In the present study, pairs of participants first engaged in a word guessing game, where one participant (the target) tried to guess a series of words based on clues given by the other participant (the perceiver). After three minutes, they switched roles so that the target became the clue giver and the perceiver became the word guesser. Their interaction was recorded on separate channels of a tape recorder. On completion of the game, the two participants gave their initial impressions of one another on a series of trait rating scales, some related to and others unrelated to the trait 'rude'. This was done in order to obtain baseline ratings of rudeness for both participants. The trait ‘rude’ was chosen as a result of earlier findings of the research program. Rude was rated as extremely characteristic of youth according to adults’ knowledge of the cultural stereotype (Study 1) and it was identified as belonging to the ‘problem kids’ youth subtype (Study 4). After indicating their initial impressions of each other, participants worked separately on a computer-based reaction time task. For that task, a series of animate and inanimate objects appeared one at a time on the centre of the screen. Immediately after an object disappeared from the screen, participants were required to report as quickly and as accurately as possible whether the object was animate or inanimate. For half of the perceivers, the animate objects were pictures of teenage male faces. The youth photographs were selected to activate participants' implicit stereotypic beliefs that young people are problematic. For the remaining perceivers, and for all of the targets, the animate stimuli were adult male faces.

135

After they had completed the computer task, participants engaged in a second round of the word-guessing game. Once again, the perceiver began as the clue giver and the target as the word guesser. After three minutes, they switched roles and continued to play for a further three minutes. Finally, they rated each other on the same trait rating scales as those used to indicate their initial impressions of one another. The purpose in doing so was to establish whether their impressions had changed as a result of their second interaction, or had remained the same. The experimental design that was employed in the present study improves on that used by Chen and Bargh (1997) in their investigation of automatic behavioural confirmation of the African American stereotype. In their study, perceiver-target partners gave their impressions of one another only after the perceivers received the priming stimuli. Given that no baseline ratings of the trait of interest (hostile) were gathered, it is not possible to conclude that priming of the African American stereotype produced differences in hostility between the experimental conditions. In other words, perceivers who received the prime could have, as a group, been more hostile than perceivers who did not receive the prime. For that reason, perceivers and targets in the present study gave their impressions of one another both before and after the priming manipulation. In this study it was predicted that, compared to their initial ratings of each other, target participants who interacted with perceiver participants who had been primed with youth faces would exhibit greater rudeness after perceivers’ exposure to the youth faces. The increase in rudeness would be rated by their perceiverparticipant partners, and by outside observers listening to tape recordings of the

136

interactions. Targets in the adult prime condition, however, were not expected to exhibit an increase in rudeness from before and after the priming manipulation. It was further predicted that the increased rudeness of the target participants in the youth prime condition would be mediated by the increased rudeness of the perceiver participants, as a consequence of the automatic activation of the youth stereotype. M ethod Participants Sixty (ages 18-34, 30 males and 30 females) undergraduate psychology students at the University of New South Wales took part in the study. Participants were scheduled in pairs. For each pair, the two participants were of the same sex and were previously unacquainted. M aterials Interaction task. Two microphones and two headphones were connected to a tape recorder. By wearing the headphones and speaking into the microphones, each pair of participants could converse with one another from different rooms and without any visual contact. Each participant’s part of the conversation was recorded on a separate channel of the tape recorder. This allowed the outside observers to listen to the tapes later on and to judge each participant for degree of rudeness, in isolation from the other participant’s part of the conversation. The word game ‘Taboo’ by M ilton Bradley was used for the interaction task. Players were given a pile of cards and on each card was a target word. Below the target word were a series of ‘taboo’ words that were related to the target word. For example, one target word was marriage, and the taboo words below were wedding,

137

husband, wife, ceremony, and vows. The object of the game was for one player to give his or her partner clues to guess the target word at the top of each card. In giving clues, however, the player could not say any of the taboo words that were on the card. Nor could the player spell the word, or use any derivatives of the word. Each player was given 3 minutes to help his or her partner to guess as many words as possible. Priming task. Two IBM compatible computers were used to present the priming stimuli. The priming procedure employed was that of M acrae, Bodenhausen, M ilne, Thorn, and Castelli (1997). Participants were presented with 30 stimuli, 15 of which were photographs of inanimate objects (for example, a chair, a watch, a kettle). For half of the perceivers, the remaining 15 stimuli were photographs of male teenagers that were taken from popular youth magazines. The youth photographs were selected to activate the ‘problem kids’ subtype of youth that was identified in Study 4 of the research program. For the remaining perceivers, and for all of the targets, the 15 animate stimuli were photographs of male adults that were taken from business-related magazines. Each stimulus was presented in the centre of the screen, one at a time. Given that the study was concerned with automatic stereotype activation, each priming stimulus was presented to subjects for only 255 milliseconds (M acrae et al., 1997). This was done to prevent subjects from engaging in any controlled processing of the stimuli. Immediately after a stimulus disappeared from the screen, subjects had to report, by pressing the appropriate key, whether the stimulus represented an animate or inanimate object. If the object was animate, they pressed the ‘A’ key. If it was inanimate, they pressed the ‘5’ key on the right side numeric keypad.

138

Impression formation questionnaire. After both rounds of the word guessing game, participants gave their impressions of one another on a series of trait rating scales. The primary trait of interest was ‘rude’. Five additional traits were semantically related to the trait rude (arrogant, insulting, offensive, impolite, and courteous [reverse scored]). In order to establish whether priming of the youth stereotype results in increased rudeness specifically or an increase in negative behaviour in general, participants also rated each other on 5 traits semantically unrelated to rude, but evaluatively negative (boring, superficial, narrow-minded, humourless, incompetent). The 5 traits that were semantically related to the trait rude had been afforded mean ratings of 3.8 and above on a 5-point scale that ranged from 1 (‘Not at all related to rude’) to 5 (‘Extremely related to rude’) by a group of 10 pretest subjects. The semantically unrelated evaluatively negative traits were equated with the trait rude on ratings of likeability (Anderson, 1968). To indicate their impressions of one another, participants rated their interaction partner on the 11 traits on scales that ranged from 1 (‘Not at all’) to 10 (‘Extremely’). The scales are included in Appendix C. Procedure To ensure that participants did not see each other prior to the start of the experiment, they were told to arrive at separate rooms on separate floors. The experimenter brought them separately to their respective rooms, which were interconnecting. The experimenter then stood in the doorway between the two rooms and explained that the research was investigating whether individuals work differently when alone versus with others. They would therefore first work on a

139

verbal task together and then work on a computer task by themselves. The experimenter then explained the word guessing game to the participants and gave each of them a pile of cards. The perceiver participant then began as clue giver. Three minutes later, they switched roles. After a further 3 minutes, the experimenter informed the participants (separately, in their own rooms) that the next task was to indicate their initial impressions of their interaction partner. They were told that their responses would remain confidential and that their partner would not see them. After they had indicated their initial impressions of one another, they completed the computer-based reaction time task. As part of this task, perceiver participants were presented with faces of male teenagers or adults. All targets were presented with faces of male adults. Upon completion of the computer task, participants engaged in a second round of the word guessing game. Once again, the perceiver began as the clue giver and the target as the word guesser. After three minutes, they switched roles. Finally, the experimenter told the participants (again, separately in their own rooms) that now that they had interacted with their partner a second time, it was possible that their impressions of one another may have changed. For that reason, the last task would be to complete the impression formation task again, only taking into account their second interaction. They were told that it was of interest to see whether their impressions had changed since their initial ratings, or whether they had stayed the same. Finally, participants were probed for an awareness of the connection between the computer task and the word guessing game and then fully debriefed.

140

Observer ratings of the perceiver-target interaction Two judges, blind to the experimental hypotheses, listened to the tape recordings of each of the 60 participants. Their task was to rate participants for the degree of rudeness that was displayed. Perceiver and target participants had been recorded on separate channels of the tape recorder, and so only one individual participant could be heard on a given channel. Tape recordings were therefore presented to the judges in a randomised order, and ratings were made of individual participants, rather than of perceiver-target pairs. The rating scale was adapted from Chen and Bargh’s (1997) hostility rating scale. Essentially, the scale that was used in the present study ranged from 1 (‘Not at all rude’) to 7 (‘Extremely rude’). For each point on the scale, however, detailed descriptions were given to indicate the type of behaviour that would warrant the affording of that score to a participant. The complete scale is included in Appendix C. Reliability analyses revealed a Cronbach’s alpha of .82 for this scoring method. It was therefore possible to use the mean of the two sets of ratings in order to assign a single rudeness rating to each participant. Results and Discussion The findings are presented in two sections. First, the results from the analyses of the outside observer ratings are detailed. The second section presents the findings from the perceiver and target ratings of one another. All analyses were performed using SPSS for Windows (Norusis, 1993). Summaries of statistical analyses are presented in Appendix C.

141

Outside observer ratings Judges who were blind to the experimental hypotheses rated the verbal behaviour of each participant for the degree of rudeness. Those ratings were entered into a repeated measures analysis of variance, with Prime (youth or adult) as the between subjects factor and Role (perceiver or target) and Time (before prime or after 1 prime) as the within subjects factors . The main effect of Prime was significant, with

greater verbal rudeness for both perceiver and target participants in the youth than in the adult priming condition (F (1, 25) = 6.77, p<.05). In addition, a significant Prime ✕ Time interaction

was obtained (F (1, 25) = 9.30, p<.05). That interaction is

illustrated graphically in Figure 4.1. Before the prime was introduced, observer ratings of rudeness were similar for participants in the youth and adult prime conditions. After the priming manipulation, however, observer ratings of rudeness increased for participants in the youth prime condition only. Rudeness ratings of participants in the adult prime condition changed only slightly.

1

Three pairs of subjects were excluded from all analyses because their mean rudeness ratings identified them as outliers (2 SD + M). Analyses were therefore performed on 27 pairs of participants.

Mean rudeness rating

142

4 youth prime 3.5 adult prime

3 2.5 2 before prime

after prime Time

Figure 4.1 The interaction between Time (before or after prime) and Prime (youth or adult) on observer ratings of participant rudeness

Evidence of a self-fulfilling prophecy effect requires that there should be an increase in rudeness specifically for target participants (Chen & Bargh, 1997). For that reason, a one way analysis of variance was conducted for the influence of the priming manipulation on targets' rudeness. Before the introduction of the prime, targets in the youth prime condition did not differ from targets in the adult prime condition in their displayed levels of rudeness (F (1, 25) = 1.12, p=.30). After the prime was introduced, however, targets in the youth prime condition exhibited greater behavioural rudeness than did targets in the adult prime condition (F (1, 25) = 6.98, p<.05). Similarly, perceivers in the youth prime condition were not rated by the observers as ruder than perceivers in the adult prime condition before introduction of

143

the prime (F (1, 25) = 0.10, p=.95). Following the priming manipulation, however, perceivers in the youth prime condition were judged as ruder than were perceivers in the adult prime condition (F (1, 25) = 4.53, p<.05). The prediction that perceivers and targets in the youth prime condition would exhibit greater rudeness than perceivers and targets in the adult prime condition was therefore supported. A further prediction was that the increased rudeness of the target participants in the youth prime condition would be mediated by the increased rudeness of their perceiver partners. Regression analyses were performed to determine whether the effect of prime type (youth or adult) on target rudeness was entirely mediated by perceiver rudeness. First, prime type was found to have a direct effect on target rudeness (β = .47, p<.05). The effect of prime type on perceiver rudeness was also significant (β = .39, p<.05), as was the effect of perceiver rudeness on target rudeness (β = .51, p<.05). The criteria that must be met to test for mediation were thus satisfied (Baron & Kenny, 1986). It was possible to test for the effect of prime type on target rudeness, mediated by perceiver rudeness. The results of those analyses are presented in Figure 4.2. The effect of prime type on target rudeness was entirely mediated by perceiver rudeness, as the direct effect of prime type on target rudeness became non-significant when all three variables were entered into the analysis. Prime type, however, remained a significant predictor of perceiver rudeness.

144

Perceiver rudeness .51*

.39* Prime type

.32 (.47*)

Target rudeness

Figure 4.2 Target rudeness ratings as a function of prime type, mediated via perceiver rudeness ratings

Taken together, the analyses that were conducted on the observer ratings of participants' rudeness supported all the predictions regarding the automatic behavioural confirmation of stereotypic beliefs about youth. The remainder of the Results section presents the findings of the analyses that were conducted on perceivers' and targets' ratings of each other. Perceivers' and targets' ratings of each other In order for the behavioural confirmation of stereotypic beliefs to be demonstrated, the perceivers for whom the particular stereotype has been activated must leave the interaction believing that the targets with whom they interacted behaved in a stereotype-consistent way, compared to the impressions formed of targets by perceivers whose stereotypic beliefs were not activated (Chen & Bargh, 1997). In the present study, therefore, participants gave their impressions of one another on a series of trait rating scales, some related to and other unrelated to the trait rude. They rated their partner twice, once before and once after the priming

145

manipulation. Four total scores were therefore computed for each participant. The first two were total scores for the ratings of the traits that were semantically related to rude, before and after the prime was introduced. The other two total scores were for the ratings of the traits that were semantically unrelated to rude but evaluatively negative, before and after the priming manipulation. Those scores were then subjected to two repeated measures analyses of variance with Prime (youth or adult) and Role (perceiver or target) as the between subjects factors and Time (before or after prime) as the within subjects factor. The first analysis used the total rating scores for the traits that were semantically related to rude, while the second used the total rating scores for the traits that were semantically unrelated to rude but evaluatively negative. When the two analyses were carried out, none of the effects were found to be significant, all Fs < 2.79 (Fc = 4.03). In other words, perceivers in the youth prime condition did not rate their target partners as ruder, or even more negative generally, than perceivers in the adult prime condition. There are at least two plausible explanations for this finding. First, in the present study, perceivers and targets rated each other both before and after the priming manipulation. Previous researchers of self-fulfilling prophecies have failed to incorporate a pre/post prime factor. This means that researchers cannot be sure that the priming manipulation was responsible for producing any differences between conditions. It is possible, however, that the incorporation of the pre/post prime factor introduced a perseverance bias. That bias refers to the persistence of one’s initial impressions, even when the basis for those impressions has been discredited (M yers, 1999). This is, in part, due to the fact that

146

our initial impressions alter the interpretation of later information (Smith & M ackie, 1995). There is substantial empirical evidence documenting that initial impressions are resistant to change (Davies, 1997; Gilbert, Krull, & Malone, 1990; Kulik, 1983; Thompson, Fong, & Rosenhan, 1981). It is therefore possible that because subjects in the youth prime condition had initially formed a positive impression of their interaction partner, they were reluctant to alter that impression despite changes in the behaviour of their partner. There are two problems with this explanation. First, positive first impressions are more easily altered than negative first impressions (Forgas, 1992). It is therefore unlikely that, following the second interaction, participants’ rude behaviour would have been ignored so as to maintain the initial positive impression. The second limitation of the perseverance bias relates to the finding that asking subjects to consider alternative explanations of the same event can eliminate perseverance effects (Hirt & M arkman, 1995). In the present study, before participants rated their partner for the second time, they were explicitly informed that it is likely that their impressions of their partner may have changed since their initial interaction. The instructions on the questionnaire stated that ‘now that you have interacted with your partner a second time, your impressions of him or her might well have changed’. It is therefore unlikely that the pre/post prime design would have introduced a perseverance bias. There is an alternative explanation for the failure of perceivers in the present study to have their stereotypes ‘confirmed’. Participants in the youth prime condition may have been reluctant to rate each other as rude because of impression

147

management or self-presentational factors. Social desirability is a response set characterised by answering questions in the direction that is most socially accepted regardless of whether the answer is actually correct for the respondent (Neale & Liebert, 1986). In other words, in an attempt to create a favourable impression of themselves to the experimenter, participants in the youth prime condition could have deliberately provided socially desirable ratings of their interaction partner. To further pursue that explanation, participants’ ratings of their interaction partner on the trait rude were compared to the rudeness ratings of participants that were provided by the outside observers. Given that participants and observers made their ratings on different scales, it was first necessary to transform both sets of ratings to z scores. The two sets of ratings that were made after the priming manipulation were compared using paired samples t tests. It was found that outside observers’ ratings of the targets were higher than perceivers’ ratings of targets, t (26) = 11.27, p = 0.0. Similarly, outside observers’ rudeness ratings of perceivers were higher than targets’ ratings of perceivers, t (26) = 9.39, p = 0.0. M oreover, outside observers’ ratings of target rudeness prior to the priming manipulation were higher than the perceivers’ rudeness ratings of their target partners, t (26) = 10.85, p = 0.0. Likewise, outside observers’ ratings of perceivers’ rudeness prior to the priming manipulation were higher than targets’ ratings of perceivers, t (26) = 12.59, p = 0.0. Thus, participants’ ratings of each other were always more positive than the ratings afforded by outside observers, regardless of the prime condition or whether it had been introduced. This supports the proposal that the failure of perceiver participants to have their stereotypes ‘confirmed’ can be attributed to social desirability. Self-presentation is therefore the

148

more plausible explanation for the failure to detect a significant difference in participants’ ratings of each other between the priming conditions. Summary Study 8 investigated whether stereotypic beliefs about youth can elicit selffulfilling prophecies. Those effects were witnessed in the ratings that were made by outside observers. Observers who were blind to the experimental hypotheses considered target participants in the youth prime condition to have behaved with greater rudeness than those in the adult prime condition. Those targets did not themselves receive the youth prime, but interacted with perceivers who were exposed to faces of young people. Further, the increase in targets’ rudeness was brought about by an increase in the perceivers’ own rudeness which was, in turn, caused by the priming manipulation. Perceiver participants in the youth prime condition did not, however, rate their target partners as ruder than did perceiver participants in the adult prime condition. The failure of perceivers in the youth prime condition to have their stereotypes 'confirmed' was most likely due to self-presentational factors. Nevertheless, the fact that outside observers detected greater rudeness from perceivers and targets in the youth prime condition than from perceivers and targets in the adult prime condition indicates that stereotypic beliefs about youth can elicit self-fulfilling prophecies. Study 8 has demonstrated the powerful influence of stereotypic beliefs about youth to create actual confirming evidence in young people’s behaviour, via the effect of stereotypic beliefs on the behaviour of the holder of those beliefs.

149

DISCUS S ION The studies reported in this chapter investigated the extent to which stereotypic beliefs about youth affect adults' evaluations of young people, and their interactions with young people. Consistent with earlier findings of the research program, both investigations focused on the ‘problem kids’ subtype. The findings from Study 7 showed that stereotypic beliefs about youth do influence evaluations of young people. Adults who were presented with traits belonging to the ‘problem kids’ subtype evaluated a young male as more irresponsible and disrespectful than did adults who were not previously exposed to those traits. Social behaviour is often ambiguous, and so much of what we learn about other people is open to interpretation (Hamilton et al., 1990). The findings from Study 7 revealed that adults’ stereotypic beliefs that young people are problematic can affect their interpretation of such ambiguous behaviour in young people. In Study 8, it was shown that adults’ stereotyped expectancies that young people are ‘problem kids’ can influence their behaviour toward young people in such a way that stereotype-consistent behaviour is actually elicited from young people. In both studies, the activation of the youth stereotype in one context produced effects in an unrelated context. Incidental exposure to stereotyped information influenced judgements and behaviours without participants’ awareness of that influence. That effect was demonstrated most powerfully in Study 8 when exposure to faces of young people elicited automatic behavioural confirmation of stereotyped expectancies. M ere exposure to a young person is sufficient to activate stereotypic beliefs about young people and to influence behaviour.

150

That the judgements and behaviours of adult participants were influenced without their knowledge has important implications for the perseverance of stereotypic beliefs about youth. Because stereotypic beliefs are used automatically in judgements about young people and in behaviour toward them, adults are unable to prevent that usage (cf. Banaji et al., 1993). Thus, each judgement of a young person as irresponsible, disrespectful, or rude, reinforces the association between the social category of youth and those characteristics. In that way, stereotypic beliefs about youth are perpetuated. The broader implications of these findings are considered in more detail in Chapter 6.

151

CHAPTER 5 A STRUCTURAL MODEL OF PROBLEM BEHAVIOUR: THE ROLE OF YOUNG PEOPLE’S PERCEPTIONS OF ADULTS’ BELIEFS Page INTRODUCTION

152

STUDY 9: Evaluating a model of problem behaviour

161

Introduction

161

M ethod

162

Participants

162

M aterials

162

Procedure

167

Results and Discussion

167

Characteristics of the sample

168

Evaluating the model of problem behaviour

171

Subsidiary path analyses

186

Summary

195

152

INTRODUCTION This chapter presents Study 9. Its focus was on young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them. The study examined the way those beliefs influence young people’s engagement in problem behaviour, in interaction with established correlates of problem behaviour. Recent research into the causes of problem behaviour has demonstrated greater theoretical integration of the relationships among social structural, person-centred, and environmental factors that are known to play important roles (Sullivan & Wilson, 1995). Surprisingly, however, community-based factors have been largely neglected. Study 9 investigated the role of young people’s perceptions of community beliefs in their engagement in problematic behaviour. This was explored via the testing of a structural model of problem behaviour. The model that was formulated for this program of research took as its starting point Thornberry’s (1987) interactional theory of delinquency. Thornberry suggested that the fundamental cause of delinquency lies in the weakening of social restraints. The attenuation of those restraints, however, does not lead directly to delinquency. Rather, for delinquency to occur, it must be learned and performed in situations that provide reinforcement. Most importantly, Thornberry views delinquency as part of an ongoing social process, rather than simply as an outcome of other social factors. In that way, the variables in the model are reciprocally interrelated, mutually affecting one another over time. The model that was formulated for this research moves beyond interactional theory in three important ways. First, the model proposes that young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them contribute to engagement in problem

153

behaviour. Second, the model that was formulated for the present study includes two personal control variables. Finally, in the present model, alienation or normlessness is proposed to mediate the relationships among the social and personal control factors and problem behaviour. Interactional theory combines social control (Hirschi, 1969) and social learning (Akers, 1977; Bandura, 1973) theories. According to social control theorists, the weakening of social bonds to conventional society is the fundamental cause of problem behaviour. There are two primary mechanisms by which young people are bonded to conventional society, parental attachment and commitment to school. Parental attachment is widely held to be a crucial determinant of adolescent adjustment (Fergusson & Horwood, 1999; Noller & Patton, 1990; Peterson, 1990). It has two core components, parental care and overprotection. Both of those are further broken down into maternal and paternal care, and maternal and paternal overprotection (Parker, Tupling & Brown, 1979). Low levels of parental (especially maternal) care, characterised by emotional coldness or indifference, and high levels of overprotection, identified by intrusion and the prevention of independent behaviour, have been linked to a range of negative outcomes for young people, including self-reported delinquency (M ak, 1994) and alcohol use (M ak & Kinsella, 1996). Commitment to school is a second important mechanism by which young people are bonded to conventional society. It is through the school environment that the behaviour and value patterns that regulate social life are transferred (Scholte, 1992). School failure, suspension and marginalisation can lead young people to

154

disengage themselves from the conventional ties of school life. That in turn, heightens their propensity for engagement in problem behaviour (Knight, 1997). Poor commitment to school, identified by poor relationships with teachers and peers, difficulty with school discipline, curriculum and workload, and a failure to recognise the relevance to future employment, has been shown to be related to higher levels of self-reported delinquency (M ak, 1990). A central prediction of this study was that young people’s negative perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them are a third mechanism by which young people can become disengaged from conventional society. The principle of reflected appraisals has already been discussed in Chapters 1 and 2 of this thesis. It derives from symbolic interactionist theory and refers to the idea that people’s self-concepts are a reflection of how they appear to others. M atsueda (1992) drew on symbolic interactionist theory to explain delinquent behaviour. He claimed that young people’s reflected appraisals of themselves as ‘bad kids’ or rule violators increase the likelihood that they will engage in delinquent behaviour. Delinquent labels are most likely to be applied to young people who engage in rule-violating behaviours. M atsueda asserted, however, that because the community tends to act on stereotypical images of delinquency, some young people, including the disadvantaged and the powerless, are likely to be labelled that way, irrespective of their behaviour. Delinquent labels, in turn, influence the self images of young people. They come to view themselves from the standpoint of others as ‘delinquent’, which increases the likelihood of their engagement in problem behaviour. M atsueda has obtained some empirical support for his theory. In a two-year longitudinal study of delinquency,

155

parental appraisals were found to have strong effects on young people’s reflected appraisals of the self as rule violator. Reflected appraisals, in turn, significantly affected engagement in problem behaviour (Bartusch & Matsueda, 1996). In accordance with social control theory, it has been argued thus far that individuals who are attached to their parents, committed to school, and have positive perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them are unlikely to engage in delinquent behaviour. A major criticism of social control theory, however, is its neglect of person-centred factors in the explanation of delinquency (M ak, 1990). Research on adolescence has increasingly focused on the importance of the social context, on the individuality of persons, and on the person-context interaction (Jessor, 1993). Consistent with that view, any comprehensive account of problem behaviour should include both social context and individual difference variables. Reiss (1951) distinguished between social and personal control variables in the aetiology of problem behaviour. Social control refers to the ability of social groups (characterised in this study as the family, school, and broader community) to make social norms effective. In contrast, personal control refers to the ability of the individual to refrain from meeting needs in ways that conflict with social rules (M ak, 1990). The model that was formulated for this study therefore extended social control theory, and Thornberry’s (1987) interactional theory, by incorporating two personal control variables, impulsiveness and venturesomeness. Impulsive individuals act on the spur of the moment, due to a non-evaluation of the situation and a lack of awareness of the risks involved (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978; M ak, 1990). Venturesome individuals are aware of the risks involved in

156

certain actions but are prepared to ‘chance it’ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978; Eysenck & M cGurk, 1980). Several studies document a relationship between venturesomeness and delinquent behaviour (Heaven, 1993,1994a; Rigby & Slee, 1987). Similarly, impulsiveness has also been associated with problem behaviour (Eysenck & M cGurk, 1980; Luengo, Carrillo-de-la-Pena, Otero, & Romero, 1994; M ak, 1990). M oreover, it has been shown that that impulsiveness differentiates serious from other delinquent individuals in early adolescence. It also predisposes individuals to develop longterm, recidivistic antisocial behaviour (White, M offitt, Caspi, Bartusch, Needles & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1994). Taken together, poor parental attachment and commitment to school, negative perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them, as well as high levels of impulsiveness and venturesomeness, all reduce young people’s bonding to conventional society. Alienation-as-normlessness refers to the psychological state whereby the norms governing conventional behaviour have broken down (Dean, 1961; Roberts, 1987; Seeman, 1959). An important prediction of this study was that the weakening of social and personal control bonds leads to feelings of alienation or normlessness. That prediction has been supported, in part, by previous research in which negative schoolrelated experiences were found to be associated with higher levels of alienation-asnormlessness (Sankey & Huon, 1999). Those authors also obtained empirical support for an association between normlessness and problem behaviour. Higher levels of normlessness were associated with greater involvement in problem behaviour. According to Interactional theory (Thornberry, 1987), the alleviation of bonds to conventional society provides young people with greater behavioural freedom. For

157

problem behaviour to occur, an environment is required in which that behaviour is learned, performed, and reinforced. Thornberry (1987) claims that associations with delinquent peers and the learning environment that they provide are the primary mechanisms for engagement in problem behaviour. Finally, an important strength of interactional theory is its incorporation of social structural variables in the explanation of engagement in problem behaviour. Thornberry (1987) asserts that variables such as sex, ethnicity, and socio-economic status, affect the initial values of the control variables. There is some empirical support for the view that males and females differ in their levels of bonding. For instance, boys and girls have been found to differ in their school-related experiences, with girls reporting more positive attitudes to school than boys (Collins, Batten, Ainley & Getty, 1996; Heaven, 1994b). Gender differences in parental attachment and in person-centred variables have also been documented. Females are subjected to higher levels of parental control and supervision than are males (Cernkovich and Giordano, 1987), and males experience higher levels of impulsiveness (Gladue, 1991) and of venturesomeness (Clift, Wilkins and Davidson, 1993). So, in sum, a weakening of the social and personal control bonds to conventional society, represented by poor parental attachment and commitment to school, negative perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them, as well as high levels of impulsiveness and venturesomeness, are expected to result in feelings of alienation or normlessness. Once the rules for conventional behaviour become ineffective, the alienated young person is afforded greater behavioural freedom to deviate. For that freedom to be expressed as problem behaviour, a social setting is required in which

158

delinquency is learned and reinforced. Associations with delinquent peers provide that setting. Finally, males and females are expected to differ in their initial levels of bonding to conventional society, and subsequently in their exposure to the world of problem behaviour. The proposed relationships among the predictors of problem behaviour are presented graphically in Figure 5.1a. The causal arrows in the diagram assume that change in the variable at the tail of the arrow results in change in the variable at its head, all other things being equal (Loehlin, 1992). The relationships among the variables in Figure 5.1a represent specific testable hypotheses. First, poor commitment to school, low levels of parental care and high levels of parental overprotection, as well as high levels of impulsiveness and venturesomeness, are expected to be associated with increased levels of alienation. Second, high levels of alienation are expected to increase associations with problem peers and engagement in problem behaviour. Third, and perhaps most importantly, negative perceptions of adults’ beliefs are expected to be associated with higher levels of alienation which, in turn, increase involvement in problem behaviour (associations with problem peers and engagement in problem behaviour). Finally, it is hypothesised that gender influences young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs, their commitment to school, their levels of parental care and overprotection, impulsiveness, and venturesomeness.

Perceptions of adults’ beliefs

Commitment to school

Parental care Gender

Alienation

Parental overprotection

Impulsiveness

Venturesomeness Figure 5.1a Predicted (structural) model of problem behaviour

Problem peers and behaviour

160

The proposed relationships in Figure 5.1a represent direct and indirect (or mediated) effects. The personal and social control variables, for example, were expected to have indirect effects on problem behaviour involvement, mediated by alienation. It was further predicted, however, that impulsiveness and venturesomeness (the personal control variables) would moderate the relationships between commitment to school, negative perceptions of adults' beliefs, and parental control and overprotection, and problem behaviour involvement. M oderation is tested via interaction. A significant interaction tells us that that relationship between two variables (that is, a social control factor and problem behaviour involvement) is different for differences in a third variable (that is, high and low levels of the personal control variables). An example of one hypothesised moderating effect is illustrated graphically in Figure 5.1b.

Impulsive ne I ss

Commitment To school

Proble m pee rs and be haviour

Figure 5.1b Hypothesised moderating effect of impulsiveness on commitment to school and Problem behaviour involvement

161

S TUDY 9 Evaluating a model of problem behaviour Introduction This study evaluated the model of problem behaviour that was described in the Introduction to this chapter. Young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them are a core component of the model. Study 9 aimed to determine the ways in which young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them interact with established correlates of problem behaviour to influence their involvement in such behaviour. A large sample of adolescent males and females completed a battery of selfreport questionnaires. Questions were included to assess the different components of the model. Two statistical approaches were employed to test the independent and interactive contributions of the multiple components of the model. Structural equations modelling was used to evaluate the extent to which the relationships among the variables in the model are consistent with the way in which those variables interact to contribute to problem behaviour. Structural equations modelling estimates the relationships among the variables in a proposed model using correlational analyses, and those analyses provide information about the extent to which the proposed model is consistent with a set of data (Breckler, 1990). Path analyses via regression were used for subsidiary analyses because they allow a more detailed examination of the relationships among the variables in the model (Biddle & M artin, 1987).

162

M ethod Participants A total of 577 adolescents participated in the study. Of those, 296 were males, 271 were females; 10 participants did not provide information to identify their sex. For the males, ages ranged from 10 to 18, with a mean of 14.5 years (SD = 1.2). Females’ ages ranged from 11 to 18, with a mean of 14.8 years (SD = 1.6). Participants were recruited from four government high schools in Sydney, deliberately selected to cover the range of socio-economic backgrounds (Congalton, 1961), and to include young people living in areas identified as high, medium, and low risk areas for juvenile crime (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 1990). Permission was first obtained from the NSW Department of Education and Training and from the school principals. Three of the seven principals who were initially contacted chose not to be involved. For the schools whose students did take part, permission was also obtained from parents, and all young people's participation was voluntary. M aterials A battery of questionnaires was developed to assess all the variables in the model. These are in Appendix D. Parental care and overprotection was assessed by a brief form of the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI-BC; Klimidis, M inas, & Ata, 1992). That measure was developed originally by Parker et al. (1979). It assesses two important aspects of the parent-child relationship, maternal and paternal care and maternal and paternal overprotection. The PBI-BC consists of 8 items. Four of those measure perceived

163

parental care, for example, ‘M y mother/father seems emotionally cold to me’. The remaining 4 items assess perceived parental overprotection, for example, ‘My mother/father likes me to make my own decisions’. Participants are required to respond to each item twice, once for each parent. Ratings are made on a 3-point scale (‘Never’, ‘Sometimes’, ‘Usually’). Low scores on the maternal/paternal care scales reflect perceptions of parental neglect, while high scores indicate perceptions of parents as warm and understanding. High scores on the maternal/paternal overprotection scales reflect excessive parental control and intrusion, whereas low scores suggest parental autonomy and independence. The four scales of the PBI-BC were shown to be internally consistent, with Cronbach alpha coefficients ranging from .72 to .80 (Klimidis et al., 1992). Commitment to school was measured by the Liking for School Scale developed by M ak (1987; cited in M ak, 1990). The measure consists of 20 items that assess adolescents’ liking for various aspects of school life including their relationships with teachers and peers, discipline, curriculum, workload and extracurricular activities. Subjects respond on a 5-point scale ranging from ‘Strongly agree’ to ‘Strongly disagree’. This scale has been shown to possess good internal consistency reliability (alpha = .79), as well as test-retest reliability over a one-month period (r = .82; M ak, 1987; cited in M ak, 1990). Young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs. This was assessed via the Adolescents’ Perceptions of Adults’ Beliefs Scale that was developed specifically for this program of research. The development of that measure was described in

164

Chapter 2. It consists of three subscales, Egocentrism (13 items, for example, ‘is selfish’), Problem Behaviours (6 items, for example, ‘uses alcohol’), and Popular Notions (7 items, for example, ‘watches too much TV’). Participants respond to each item in the way they think that most adults in the community would respond if they were making judgements about the ‘typical teenager’. Ratings are made on an 8point scale that ranges from 0 (‘Extremely uncharacteristic’) to 7 (‘Extremely characteristic’). It was reported in Chapter 2 that the measure has very high internal consistency reliability and good test-retest reliability. Impulsiveness. The scale that was employed to measure impulsive behaviour was an 8-item abbreviated version of that originally developed by Eysenck, Easting, and Pearson (1984). The modified scale was developed by Heaven (1989) and has been found suitable for use in Australia. It consists of two factors, cognitive impulsiveness (with items such as ‘Do you mostly speak without thinking things out?’) and impulsiveness narrowly defined (with items such as ‘Do you often do things on the spur of the moment?’). Cronbach’s alpha for the first factor was shown to be .78, and .65 for the second factor, so that this measure possesses adequate internal consistency reliability. Subjects respond by circling either ‘No’ (0) or ‘Yes’ (1). Venturesomeness. To assess venturesome behaviour, a 9-item shortened version of Eysenck et al.’s (1984) Venturesomeness Scale was employed. Like the Impulsiveness Scale, it has been found suitable for use in Australia (Heaven, 1989). This measure comprises of two factors, sensation-seeking (alpha = 0.69) consisting of items such as ‘Would you enjoy parachute jumping?’ as well as risk-taking

165

(alpha = 0.62) with such items as ‘Do you quite enjoy taking risks?’ Like the impulsiveness scale, subjects respond by circling either ‘No’ (0) or ‘Yes’ (1). Alienation, operationalised as normlessness , was assessed via Kohn and Schooler’s (1983) 4-item measure. They based their index on Seeman’s (1959) conceptualisation of normlessness as a state in which ‘the social norms regulating individual conduct have broken down or are no longer effective as rules for behaviour’ (p.787). Subjects respond to three of the four items by circling either ‘Agree’ (0) or ‘Disagree’ (1). For the fourth item, ‘Do you believe that it’s all right to do whatever the law allows, or are there some things that are wrong even if they are legal?’, subjects respond either ‘Whatever the law allows’ (0), or ‘Some things are wrong even if legal’ (1). Involvement in problem behaviour was assessed via two measures. The first was a measure of association with problem peers. For that measure, 9 items were selected from M ak’s (1993) Australian Self-Reported Delinquency Scale, each being the item that loaded highest on each of the 9 factors that M ak (1993) claimed for her measure. Subjects were asked to indicate how many of their friends had engaged in any of the 9 behaviours, with responses ranging on a 4-point scale from, ‘None of them’ (0) to ‘All of them’ (3). Some examples of behaviours making up the 9 items included weapon fight, buying alcohol, and stealing. The second measure developed as a direct assessment of engagement in problem behaviour was M ak’s (1993)

166

40-item Australian Self-Reported Delinquency Scale. It measures individual differences in engagement in a list of 34 types of delinquent activity2. Having been developed in Australia, its main value is that it is a culturally relevant measure of problem behaviour among Australian youth. Subjects indicate how many of each of the behaviours they have engaged in during the previous year, by circling either ‘No’ (0) or ‘Yes’ (1) for each behaviour. Another 4 items have been embedded in the scale to detect high levels of social desirability. Two additional items survey respondents’ contact with law enforcement officials. Good internal consistency reliability has been demonstrated with a coefficient alpha of .88. Satisfactory construct and concurrent validity has also been demonstrated (Mak, 1993). Finally, participants were asked their age, whether they were male or female, their identification with an ethnic group (if any), and parents’ occupation (as an indicator of socioeconomic status; Daniel, 1983).

2

The NSW Department of Education and Training requires that individuals with knowledge that a young person is at risk of some form of abuse be drawn to their attention. In the present study, however, the young people were assured that their participation would remain anonymous. Granted the conflict between the Department's duty of care and the duty to preserve confidentiality, it was decided that one item needed to be removed from Mak’s (1993) delinquency scale. The item ‘Have you in the past 12 months forced someone to do sexual things with you when that person did not want to?’ was deleted from the present study. The final measure therefore consisted of 33 delinquent acts.

167

Procedure The participants completed the questionnaire during regular class time in the 3 presence of the researcher and their teacher. The questionnaire took approximately

20 minutes to complete. They were assured that their individual responses would be confidential and that the information they provided would be used only for research purposes in the form of group responses. Care was taken to ensure that participants completed the questionnaire conscientiously, and did not converse with one another throughout the testing period. They were also urged to ask questions if they were unsure of the meaning of any items. Results and Discussion Three sections of results are reported. The first details important characteristics of the sample. Descriptive analyses were conducted in order to obtain demographic information about the participants, and also to determine participants’ patterns of responses for the measures of involvement in problem behaviour, the two outcome measures. The second section details the steps that were taken in the evaluation of the model of problem behaviour, using structural equations modelling. Given that the pathways to problem behaviour were expected to be different for males and females, the model was tested separately for the two sexes. Section three

3

It is important to point out that the original intention was for this study to be time-extended across 18 months. A major strength of Thornberry’s (1987) interactional theory is that it does not assume unidirectional causal structures. Rather, variables are reciprocally related, and in that way, problem behaviour is not only affected by, but over time, it also affects the other variables. A time-extended study would have enabled an investigation of the reciprocal and dynamic relationships among the variables in the model. Unfortunately, however, approval to conduct this study in NSW secondary schools from the NSW Department of Education and Training required that the study be crosssectional.

168

presents the findings of the subsidiary regression analyses that were performed. Again, analyses were carried out separately for males and females. Characteristics of the sample Demographics. Table 5.1 contains the demographic characteristics of the participants whose data were to be included in all subsequent analyses. It is important to point out that, given the purpose of the major analyses was to examine the interrelationships among the variables, stringent criteria were adopted for missing data. Wherever more than one quarter of the items for any measure was missing, the subject was excluded from the analyses. This resulted in 34 participants having to be eliminated, so that the sample became 543. In addition, following M ak (1993), 47 respondents answering ‘No’ to more than two of the four lie items on the Australian Self-Reported Delinquency Scale were excluded, as their high tendency towards social desirability casts doubt on the validity of their responses. The final sample was therefore 496 adolescents, 259 males and 237 females. Their mean ages were 14.7 (SD = 1.6) and 14.5 (SD = 1.2), respectively. As shown in Table 5.1, more than half of the male and female samples came from low to middle class backgrounds, as indicated by fathers’ socioeconomic status. When mothers’ socioeconomic status is used as an indicator of social class, the rankings follow a similar pattern. That is, most males and females came from a middle class background. Those from a lower class formed the next largest group. The percentages of males and females who fall into each group are somewhat smaller than those deriving from fathers’ socioeconomic status. This is most likely due to the fact that a substantial proportion of mothers fell into the category of housewife.

169

Table 5.1 Number (& %) of subjects belonging to each of the demographic categories, for males and females separately M ales Demographic

Females N %

N

%

Fathers’ SES1 Low M iddle High Unemployed Retired Pensioner M issing

43 108 40 7 4 2 55

16.6 41.7 15.4 2.7 1.5 0.9 21.2

58 80 20 10 4 2 63

24.5 33.8 8.4 4.2 1.7 0.8 26.6

M others’ SES2 Low M iddle High Unemployed Retired Pensioner Housewife M issing

38 71 19 30 1 2 48 50

14.7 27.4 7.3 11.6 0.4 0.9 18.4 19.3

35 57 20 18 0 3 53 51

14.8 24.1 8.4 7.6 0.0 1.3 22.4 21.4

32 14 12 4 3 2 20 172

12.4 5.4 4.6 1.5 1.2 0.9 7.7 66.3

51 9 15 7 5 7 18 125

21.5 3.8 6.3 3.0 2.1 3.0 7.6 52.7

Ethnicity Asian M iddle East European Indian South Pacific Islander Aboriginal Other Not specified

Note: 1. Based on fathers’ occupational status. Rankings are derived from Daniel’s (1983) scale of occupational prestige. 2. Based on mothers’ occupational status. Rankings are derived from Daniel’s (1983) scale of occupational prestige.

The finding that most participants came from a middle class background is of particular interest, as prior research suggests that delinquency tends to peak in the

170

lower class (Rutter & Giller, 1983; Wilson & Herrnstein, 1985). Thus the sample, as a whole, was not at great risk for involvement in problem behaviour. Finally, more than half of the female sample, and two thirds of the male sample, indicated that they did not identify with any specific ethnic group. Distribution of problem behaviour scores. Table 5.2 shows the descriptive statistics for the two outcome measures, for males and females separately. M ales and females did not show different levels of engagement in problem behaviour. The mean levels of engagement in problem behaviour for the male and female samples were only slightly lower than that reported by Mak (1993) when she administered her measure to a large sample of high school students (M = 6.19, SD = 4.47). The male sample did, however, report significantly higher levels of associations with problem peers than did the female sample, as Table 5.2 shows. Table 5.2 M eans (& SD) of the participants’ scores on the measures of engagement in problem behaviour and association with problem peers, presented for males and females separately

M easure

Males M SD

Females M SD

t

Engagement in problem behaviour

5.49 6.5

5.09

5.4

0.76

Association with problem peers

6.09 5.5

4.99

4.8

2.38*

*p<.05 Note: For the measure of engagement in problem behaviour, scores can range from 0 to 33. A higher score reflects higher levels of involvement in problem behaviour. For the measure of association with problem peers, scores can range from 0 to 27. A higher score reflects higher levels of association with problem peers.

171

Evaluating the model of problem behaviour In principle, the testing of a model using structural equations modelling involves four stages. First, decisions need to be made concerning the most appropriate procedure for estimating the values of the parameters of the model, and the optimal way to deal with missing data. Second, values within the model that can be determined prior to the testing of the model must be calculated. In the third stage, the data are analysed in PRELIS (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996a), which generates a matrix of correlations. Those correlations form the data for the fourth stage of the analysis, in which the model is tested for its goodness of fit with the data set using LISREL (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996b). This section of the Results details the findings that relate to each of the four stages involved in the evaluation of the model of problem behaviour. Stage 1: Estimation procedure and treatment of missing data. The choice of the most appropriate procedure for estimating the values of the parameters of the model depends on the distributions of the measured variables that are included in the model. For instance, the maximum likelihood (ML) and generalised least squares (GLS) procedures assume multivariate normality of the observed variables, and that all variables are continuous (Boomsma, 1983). Violation of those assumptions can result in biased estimations. Further, the chi-square goodness of fit statistic and the tests of statistical significance may be affected (Bollen, 1989). Browne (1984) developed the asymptotic distribution free (ADF) estimator, also known as the weighted least squares estimation procedure, to overcome the problems associated with the use of the M L and GLS estimation procedures. The ADF estimation

172

procedure is therefore preferable when observed data are categorical in nature or when the distribution of those data are skewed (Holmes-Smith, 1998). When the distributions of the variables from the model in this study were subjected to a test of multivariate normality, a significant effect was obtained for both males (z = 15.67, p < .000) and females (z = 16.23, p < .000). This suggested that the data sets contained variables that were not normally distributed. For that reason, the ADF estimation procedure was chosen for the present model analyses. There are several options for dealing with missing data. Of those, listwise deletion, pairwise deletion, and missing value replacements are the most widely used (Bollen, 1989). Listwise deletion removes all observations that have missing information for any of the variables (Roth, 1994). This can result in a substantial reduction in sample size, particularly if the number of observed variables is large (Little & Rubin, 1987). Pairwise deletion removes variables with missing data only from those analyses that need the variable (Roth, 1994). This approach can result in mathematically inconsistent correlations (M alhotra, 1987), and can therefore lead to serious estimation problems with structural equation analyses (Roth, 1994). The third option involves the replacement of missing values. There are two ways in which this can be done. The first involves replacing the missing value by the sample mean of the observed variable. The second method involves the use of a statistical program to estimate missing values (Roth, 1994). While this procedure preserves data, a limitation is that the imputed values can be outside the normal range of the values for the variable (Bollen, 1989). Data imputation can also underestimate variance statistics (Little & Rubin, 1987).

173

For the analyses of the model in this study, listwise deletion was considered to be the optimal way to deal with missing data. This resulted in a reduction in the sample size from 496 to 357 (179 males and 178 females). It is important to note, however, that the participants who were retained for the analyses did not differ significantly in the mean scores on any of the model variables from those who were eliminated because of missing data (see Appendix D for the results of t tests). The remaining sample was therefore truly representative of the original sample. Stage 2: Preliminary estimation of model parameters. In any structural model, the numbers of parameters to be estimated has important implications for the required sample size. The more parameters to be estimated, the larger the size of the sample that is required (Holmes-Smith, 1998). Some parameters can be estimated, however, prior to the LISREL analysis. First, the reliability of the measure that is being used to assess the relevant latent variable is estimated. The amount of error associated with the measurement of the latent variable can then be calculated and built into the model (Schumaker & Lomax, 1996). Finally, using the information about a measure’s reliability, Munck (1979) showed that it is possible to calculate and then fix the regression coefficients (λ = √r), which reflect the regression of a measured variable onto its latent variable, and the measurement error variances (θ = 1-r) associated with each measured variable. In the present study, it was possible to calculate error variances and regression coefficients for the variables that had been used to assess four of the latent variables in the model of problem behaviour. The internal consistency reliabilities of the measures assessing liking for school, normlessness, and problem behaviour were

174

estimated. The three scales that were used to assess young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs (Egocentrism, Problem Behaviours, Popular Notions) were summed to create a composite total score, and the reliability of that composite measure of perceptions of adults’ beliefs was estimated. The reliabilities were found to be .79 (for liking for school), .90 (for normlessness), .88 (for problem behaviour), and .94 (for the composite perceptions of adults’ beliefs score). Using Munck’s (1979) formulae, the regression coefficients and error variances were estimated to be λ = .89, θ = .21 (for liking for school), λ = .95, θ = .10 (for normlessness), λ = .94, θ = .12 (for problem behaviour), and λ = .97, θ = .06 (for the composite perceptions of adults’ beliefs score). Those values were able to be fixed in the analysis of the model. Stage 3: PRELIS analysis. PRELIS is used to convert the raw data into a matrix of polychoric correlations for analysis in LISREL. It also produces a weighted matrix of asymptotic covariances of the estimated correlations, which is required for use with the weighted least squares estimation procedure. The commands that were used in the PRELIS analyses for the model of problem behaviour are included in Appendix D, for males and females separately. The table of correlations, and the means and standard deviations that were generated by PRELIS are also included in Appendix D, separately for males and females. Stage 4: LISREL analysis. In the fourth and final stage in the analysis of any model, the correlation matrix that is obtained from a PRELIS analysis is entered into LISREL, which tests the correspondence between the model and the data from the sample. The indices that show the extent to which the structural model is consistent

175

with the sample data are referred to as model fit indices. Proper assessment of the fit of a model involves the evaluation of the entire model, as well as of each equation within the model, and of the individual parameter estimates (Breckler, 1990). Numerous indices are available for testing the overall fit of the model. Researchers are advised to examine multiple fit criteria rather than rely on any single statistic (Schumaker & Lomax, 1996). The most commonly reported fit index is the chisquare statistic. Well-fitting models produce a small chi-square (Breckler, 1990). A nonsignificant chi-square value indicates that the model-implied correlation matrix is not significantly different from the observed or original matrix. As a more specific rule, Carmines and M cIver (1981; cited in Hayduk, 1987) claim that acceptable fit is apparent when the chi-square divided by the degrees of freedom of the model is less than three. Two additional indices, the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), and the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI), which takes sample size into account, can both range between 0 and 1. Values greater than 0.9 indicate good model fit. Further, the AGFI should be similar to the GFI (Schumaker & Lomax, 1996). An additional index, the non-normed fit index (NNFI; Bentler & Bonnett, 1980), which provides a correction in the test statistic for nonnormality in the data, should be greater than 0.95 (Breckler, 1990). Together, these goodness of fit statistics provide information about how closely the model fits the population covariance matrix. It has been argued that it is more meaningful to test the lack of fit of a model (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). An appropriate statistic is the root mean square residual (RMR), which ranges from 0 to 1, and is below 0.1 for well-fitting models. In addition, the root mean square error of approximation (RM SEA; Steiger, 1990; cited

176

in Browne & Cudeck, 1993) represents the discrepancy per degrees of freedom. The RMSEA is zero for perfect fit, and less than 0.05 for close fit. Further, the fit is also said to be good if the 90% upper confidence interval for the RM SEA does not exceed 0.08. In the present study, all indices were calculated in order to assess the global fit of the model of problem behaviour. In addition to testing the global fit of a model, it is important to evaluate the fit of individual equations within the model (Breckler, 1990). To do that, a squared multiple correlation can be computed for each structural equation in the model. These values indicate the proportion of variance in each latent variable that is accounted for by the equation (Breckler, 1990). Finally, the parsimony of a model is determined by evaluating whether all of its paths are significant. The reliability of individual parameter estimates is therefore of critical importance. Their significance can be tested by examining their t-values. This is crucial, given that the global fit of a model may be very good even when one or more individual parameters is not reliably different from zero (Breckler, 1990). Insignificant parameters should be removed one at a time because the nonsignificant coefficients may become significant when the other parameters are removed (Saris & Stronkhorst, 1984). In the present study, therefore, the fit of the structural equations and the significance of individual parameter estimates were also examined. The remainder of this section of the Results presents the findings of the LISREL analyses that were conducted on males' and females' responses. The list of LISREL commands that were used to analyse the model of problem behaviour is included in Appendix D, separately for males and females. The parameters for the

177

initial model for males (including those that were fixed prior to the model testing and those that were estimated by LISREL), and the associated indices of global model fit are shown in Figure 5.2. The numbers next to the arrows joining the latent variables in Figure 5.2 are standardised regression coefficients. They show the direct effect of the variable at the tail of the arrow on the variable at its head. As can be seen in Figure 5.2, only two control variables, commitment to school and impulsiveness were shown to have significant effects on alienation. Specifically, less commitment to school was associated with higher levels of alienation (β = -0.24), and high impulsiveness was predictive of greater alienation (β = 0.25). Contrary to expectation, however, alienation did not significantly predict involvement in problem behaviour. With the exception of parental overprotection, however, all of the control variables were shown to have significant direct effects on involvement in problem behaviour. Greater adolescent perceptions that adults’ beliefs about them are negative were associated with greater involvement in problem behaviour (β = 0.17). Less commitment to school (β = -0.33) and less parental care (β = -0.30) were also predictive of greater involvement in problem behaviour. In addition, both personal control variables, impulsiveness and venturesomeness had direct effects on problem behaviour. Specifically, high levels of impulsiveness (β = 0.39) and high levels of venturesomeness (β = 0.31) were related to greater involvement in problem behaviour.

0.97a Perceptions Total of adults’ perceptions beliefs of adults’ beliefs 0.17* Liking for school

0.89a

Commitment to school

-0.33*

0.89

Father care

-0.24* Parental care

Mother care

1b 0.95a Normlessness

Father overprot ection Mother overprot ection

Problem peers 0.71

-0.30*

1.14 1b

Parental overprot ection

Alienation

0.03

Problem behaviour

0.04 ζ=.85

0.94a Problem behaviour involvement

0.25* 0.39*

ζ=.53 Impulsive behaviour

1b

0.31*

Impulsiveness

Venturesom e 0.84a Venturesom eness behaviour

Model goodness-of-fit indices χ2

26.26

df

26

GFI

0.97

AGFI

0.93

NNFI

0.98

RMR

0.03

RMSEA

0.03

90% CI for RMSEA (0.00; 0.07) Figure 5.2 Standardised structural model showing factor loadings, path coeffi cients and disturbance terms fo r the initial model for males Note: * p < .05 a These

parameters were fixed befo re the LISREL analysis as they were estimated from the reliability of the measures. b

These parameters were fixed at 1 in order to provide a scale for the latent vari ables.

179

According to the indices of global fit that are reported in Figure 5.2, the model provides an acceptable fit to the data. The chi-square is nonsignificant, and the chisquare divided by the degrees of freedom equals 1.13. The GFI and the AGFI had very similar values, and they were both greater than the recommended 0.90, and the NNFI was also greater than 0.95. The RMR was less than 0.1, the RMSEA was less than 0.05, and its upper confidence interval did not exceed 0.08. The proportion of variance of the latent variables accounted for by the structural equations was examined next. The squared multiple correlations for those equations indicated that that they accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in problem behaviour involvement (47%), but only 15 percent of the variance in alienation. Although the model accounted for a considerable amount of the variance in involvement in problem behaviour, it was not necessarily the most parsimonious given the proposed set of predictors. To examine the parsimony of the model, the significance of the individual parameter estimates was examined. Figure 5.2 shows that parental overprotection did not significantly predict either alienation or problem behaviour involvement, and the path between alienation and involvement in problem behaviour was also nonsignificant. The parsimony of the model of problem behaviour could therefore be improved by the removal of those insignificant paths. Given that alienation was of greater importance theoretically, parental overprotection was removed first, and the model for the male participants was tested a second time. The list of LISREL commands for that analysis is included in Appendix D. The findings that derive from that analysis are presented in Figure 5.3.

Total perceptions of adults’ beliefs

0.97a Perceptions of adults’ beliefs 0.16*

Liking for school

0.89a

Commitment to school

-0.32* -0.24*

0.78

Father care

Parental care Mother care

1b 0.95a Normlessness 0.25*

Impulsive behaviour

Problem peers 0.71

-0.28*

Alienation 0.05

ζ=.85 0.39*

1b

0.94a

Impulsiveness 0.32*

Venturesom e behaviour

Problem behaviour

ζ=.53

0.84a

Problem behaviour involvement

Venturesom eness

Model goodness-of-fit indices χ2

10.00

df

15

GFI

0.99

AGFI

0.96

NNFI

1.04

RMR

0.03

RMSEA

0.00

90% CI for RMSEA (0.00; 0.04) Figure 5.3 Standardised structural model showing factor loadings, path coefficients and disturbance terms for the model for males, excluding parent al overprotection Note: * p < .05 a These

parameters were fixed befo re the LISREL analysis as they were estimated from the reliability of the measures. b

These parameters were fixed at 1 in order to provide a scale for the latent vari ables.

181

The removal of parental overprotection from the model did not alter the nature of the relationships among the model variables when compared with the results from the initial model analysis that were shown in Figure 5.2. The pathways that were shown to be significant in the initial model testing remained significant. All of the goodness of fit indices once again showed there was an acceptable fit for the data. The modified model accounted for exactly the same proportion of the variance in problem behaviour involvement, as did the initial model (47%). As was the case in the initial model testing, however, alienation did not significantly predict involvement in problem behaviour. The model was therefore tested a third time, excluding alienation from the analyses. The list of LISREL commands is presented in Appendix D. The findings that derive from that analysis are presented in Figure 5.4. Once again, the model provided a good fit to the data according to the goodness of fit indices. The direct effects of the variables in the model on problem behaviour involvement did not change when alienation was excluded from the model. Stronger perceptions of negative adult beliefs (β = 0.16) was predictive of greater involvement in problem behaviour, as was poorer commitment to school (β = -0.33), and poorer parental care (β = -0.29). Higher levels of impulsiveness (β = 0.40) and venturesomeness (β = 0.32) were also associated with greater involvement in problem behaviour. Finally, the model continued to account for 47 percent of the variance in problem behaviour involvement.

Total perceptions of adults’ beliefs

0.97a Perceptions of adults’ beliefs 0.16*

Liking for school Father care

Mother care

0.89a

Commitment to school

-0.33*

0.78 Parental care

Problem peers 0.71

-0.29*

1b Problem behaviour

0.40* Impulsive behaviour

1b Impulsiveness

0.94a 0.32* a Venturesom e 0.84

behaviour

Venturesom eness

ζ=.53

Problem behaviour involvement

Model goodness-of-fit indices χ2

6.38

df

10

GFI

0.99

AGFI

0.97

NNFI

1.04

RMR

0.02

RMSEA

0.00

90% CI for RMSEA (0.00; 0.06) Figure 5.4 Standardised structural model showing factor loadings, path coefficients and disturbance terms for the model for males, excluding alienation and parent al overprotection Note: * p < .05 a These

parameters were fixed befo re the LISREL analysis as they were estimated from the reliability of the measures. b

These parameters were fixed at 1 in order to provide a scale for the latent vari ables.

183

Overall then, the results from the testing of the model for male adolescents’ involvement in problem behaviour show that the model provides a good explanation of why young males become involved in problematic behaviour. Contrary to expectation, however, alienation was not shown to contribute to that explanation. The next task was to evaluate the structural model involving female adolescents’ involvement in problem behaviour. The parameters for the model (including those that were fixed prior to the model testing and those that were estimated by LISREL), and the associated indices of global model fit are shown in Figure 5.5. The total effect of any variable on participants' involvement in problem behaviour can be calculated by multiplying the regression coefficients along the path by which it is proposed to affect problem behaviour involvement. It was possible to calculate the total effects of two of the social control variables on problem behaviour involvement. First, poor parental care was predictive of greater involvement in problem behaviour, with a total effect of β = -0.15. In addition, its effect on problem behaviour was mediated via its significant effect on alienation (β = -0.81), which, in turn, contributed to greater involvement in problem behaviour (β = 0.18). In addition more parental overprotection was predictive of greater involvement in problem behaviour, with a total effect of β = 0.07. The effect of parental overprotection on problem behaviour was mediated by alienation (β = 0.41). That is, more parental overprotection was predictive of higher levels of alienation. High alienation, in turn, was associated with greater involvement in problem behaviour.

Total perceptions of adults’ beliefs

0.97a Perceptions of adults’ beliefs 0.26*

Liking for school

0.89a

Commitment to school

-0.25*

0.99

Father care

Parental care

1b Mother care

Problem peers 0.72

-0.81* 0.95a

0.42 Father overprot ection

0.55

1b Mother overprot ection

Normlessness

Parental overprot ection

Alienation

Problem behaviour

0.18* ζ=.74

0.41*

0.94a

0.27* ζ=.55

Impulsive behaviour

Problem behaviour involvement

0.21*

1b

Impulsiveness

0.84a Venturesom e behaviour

Venturesom eness Model goodness-of-fit indices χ2

40.06

df

28

GFI

0.96

AGFI

0.91

NNFI

0.93

RMR

0.04

RMSEA

0.04

90% CI for RMSEA (0.00; 0.08) Figure 5.5 Standardised structural model showing factor loadings, path coefficients and disturbance terms fo r the model for fem ales Note: * p < .05 a These

parameters were fixed befo re the LISREL analysis as they were estimated from the reliability of the measures. b

These parameters were fixed at 1 in order to provide a scale for the latent vari ables.

185

Thus, the hypothesis that alienation would mediate the effects of the control variables on involvement in problem behaviour was partially supported. Stronger perceptions of negative adult beliefs were directly associated with greater involvement in problem behaviour (β = 0.26), while less commitment to school was predictive of more involvement in problem behaviour (β = -0.25). Finally, high levels of impulsiveness (β = 0.27) and venturesomeness (β = 0.21) were both related to greater involvement in problem behaviour. The indices of global fit suggested that the model provides an acceptable fit to the data. Chi-square is non-significant, and chi-square divided by degrees from freedom equals 1.43. The GFI and AGFI were both greater than 0.90, while the RMSEA was less than 0.05 and its upper confidence interval was equal to 0.08. The NNFI was the only index that did not suggest good model fit because it was less than 0.95. The squared multiple correlations for the structural equations were examined next in order to determine the proportion of variance of the latent variables accounted for by the equations. The structural equations were shown to account for 26 percent of the variance of alienation and 45 percent of the variance of problem behaviour involvement. Similar to the male model, the female model accounts for a substantial proportion of the variance of involvement problem behaviour. In summary, the results from the testing of the structural models show that the separate models provide good explanations of why male and female adolescents become involved in problem behaviour. Two principal sets of findings emphasise that the pathways to problem behaviour are different for males and females. First,

186

alienation is an important factor for females, but not for males. Alienation was shown to have a direct effect on females’ involvement in problem behaviour, and to entirely mediate the effects of parental care (or lack of it) and overprotection on problem behaviour involvement. Second, the personal and social control variables were shown to differ in the strength of their effects for male and female problem behaviour involvement. Although impulsiveness had the largest effect on problem behaviour involvement for both males and females, the size of the effect was much larger for males (β = 0.40) than it was for females (β = 0.27). Also, perceptions that adult beliefs about them are negative was shown to have the second largest effect on females’ involvement in problem behaviour (β = 0.26), although it made the smallest contribution to the explanation of males’ problem behaviour (β = 0.16). The remainder of the Results section presents the findings from the subsidiary analyses. Those analyses were carried out to examine the relationships among the variables in the model in more detail. Subsidiary path analyses Structural equations modelling provides information about the relationships among latent variables. More detailed information about the predictors of involvement in problem behaviour can be derived from examining the relationships among the observed variables in the model. It was established through structural equations modelling that perceptions of negative adult beliefs make an important contribution to the explanation of involvement in problem behaviour. The measure that was used to assess those perceptions consists of three subscales, ‘Egocentrism’, ‘Problem Behaviours’, and ‘Popular Notions’. The three subscales were summed to

187

create a total composite score for the structural modelling analyses. Regression analyses were therefore required to determine whether the effect of perceptions of negative adult beliefs on problem behaviour is due to perceptions that young people are egocentric, that they engage in problem behaviours, or that they adhere to popular notions of adolescence. In addition, both personal and social control variables were shown to predict involvement in problem behaviour. Structural equations modelling did not, however, enable the determination of whether impulsiveness and venturesomeness (the personal control variables) moderate the relationship between commitment to school, perceptions of negative adult beliefs, and parental care and overprotection (the social control variables), and problem behaviour involvement. Thus, additional regression analyses were performed to test whether impulsiveness or venturesomeness moderates the relationship between each of the social control variables and involvement in problem behaviour. Thus, two sets of subsidiary analyses were conducted. The first examined which components of adolescents’ perceptions of adults’ beliefs are the most important predictors of involvement in problem behaviour. The second set of analyses investigated whether impulsiveness or venturesomeness moderates the relationship between the social control variables and problem behaviour involvement. All analyses were performed separately for males and females. Specifying predictive adolescent perceptions of adults’ beliefs. The three components of adolescents’ perceptions of adults’ beliefs were regressed simultaneously against association with problem peers, and then engagement in problem behaviour (the two outcome measures). This was done separately for males

188

and females. The results of those analyses are presented in Table 5.3. It can be seen that for males, the perception that adults believe them to engage in problem behaviour was a significant predictor of both association with problem peers (β = 0.32) and engagement in problem behaviour (β = 0.24). For females, however, the perception that adults believe them to engage in problem behaviour was a significant predictor of only association with problem peers (β = 0.46). Perceptions that adults believe them to be egocentric or to adhere to popular notions of adolescence were not predictive of involvement in problem behaviour for either males or females. Table 5.3 Predicting association with problem peers and engagement in problem behaviour from adolescents’ perceptions of adults’ beliefs about them Males Problem peers Overall equation Predictor Problem behaviour Egocentrism Popular notions Problem behaviour Overall equation Predictor Problem behaviour Egocentrism Popular notions

Females

Adj R2 .05

F 4.14

Sig. .01

Adj R 2 .16

F 12.34

Sig. .00

Beta .32 -.09 -.00

t 2.87 -0.72 -0.03

Sig. .01 ns ns

Beta .46 -.08 .03

t 3.86 -0.66 0.32

Sig. .00 ns ns

Adj R2 .04

F 3.12

Sig. .03

Adj R 2 .10

F 7.70

Sig. .00

Beta .24 -.04 .03

t 2.11 -0.31 0.25

Sig. .04 ns ns

Beta .21 .17 -.02

t 1.67 1.36 -0.20

Sig. ns ns ns

189

Having established that adults believe them to engage in problem behaviour was a significant predictor of problem behaviour involvement for both males and females, the next step was to determine the relative contribution of those perceptions, taking into account all other significant predictors of involvement in problem behaviour. Thus, all variables that were shown to be significant predictors of problem behaviour involvement were entered into two regression analyses. For the first, association with problem peers was the outcome variable, while engagement in problem behaviour was the outcome for the second analysis. Granted, however, that perceptions that adults believe them to engage in problem behaviour did not significantly predict engagement in problem behaviour for the female sample, only the regression analysis with problem peer associations was performed on their responses. The results that derived from those analyses are presented in Table 5.4. For ease of reading, from hereon, young people’s perceptions that adults believe them to engage in problem behaviour is referred to as perceptions of problem behaviour involvement. When all of the significant predictors were regressed against association with problem peers, perceptions of problem behaviour involvement remained a significant predictor for both the male and female samples. Moreover, those perceptions made the second largest contribution to males’ association with problem peers (β = 0.20), and the largest contribution to females’ association with problem peers (β = 0.35). In addition, perceptions of problem behaviour involvement remained a significant predictor of males’ engagement in problem behaviour, when all other variables were

190

taken into account. However, those perceptions had the smallest effect on their engagement in problem behaviour (β = 0.17). Table 5.4 Relative contribution of predictors of association with problem peers and engagement in problem behaviour Males Problem peers Overall equation Predictor Impulsiveness Problem behaviour Venturesomeness Liking for school Mother care Father care Mother overprot.1 Father overprot.2 Normlessness3 Problem behaviour4 Overall equation Predictor Impulsiveness Liking for school Venturesomeness Problem behaviour Mother care Father care

Females

Adj R2 .19

F 5.90

Sig. .00

Adj R 2 .30

F 9.38

Sig. .00

Beta .32 .20 .15 -.15 -.07 -.04 -

t 4.34 2.92 2.13 -2.08 -0.89 -0.52 -

Sig. .00 .00 .04 .04 ns ns -

Beta .22 .35 .02 -.04 -.01 -.11 .21 .24 .07

t 3.12 5.38 0.29 -0.59 -0.19 -1.53 2.73 3.14 1.03

Sig. .00 .00 ns ns ns ns .01 .00 ns

Adj R2 .33

F 10.53

Sig. .00

Beta .40 -.22 .19 .17 -.14 -.01

t 5.86 -3.24 2.89 2.70 -1.79 -0.17

Sig. .00 .00 .00 .01 ns ns

Note: 1. Mother overprotection was not identified as a significant predictor ofmales’ problem behaviour involvement in the structural m odelling analyses and was therefore om itted from all subsidiary analyses for m ales. 2. F ather overprotection was not identified as a significant predictor of m ales’ problem behaviour involvement in the structural m odelling analyses and was therefore om itted from all subsidiary analyses for m ales. 3. Norm lessness was not identified as a significant predictor of m ales’ problem behaviour involvement in the structural m odelling analyses and was therefore omitted from all subsidiary analyses for m ales. 4. None of the com ponents of perceptions of adults’ beliefs was identified as a significant predictoroffemales’ engagem ent in problem behaviour. For that reason, no further subsidiary analyses were conducted.

191

Overall then, perceptions of problem behaviour involvement play an important role in both males’ and females’ associations with problem peers, and to a lesser extent, males’ engagement in problem behaviour. The second set of subsidiary analyses examined the extent to which impulsiveness and venturesomeness interact with social control factors (including liking for school, perceptions of problem behaviour involvement, and parental care and overprotection) to influence problem behaviour involvement. The interaction between personal and social control variables. The analyses that were carried out on the responses of the female sample revealed no significant interaction effects. Thus, the effects of the social control variables on problem behaviour involvement were not found to be moderated by either impulsiveness or venturesomeness. The analyses that were performed on the male sample, however, yielded four significant interaction effects. First, impulsiveness was found to moderate the effect of males’ perceptions of problem behaviour involvement on both association with problem peers and engagement in problem behaviour. Figure 5.6 shows that the difference in problem peer associations between males with high and low levels of impulsiveness is different for high and low perceptions of problem behaviour involvement. With low perceptions of problem behaviour involvement, levels of problem peer associations are similar for males with high and low levels of impulsiveness. However, with higher perceptions of problem behaviour involvement, highly impulsive males have more association with problem peers than do males with lower levels of impulsiveness. In other words, strong perceptions of problem behaviour involvement

192

appear to place highly impulsive male adolescents at greater risk for problem peer

Problem peer association

associations than less impulsive males.

low impulsiveness

12 10

high impulsivenss

8 6 4 2 low

high

Perceptions of problem behaviour involvement

Figure 5.6 Interaction between impulsiveness and perceptions of problem behaviour involvement on males’ association with problem peers

Impulsiveness was also found to moderate the effect of males’ perceptions of problem behaviour involvement on their actual engagement in problem behaviour. Figure 5.7 shows that with low levels of impulsiveness, levels of engagement in problem behaviour do not differ between males who have high perceptions of problem behaviour involvement and those with low perceptions. However, with higher impulsiveness levels, males who have high perceptions of problem behaviour involvement actually engage in more problem behaviour than males who have low perceptions of problem behaviour involvement.

Engagement in problem behavio

193

low impulsiveness

12 10

high impulsivenss

8 6 4 2 low

high

Perceptions of problem behaviour involvement

Figure 5.7 Interaction between impulsiveness and perceptions of problem behaviour involvement on males’ engagement in problem behaviour

Impulsiveness was also found to moderate the effect of liking for school on engagement in problem behaviour. Figure 5.8 shows that with low levels of impulsiveness, engagement in problem behaviour was similar for males with high and low levels of liking for school. With high impulsiveness levels, however, males who showed less liking for school engaged in more problem behaviour than males who showed more liking for school. Finally, venturesomeness was also found to have one significant moderating effect. Figure 5.9 shows that venturesomeness moderated the relationship between liking for school and association with problem peers. With high levels of liking for school, the level of problem peer associations was similar for males with high and low levels of venturesomeness. With less liking for school,

194

however, males with high levels of venturesomeness had more problem peer

Engagement in problem behavio

associations than did males with low venturesomeness levels.

low impulsiveness

12 10

high impulsivenss

8 6 4 2 low

high Liking for school

Figure 5.8 Interaction between impulsiveness and liking for school on males’ engagement in problem behaviour

Problem peer association

195

low venturesomeness

12 10

high venturesomeness

8 6 4 2 low

high Liking for school

Figure 5.9 Interaction between venturesomeness and liking for school on males’ association with problem peers

Summary The findings from Study 9 extend our understanding of the factors that influence involvement in problem behaviour. The structural model of problem behaviour accounted for 47 percent of the variance of males’ problem behaviour, and 45 percent of the variance of females’ problem behaviour. The hypothesised model of problem behaviour was partially supported by the model analyses. The first prediction that the effect of the social and personal control variables on problem behaviour would be mediated via alienation was not supported for the male sample, and supported only in part for the female sample. Alienation was found to entirely mediate the effect of parental care and overprotection on females’ involvement in

196

problem behaviour. The remaining predictor variables were all shown to have direct effects on females’ problem behaviour. For the males, all the control variables, with the exception of parental overprotection, had direct effects on problem behaviour involvement. Perhaps most importantly, however, Study 9 has identified a new predictor of involvement in problem behaviour. Adolescents’ perceptions of negative community beliefs about them made an important contribution to the explanation of problem behaviour involvement. Subsidiary analyses established that perceptions that adults believe them to engage in problem behaviour was the ‘active ingredient’ of that construct. Finally, the prediction that the pathways to problem behaviour would be different for males and females was supported. Alienation had an important mediating effect on females’ involvement in problem behaviour, while impulsiveness, and to a lesser extent, venturesomeness, had significant moderating effects on males’ problem behaviour. Longitudinal tests of the male and female models are important tasks for future research. Those tests will enable the determination of the causal links between each of the control variables and involvement in problem behaviour. In other words, a time-extended or longitudinal study will allow for tests of the reciprocal and dynamic relationships among the variables in the model. The broader implications of this study, and of all the studies that were conducted for the program of research, are considered in the General Discussion presented in Chapter 6, to which this thesis now turns.

197

CHAPTER 6 GENERAL DIS CUS S ION Page Introduction

198

Understanding stereotypic beliefs about youth

200

Nature of stereotypic beliefs

200

Sources of stereotypic beliefs

203

Consequences of stereotypic beliefs

205

Limitations of current research and future directions

208

Improving adult-youth relations and preventing adolescent problem behaviour

209

198

Introduction The program of research conducted for this thesis examined the nature, sources, and consequences of stereotypic beliefs about youth. Studies 1 to 4 investigated the nature of stereotypic beliefs using four converging approaches. These studies specified the cultural stereotype, adults' personal beliefs, young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs, and the nature of multiple stereotypes. The findings indicated that adults' beliefs about the cultural stereotype of youth contained, for the most part, very negative content, although their personal beliefs were found to contain both positive and negative content. Further, young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about youth were very similar in content to adults' beliefs about the cultural stereotype; their personal beliefs were, however, much more positive. The investigation of multiple stereotypes of youth showed that adults and young people conceive of different subtypes of youth. The 'problem kids' subtype was the most salient, both in terms of the numbers of descriptors assigned to it, and the consensus that was associated with those descriptors. Studies 5 and 6 focused on the media as a source of stereotypic beliefs about youth. The analyses of the content of newspaper reports about young people indicated that news reporting of young people was largely negative. The 'problem kids' subtype was given the most news space. Moreover, the analyses of the association between newspaper readership and stereotypic beliefs suggested that newspaper readership is predictive of stereotypic beliefs. Further, stereotypic beliefs about youth combined to discriminate between readers of tabloid and broadsheet papers. This suggests that the nature of the relationship between newspaper

199

readership and stereotypic beliefs about youth is bi-directional, although longitudinal tests are required to allow the nature of that relationship to be established more confidently. Studies 7 and 8 investigated the consequences of stereotypic beliefs about youth for adults' evaluations of young people and for self-fulfilling prophecies, within the context of laboratory-based experiments. The findings indicated that adults' stereotypic beliefs that young people are 'problem kids' can influence their subsequent evaluations of young people. Further, the findings underscored how stereotypic beliefs that young people are problematic can influence adults' behaviour toward young people in such a way that stereotype-consistent behaviour is elicited from young people. Study 9 extended this and investigated the consequences of stereotypic beliefs about youth in a field-based study. It examined the extent to which young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about youth interact with established correlates of delinquency to influence young people's involvement in problematic or delinquent behaviour. Young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about youth interacted with demonstrated correlates of delinquency to influence problem behaviour involvement. Notably, the pathways to problem behaviour were different for females and males. For females, alienation played an important role in their involvement in problem behaviour, and entirely mediated the effects of parental care and overprotection on problem behaviour involvement. For males, impulsiveness, and to a lesser extent, venturesomeness, had significant moderating effects on the relationships between perceptions of problem behaviour involvement and commitment to school, and involvement in problem behaviour.

200

This final chapter begins with a discussion of the major contributions that this program of research has made to understanding the nature, sources, and consequences of stereotypic beliefs about youth. It then highlights the limitations of the studies conducted for this thesis, and offers suggestions for future research. The chapter ends by detailing the implications of the findings of the program of research for improving adult-youth relations and preventing adolescent problem behaviour.

Understanding stereotypic beliefs about youth The program of research conducted for this thesis has made three important contributions to our understanding of stereotypic beliefs about youth. First, it has widened knowledge concerning the nature of stereotypic beliefs about youth. Second, it has extended understanding of the sources of stereotypic beliefs about youth. Third, it has demonstrated that stereotypic beliefs about youth have important consequences for the behaviour of both adults and young people. Nature of stereotypic beliefs Four approaches were used to specify the nature of stereotypic beliefs about youth. Previous research was limited to adults' personal beliefs about youth (Buchanan & Holmbeck, 1998). The present program of research was conducted from a social psychological perspective and, in particular, adopted a social cognitive approach. This informed an examination not only of adults' personal beliefs, but also of the cultural stereotype of youth, young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs, and of multiple stereotypes of youth. Thus, the studies that were conducted to specify the

201

nature of stereotypic beliefs about youth have provided a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of those beliefs than currently exist in this literature. The investigation of the four belief sets provided converging evidence that stereotypic beliefs about youth are largely negative. In the examination of multiple stereotypes of youth, the 'p roblem kids' subtype was found to be the most salient of the youth subtypes. Yet, stereotyping is known to occur at both superordinate and subcategory levels. M oreover, one or two subtypes within any superordinate category are often regarded as most typical of the general category (Brewer et al., 1981; Taylor, 1981). When participants were asked to think at the superordinate level, in terms of typical teenagers, they relied heavily on the 'problem kids' subtype. This suggested that the traits and behaviours in the 'problem kids' subtype are contained also in the global or superordinate youth-related stereotype. In other words, the 'p roblem kids' subtype serves as the 'default value' for categorising young people (cf. Brewer et al., 1981). Although adults' personal beliefs about young people were largely negative, those held by the young adults were substantially more negative than those held by the older adults. There are at least two possible explanations for this finding. First, young adults are not far removed from their own adolescence, and so they may have a more realistic view than older adults of the extent to which young people today are engaging in problematic behaviours. An equally plausible explanation for the more positive personal beliefs of the older adults is that they recognise the transitional nature of adolescent misbehaviour. In other words, perhaps older adults are able to appreciate that many young people will encounter difficulties during the adolescent

202

period, but that most of them will mature into responsible adults. To the extent that is true, older adults are able to recognise both the positive and negative characteristics of young people. The present program of research has extended understanding of the nature of stereotypic beliefs about youth by generating the first two Australian measures for assessing those beliefs. The Beliefs About Adolescence Scale allows adult members of the community to report the extent to which 20 traits and behaviours are stereotypical of young people. This new measure possessed good psychometric properties. The overall measure and its subscales were internally consistent and had good test-retest reliability over a one-month period. Convergent validity was also demonstrated; the '(Lack of) Discipline', ' (Seeking) Independence ' and 'Problem Behaviours' subscales were correlated positively with beliefs that adolescence is a period of storm and stress. A major strength of the instrument is its assessment of both positive and negative characteristics of young people. As Buchanan and Holmbeck (1998) noted, it is likely that adults' behaviour toward young people is determined by a combination of positive and negative beliefs, not simply the extent to which they endorse negative stereotypes. The measure improves on that developed by Buchanan and Holmbeck (1998) in two ways. First, the inclusion of only those items for which the sample had provided a rating of 5, 6, or 7 (out of 7) on the ‘extremely characteristic’ side of the rating scale ensured that the beliefs being documented were in fact stereotypic. Second, only items that were given those ratings by more than 50 percent of the sample were retained. Thus, there was

203

considerable agreement that the traits and behaviours comprising the measure were characteristic of young people. The second measure developed was the Adolescents' Perceptions of Adults' Beliefs Scale. This 26-item scale is the first measure to assess young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about them. The overall measure and its three subscales had very high internal consistency reliability and test-retest reliability. Almost all of the 26 items in the measure are socially undesirable traits and behaviours. Two of the three subscales, 'Egocentrism' and 'Problem behaviours' are clearly made up of extremely negative traits and behaviours. The development of the measure enabled systematic testing to be carried out of the role of young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs in contributing to young people's involvement in problem behaviour. Both measures can be completed in a short time, and can be easily administered to individuals or to groups. The Beliefs About Adolescence Scale and the Adolescents’ Perceptions of Adults’ Beliefs Scale will allow researchers to pursue questions of how community beliefs about youth, and young people's perceptions of those beliefs, influence adult-youth relations. The Adolescents’ Perceptions of Adults’ Beliefs Scale will be useful also for further investigations of the role of young people’s perceptions in contributing to their involvement in problem behaviour. Sources of stereotypic beliefs The review of the literature in Chapter 1 indicated that negative stereotypic beliefs about youth are assumed to derive in part from media representations of young people (Bessant & Hil, 1997; Omaji, 1997), although the empirical evidence to support that assumption is limited. The program of research conducted for this thesis

204

demonstrated an empirical link between newspaper reports and stereotypic beliefs about youth. Newspaper readership was shown to be predictive of stereotypic beliefs about youth. Participants who were primarily tabloid, rather than broadsheet, readers reported strong beliefs that young people lack discipline, that they adhere to popular notions of adolescence, and that they engage in problem behaviours. Further, the different sets of stereotypic beliefs about youth combined to discriminate between tabloid and broadsheet readers. The major difference between the two readership groups was attributed to their negative beliefs about young people; negative stereotypic beliefs were predictive of tabloid readership. Taken together, the findings suggested that the nature of the relationship between newspaper readership and stereotypic beliefs about youth is bi-directional. Because of the cross-sectional nature of the research, however, this issue requires further detailed investigation. Nevertheless, the demonstration of an empirical link between newspaper readership and stereotypic beliefs extends our understanding of the nature of the relationship between media representations and stereotypic beliefs about youth. The findings indicate that media representations of young people, at the very least, reflect and reinforce negative stereotypic beliefs about youth. One implication of those findings is that the media have the opportunity to play an important role in influencing the public perception of young people.

205

Consequences of stereotypic beliefs No previous researcher has investigated the consequences of stereotypic beliefs about youth for information-processing and behaviour. The program of research conducted for this thesis focused on the consequences of stereotypic beliefs about youth for evaluations of young people and for self-fulfilling prophecies. Adults' stereotypic beliefs about youth were shown to influence their subsequent evaluations of young people and to elicit self-fulfilling prophecies. In both instances, the adult participants were unaware that their stereotypic beliefs about youth were producing those effects. Adopting an implicit approach to investigate the consequences of stereotypic beliefs about youth ensured participants' lack of awareness, and this was a methodological strength of the experimental studies that were conducted. Some researchers have argued that the use of an experimental design to examine behavioural confirmation of stereotypic beliefs has limited generalisability (M iller & Turnbull, 1986; Jussim, 1990). For instance, it has been claimed by Jussim (1990) that experimental studies of behavioural confirmation effects are flawed because they have given perceivers false expectancies, and so we do not know the extent to which naturally occurring expectancies produce behavioural confirmation effects. With respect to the present program of research, however, the adoption of an implicit methodology increased the ecological validity of the experimental design. The participants in the present program of research were not given false expectancies about their interaction partner. The only difference between perceivers in the experimental and control conditions was that those in the experimental condition

206

were shown faces of teenagers and those in the control condition were presented with faces of adults. The presentation of teenage faces corresponded to the real-world situation of an individual encountering a young person, and the findings indicated that this is sufficient to elicit self-fulfilling prophecies. These findings represent an experimental analogue of the ways in which stereotyped information about young people can exert effects in everyday life. Adults are exposed to information about young people in a variety of ways. To some extent, beliefs about youth derive from actual experiences with young people. Because of their high public visibility, including their tendency to congregate in groups, their physical appearance (e.g. style of dress), and their energy, young people are often perceived as threatening and out of control (White, 1997). As the findings from this program of research indicate, stereotypic beliefs about youth also derive from information presented in media representations, which are generally negative and often depict young people as problematic. Repeated exposure to information that portrays certain groups of young people as problematic may result in negative evaluations of all young people. Stereotyped information achieves its ultimate influence via a self-fulfilling prophecy. Beliefs that young people are problematic and ‘potential deviants’ can induce behaviour in accord with these expectations and views. Whereas some young people do experiment, take risks, and challenge authorities, the findings from the present program of research emphasise that these forms of behaviour are thought by many adults to be typical of young people in general. M oreover, those beliefs have the ability to produce actual confirming

207

evidence in young people’s behaviour, via their effects on adults’ own behaviour. In that way, adults’ beliefs that young people are problematic are validated and perpetuated. In addition to demonstrating the consequences of adults' stereotypic beliefs about youth, the findings have shown that young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about youth have consequences of their own. Acknowledging the multiple causal pathways to problem behaviour (Sullivan & Wilson, 1995), and that behaviour is influenced by the interaction of the social context and person-centred factors (Jessor, 1993), the role of young people’s perceptions was examined within the context of a structural model of problem behaviour. Young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about youth were found to interact with established correlates of delinquency to influence their involvement in problem behaviour. Previous research has shown that young people's perceptions that their parents and peers believe them to engage in problem behaviour increases their involvement in such behaviour (Bartusch & Matsueda, 1996; Heimer & M atsueda, 1994). The present findings showed that young people's perceptions that the broader community considers them to be problematic contribute to their involvement in problem behaviour. These findings extend our understanding of the factors that influence adolescents' involvement in problem behaviour.

208

Limitations of current research and future directions There are two main limitations of this program of research. First, the studies conducted for this thesis were cross-sectional in nature. An important task for future research is, therefore, to re-examine the male and female models of problem behaviour longitudinally. The factors that are known to influence involvement in delinquent behaviour are dynamic and interactional (Thornberry, 1987). Unfortunately, ethics approval to conduct the research program in New South Wales secondary schools required that the research be cross-sectional. Further, the evaluation of the models for the program of research primarily involved an attempt to explain differences in the extent of delinquent behaviour engaged in. An equally important question, however, relates to why so many young people engage in delinquent behaviour and then desist as they approach adulthood. This question must be answered within the context of a longitudinal study that examines which pathways are associated with the onset of delinquency, and which better explain the variation in desistance, or in some cases, escalation. A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between media representations and stereotypic beliefs about youth is also needed. The data from the research program demonstrated a correlation between newspaper readership and stereotypic beliefs about youth and it seems that that relationship is bi-directional. The relationship between media representations and stereotypic beliefs about youth must now be tested longitudinally to allow that relationship to be established confidently; to clarify whether newspaper readership indeed predicts stereotypic beliefs, whether

209

people's stereotypic beliefs determine their choice of newspaper, or both, research must be time-extended. A second goal for future research relates to young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about youth. The program of research found that young people think that adults see them as problems to society. The relevance of those findings to specific high risk groups of young people must now be determined. For instance, it has been claimed that Indo-Chinese, Arabic, and South Pacific Islanders are more visible than other youths due to their cultural tendency to congregate in public spaces, which often arouses suspicion (Standing Committee on Law and Justice, 1999). An important goal for future research is, therefore, to identify the characteristics that make some young people more vulnerable to perceptions of negative stereotypic beliefs.

Improving adult-youth relations and preventing adolescent problem behaviour The findings from this program of research have important implications for improving adult-youth relations and for preventing young people’s involvement in problem behaviour. In terms of improving adult-youth relations, the media have an important role to play. Media portrayals of youth are fundamental to the ways in which the public come to view young people individually and collectively (Bessant & Hil, 1997). For the most part, newspaper reports of young people, and in particular, tabloid reports, convey very negative images of young people. This is perhaps because newspaper editors and journalists believe that this is what their audience likes to read about young people. In other words, news producers are aware of the values

210

and beliefs of their audience and they pitch their stories to attract and to maintain that audience. In this way, negative perceptions of young people are perpetuated. The media have a responsibility, however, to provide balanced information about young people. That responsibility can be fulfilled by recognising t he achievements and talents of the vast majority of young people and by reporting on youth-related issues, including juvenile crime, in ways that are consistent with scientific data. It is well known that social policy is influenced by presumptions about public opinion (Grisso, 1996). The media can be said to have an indirect effect on policy, via their effect on public perception. In other words, media representations of problematic youth fuel negative public reactions to young people. Those reactions are often reflected in law and order campaigns and ‘anti-juvenile’ legislation (Findlay, Odgers, & Yeo, 1994; Omaji, 1997). Examples of such ‘get tough’ policies include an increase in the range of powers available to police, enabling them to interfere in the activities of young people even when they have not engaged in any wrongdoing (White, 1997), and escalated penalties for certain offences (Coventry, M uncie, & Walters, 1992). By focusing on the positive contributions that young people can make to society, the media could help to create a more informed public. This in turn would encourage the development of positive adult-youth relations within the community. Also it would hopefully influence law and policy makers to move away from the current focus on punitive 'law and order' approaches towards young people. The Australian government has already begun to acknowledge the important role that the media play in orchestrating public opinion about young people in our

211

society. While the present program of research was in progress, the Government established the National Youth Media Awards. These awards were designed to recognise the best examples of journalism that reflect the positive contributions that young people make to society. They represent an attempt to encourage journalists to look beyond the sensational and to draw upon stories that promote a more balanced reflection of young people today. It is hoped that such incentives will serve to improve media portrayals of young people and, as a result, to foster positive relations between adults and young people. The findings from the present program of research also have important implications for the prevention of adolescent problem behaviour. Consistent with previous research (e.g. Jessor et al., 1995; O'Donnell et al., 1995; Sankey & Huon, 1999), the findings indicated that multiple factors contribute to the emergence of delinquent or problematic behaviour. Prevention programs therefore need to be multimodal and address all aspects of adolescent life (see also Huon & McConkey, 1998). Programs that address a constellation of risk factors achieve more preventive effects than those that address just one or two (Yoshikawa, 1994). The findings also indicated that young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs about youth make an important contribution to their involvement in problem behaviour. This emphasises the need for prevention programs to include a community-based component. Feelings of inclusiveness, and positive social relationships between young people and adult members of the community are crucial in reducing involvement in delinquent behaviour (Owen & Carroll, 1997). Fostering young people's attachment to their communities has been identified as a major factor in crime prevention (Standing

212

Committee on Law and Justice, 1999). Despite this, among the major preventive strategies that have been proposed, those targeting the community have received the least attention (M ulvey, Arthur, & Reppucci, 1993). The findings from the present program of research suggest that communitybased prevention programs should seek to promote positive adult-youth relations. In particular, the findings suggest two specific ways in which this could be achieved. First, adult-youth relations could be improved through the provision of educational programs that seek to alter adults' stereotypic beliefs about young people. Such interventions have been used to reduce stereotypes and prejudice toward a range of social groups, including Aboriginal Australians (Augoustinos & Hil, 1999) and the elderly (Dooley & Frankel, 1990). Other programs have sought to modify gender steretoypes (Gash & M organ, 1993). Essentially, stereotype and prejudice reduction programs attempt to increase knowledge, awareness and understanding of a specific group by providing information about the group's history, achievements, and contributions (Augoustinos & Hil, 1999). There is some empirical evidence to suggest that education can help to modify adults' stereotypic beliefs about young people. Holmbeck and Hill (1988) assessed college students' beliefs about adolescence both before and after their completion of a course on adolescent development. Prior to the course, participants' beliefs about young people were very negative, and indicated that adolescence was characterised by storm and stress, rebelliousness, and poor relations with parents. After the course, students' tendency to report that the typical adolescent experiences were stormy and stressful decreased substantially. These results suggest that teaching adults about adolescent

213

development is one potential way to change their stereotypic beliefs about youth and improve adult-youth relations. It would be necessary, however, to further evaluate the effectiveness of such programs by conducting follow-up assessments several months after the completion of the course. This would determine the extent to which positive beliefs about young people were maintained over time. A second useful strategy for promoting positive adult-youth relations and preventing adolescent problem behaviour involves the provision of opportunities for young people to interact with adult members of the wider community. Sercombe (1997) claimed that because young people are generally excluded from most aspects of society, many adults lack direct contact with young people. Local community authorities are in an ideal position to help with the creation of connections between young people and adults. M entoring is one way in which this can be achieved. M entors are adults who assume quasi-parental roles as advisors and role models for young people to whom they are unrelated; they provide support in social and academic development (Hamilton & Hamilton, 1992). Mentors can help to promote a sense of personal worth, broaden opportunities for young people and assist them in making intelligent choices (Dondero, 1997). Such adult-young person involvement would help to foster a cohesive community. At the same time, young people would be provided with responsible adult role models, thereby hopefully reducing the likelihood of their involvement in problem behaviour. Community-based programs to reduce adolescent problem behaviour will only be effective if they are implemented in conjunction with programs that target the multiple factors that contribute to that behaviour. The findings from this research

214

program indicated that commitment to school has an important role in both males' and females' involvement in problem behaviour. Communities and schools should therefore work together to promote positive relationships between young people and adults. The 'Rave' Project (Harrison, Laughlin, & M idford, 1995) is one example of how this can be achieved. This project sought to involve young people in the planning and development of educational programs to combat adolescent drug use. Young people, teachers and health professionals worked together to produce a newspaper publication on alcohol and other drug issues for young people. M ost importantly, young people were in control of the project and the adult participants acted as facilitators. M uch of the newspaper content was provided by youth, they consulted on issues of theme and style, and they made decisions about how the newspaper would be produced and distributed. The handing over of control of the project to young people sent a message to them that their views were valued and that they could make a positive contribution to the issues that directly affected them. At the same time, the implementation of the project through the school system provided young people with a positive school-related experience. In that way, the program targeted both community- and school-based risk factors for problem behaviour. In conclusion, this program of research has demonstrated that the media and adult members of the broader community must recognise the role that they play in creating and reinforcing adolescent problem behaviour. The media have a responsibility to disseminate accurate and balanced information about young people, and community-based prevention programs have an obligation to focus on methods that foster a cohesive community and positive intergenerational relations. Such

215

efforts are critical if we are to combat negative stereotypic beliefs about young people. They are also essential if we are to prevent adolescent problem behaviour.

216

REFERENCES Akers, R.L. (1977). Deviant Behaviour: A Social Learning Perspective. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, M A: Addison-Wesley. Anderson, N.H. (1968). Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 272-279. Arnett, J.J. (1999). Adolescent storm and stress, reconsidered. American Psychologist, 54, 317-326. Ashmore, R.D. & Del Boca, F.K. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. In D.L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behaviour. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Atwater, E. (1988). Adolescence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Audit Bureau of Circulations (2000). July-December, 1999, Sydney. Augoustinos, M ., Ahrens, C, & Innes, M.J. (1994). Stereotypes and prejudice: The Australian experience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 125-141. Augoustinos, M ., & Hill, M. (1999). Stereotype and prejudice reduction: Short and long-term evaluation of a cross-cultural awareness program. Paper presented th at the 12 General Meeting of the European Association of Experimental

Social Psychology, University of Oxford. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2000). Labour Force Australia. Canberra: ABS. Australian Bureau of Statistics (1997). Youth, Australia: A Social Report. Canberra: ABS.

217

Australian Centre for Independent Journalism (1992). Youth and the Media: A report into the representation of young people in the New South Wales print media. Sydney, NSW: University of Technology. Banaji, M .R., & Greenwald, A.G. (1994). Implicit stereotyping and prejudice. In M .P. Zanna & J.M. Olson (Eds.), The Psychology of Prejudice: The Ontario Symposium Volume 7. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Banaji, M .R., Hardin, C., & Rothman, A.J. (1993). Implicit stereotyping in person judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 272-281. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Bargh, J.A., Chen, M ., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behaviour: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244. Bargh, J.A., & Pietromonaco, P. (1982). Automatic information processing and social perception: The influence of trait information presented outside of conscious awareness on impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 437-449. Baron, R., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. Bartusch, D.J., & Matsueda, R.L. (1996). Gender, reflected appraisals, and labeling: A cross-group test of an interactionist theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 75, 145-177.

218

Bentler, P.M., & Bonnett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606. Bessant, J. (1994). Questioning popular representations of youth. Australian Institute of Family Studies, 38, 38-39. Bessant, J., & Hil, R. (1997). Youth, Crime and the Media: Media representation of and reaction to young people in relation to law and order. Hobart: National Clearinghouse for Youth Studies. Biddle, B.J., & M artin, M .M . (1987). Causality, confirmation, credulity, and structural equation modeling. Child Development, 58, 4-17. Black, J., & Bryant, J. (1995). Introduction to Media Communication. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark. Bledsoe, J.C., & Wiggins, R.G. (1973). Congruence of adolescents' self-concepts and parents' perceptions of adolescents' self-concepts. Journal of Psychology, 83, 157-162. Bodenhausen, G.V. (1988). Stereotypic biases in social decision making and memory: Testing process models of stereotype use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 726-737. Bodenhausen, G.V., & Lichtenstein, M . (1987). Social stereotypes and information processing strategies: The impact of task complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 871-880. Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

219

Boomsma, A. (1983). On the robustness of LISREL against small sample size and nonnormality. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation. Bonney, B., & Wilson, H. (1983). Australia's commercial media. M elbourne, Vic: M acM illan. Breckler, S.J. (1990). Applications of covariance structure modelling in psychology: Cause for concern? Psychological Bulletin, 107, 260-273. Brewer, M .B., Dull, V., & Lui, L. (1981). Perceptions of the elderly: Stereotypes as Prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 656-670. Broverman, I.K., Vogel, S.R., Broverman, D.M ., Clarkson, F.E., & Rosenkrantz, P.S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59-78. Browne, M.W. (1984). Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62-83. Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Single sample cross-validation indices for covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 24, 445-455. Buchanan, C.M ., Eccles, J.S., Flanagan, C., M idgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Harold, R.D. (1990). Parents’ and teachers’ beliefs about adolescents: Effects of sex and experience. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 363-394. Buchanan, C.M ., & Holmbeck, G.N. (1998). M easuring beliefs about adolescent behaviour. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 27, 607-627.

220

Buttrum, K. (1997). Juvenile justice: What works and what doesn’t! Paper presented at Australian Institute of Criminology Conference, Adelaide 26-27 June, 1997. Cain, M . (1996). Recidivism of juvenile offenders in New South Wales. Sydney, NSW: New South Wales Department of Juvenile Justice. Chernkovich, S.A., & Giordano, P.C. (1987). Family relationships and delinquency. Criminology, 25, 295-321. Chen, M ., & Bargh, J.A. (1997). Nonconscious behavioural confirmation processes: The self-fulfilling consequences of automatic stereotype activation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 541-560. Clift, S.M ., Wilkins, J.C., & Davidson, C.A. (1993). Impulsiveness, venturesomeness and sexual risk taking among heterosexual GUM clinic attenders. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 403-410. Collins, C., Batten, M ., Ainley, J., & Getty, C. (1996). Gender and Education. ACT: Australian Government Publishing Service. Congalton, A.A. (1961). Status Ranking of Sydney Suburbs. University of New South Wales: Sydney, NSW. Cooley, C.H. (1964, originally published in 1902). Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Schocken Books. Coventry, G., M uncie, J., & Walters, R. (1992). Rethinking Social Policy for Young People and Crime Prevention. Bundoora, Vic: La Trobe University. Cunneen, C., & White, R. (1995). Juvenile Justice: An Australian Perspective. M elbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press.

221

Daniel, A. (1983). Power, privilege, and prestige: Occupations in Australia. M elbourne, Vic: Longman Cheshire. Darley, J.M., & Gross, P.H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 20-33. Davidson, H.H., & Lang, G. (1960). Children's perceptions of their teachers feelings toward them related to self-perception, school adjustment and behaviour. Journal of Experimental Education, 29, 107-118. Davies, M .F. (1997). Belief persistence after evidential discrediting: The impact of generated versus provided explanations on the likelihood of discredited outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 561-578. Davison, W., Boylan, J., & Yu, F. (1976). Mass Media: Systems and Effects. New York: Preager. Dean, D. (1961). Alienation: Its meaning and measurement. American Sociological Review, 26, 753-758. Deaux, K., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1988). Social Psychology. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Denholm, C., Horniblow, T., & Smalley, R. (1992). The times they are still a’ changing: Characteristics of Tasmanian adolescent peer groups. Youth Studies Australia (Winter, 1992), 18-25. DePaulo, B.M ., Kenny, D.A., Hoover, C.W., Webb, W., & Oliver, P.V. (1987). Accuracy of person perception: Do people know what kinds of impressions they convey? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 303-315.

222

Devine, P.G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18. Devine, P.G., & Baker, S.M. (1991). M easurement of racial stereotype subtyping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 44-50. Dondero, G.M . (1997). Mentors: Beacons of hope. Adolescence, 32, 881-886. Dooley, S., & Frankel, B.G. (1990). Improving attitudes toward elderly people: Evaluation of an intervention program for adolescents. Canadian Journal on Aging, 9, 400-409. Dovidio, J.F., Evans, N., & Tyler, R.B. (1986). Racial stereotypes: The contents of their cognitive representations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 22-37. Esses, V.M ., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M.P. (1994). The role of mood in the expression of intergroup stereotypes. In M .P Zanna & J.M Olson (Eds.), The Psychology of Prejudice: The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eysenck, S., Easting, G., & Pearson, P. (1984). Age norms for impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy in children. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 315-321. Eysenck, S.B.G., & Eysenck, H.J. (1978). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness: Their position in a dimensional system of personality description. Psychological Reports, 43, 1247-1255. Eysenck, S.B.G., & M cGurk, B.J. (1980). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness in a detention centre population. Psychological Reports, 47, 1299-1306.

223

Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., M acCallum, R.C., & Strahan, E.J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272-299. Felson, R. B. (1985). Reflected appraisal and the development of self. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 71-78. Felson, R.B. (1989). Parents and the reflected appraisal process: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 965-971. Fergusson, D.M ., & Horwood, J.L. (1999). Prospective childhood predictors of deviant peer affiliations in adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 581-592. Findlay, M., Odgers, S., & Yeo, S. (1994). Australian Criminal Justice. M elbourne, Vic: Oxford University Press. Fiske, S.T., Neuberg, S.L., Beattie, A.E., & M ilberg, S.J. (1987). Category-based and attribute-based reactions to others: Some informational conditions of stereotyping and individuating processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 399-427. Forgas, J.P. (1992). Interpersonal Behaviour: The Psychology of Social Interaction. Sydney: Maxwell Macmillan. Freeman, K. (1996). Young people and crime. Crime and Justice Bulletin Number 32. New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Freud, A. (1958). Adolescence. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 15, 255-278.

224

Freud, A. (1969). Adolescence as a developmental disturbance. In G. Caplan & S. Lebovici (Eds.), Adolescence: Psychosocial perspectives. New York: Basic Books. Friedenberg, E.Z. (1966). Adolescence as a social problem. In H. Becker (Ed.), Social problems: a modern approach. New York: John Wiley. Gaertner, S.L., & McLaughlin, J.P. (1983). Racial stereotypes: Associations and ascriptions of positive and negative characteristics. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 23-30. Gardner, R.C., Lalonde, R.N., Nero, A.M ., & Young, M .Y. (1988). Ethnic stereotypes: Implications of measurement strategy. Social Cognition, 6, 40-60. Gash, H., & M organ, M . (1993). School-based modifications of children's genderrelated beliefs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14, 277-287. Gecas, V., & Seff, M. (1990). Families and adolescents: A review of the 1980s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 941-958. Gilbert, D.T., & Hixon, J.G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509-517. Gilbert, D.T., Krull, D.S., & M alone, P.S. (1990). Unbelieving the unbelievable: Some problems in the rejection of false information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 601-613.

225

Gladue, B.A. (1991). Qualitative and quantitative sex differences in self-reported aggressive behavioural characteristics. Psychological Reports, 68, 675-684. Greenwald, A.G. & Banaji, M .R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, selfesteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27. Greenwald, A.G., McGhee, D.E., & Schwartz, J.L.K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480. Griffin, C. (1997). Representations of the young. In J. Roche and S. Tucker (Eds.), Youth in society: Contemporary theory, policy and practice. London: Sage Publications. Grisso, T. (1996). Society's retributive response to juvenile violence: A developmental perspective. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 229-247. Hall, G.S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education (Vol. 2). New York: Appleton. Hamilton, D.L. (1981). Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behaviour. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hamilton, D.L., Devine, P.G., & Ostrom, T.M . (1994). Social cognition and classic issues in social psychology. In P.G. Devine, D.L. Hamilton, & Ostrom, T.M. (Eds.), Social cognition: Impact on social psychology. San Diego: Academic Press.

226

Hamilton, D.L., & Gifford, R.K. (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 392-407. Hamilton, D.L., & Sherman, J.W. (1994). Stereotypes. In R.S. Wyer & T.K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of Social Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hamilton, D.L., Sherman, S.J., & Ruvolo, C.M . (1990). Stereotype-based expectancies: Effects on information processing and social behaviour. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 35-60. Hamilton, D.L., Stroessner, S.J., & Driscoll, D.M. (1994). Social cognition and the study of stereotyping. In P.G. Devine, D.L. Hamilton, & Ostrom, T.M. (Eds.), Social cognition: Impact on social psychology. San Diego: Academic Press. Hamilton, S.F., & Hamilton, M .A. (1992). M entoring programs: Promise and paradox. Phi Delta Kappan, M arch, 546-550. Harrison, D., Laughlin, D., & M idford, R. (1995). Students tackle their own drug issues: A community-schools approach. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 5, 58-60. Haslam, S.A. (1997). Stereotyping and social influence: Foundations of stereotype consensus. In R. Spears, P.J. Oakes, N. Ellemers & S.A. Haslam (Eds) The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life. Oxford: Blackwell. Hayduk, L.A. (1987). Structural equation modelling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Hays, W.L. (1981). Statistics. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.

227

Heath, L., & Petraitis, J. (1987). Television viewing and fear of crime: Where is the mean world? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 8, 97-123. Heaven, P. (1989). Venturesomeness and impulsiveness: Their relation to orientation to authority among adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1205-1208. Heaven, P. (1993). Personality predictors of self-reported delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 67-76. Heaven, P. (1994a). Family of origin, personality, and self-reported delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 17, 445-459. Heaven, P. (1994b). Contemporary Adolescence: A psychosocial approach. M elbourne: M acMillan Education. Heckhausen, J., Dixon, R.A., & Baltes, P.B. (1989). Gains and losses in development throughout adulthood as perceived by different adult age groups. Developmental Psychology, 25, 109-121. Heimer, K., & M atsueda, R.L. (1994). Role-taking, role commitment, and delinquency: A theory of differential social control. American Sociological Review, 59, 365-390. Higgins, E.T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. New York: Guilford Press. Higgins, E.T., Rholes, W.S., & Jones, C.R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 141-154.

228

Hil, R. (1997). Waves, epidemics and racial war: The construction of a ‘black juvenile crime problem’ in Queensland. In J. Bessant & R.Hil (Eds.), Youth, crime and the media: Media representation of and reaction to young people in relation to law and order. Hobart: National Clearinghouse for Youth Studies. Hilton, J.L., & Darley, J.M. (1985). Constructing other persons: A limit on the effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 1-18. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hirt, E.R., & M arkman, K.D. (1995). M ultiple explanation: A consider-an-alternative strategy for debiasing judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1069-1088. Holmbeck, G.N., & Hill, J.P. (1988). Storm and stress beliefs about adolescence: Prevalence, self-reported antecedents, and effects of an undergraduate course. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17, 285-306. Holmes-Smith, P. (1998). Introduction to structural equation modelling using LISREL and AMOS. M elbourne: School, Research, Evaluation and M easurement Services. Horowitz, F.D. (1962). The relationship of anxiety, self-concept, and sociometric status among fourth, fifth, and sixth grade children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 212-214. Hort, B.E., Fagot, B.I., & Leinbach, M .D. (1990). Are people’s notions of maleness more stereotypically framed than their notions of femaleness? Sex Roles, 23, 197-212. Howitt, D. (1982). The Mass Media and Social Problems. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

229

Hummert, M.L. (1990). Multiple stereotypes of elderly and young adults: A comparison of structure and evaluations. Psychology and Aging, 5, 182-193. Hummert, M.L., Garstka, T.A., Shaner, J.L., & Strahm, S. (1994). Stereotypes of the elderly held by young, middle-aged, and elderly adults. Journal of Gerontology, 49, 240-249. Huon, G.F. & McConkey, K.M. (1998). Major influences on the development of criminal activity among young people: A qualitative study. University of NSW, June, 1998. Jessor, R. (1993). Successful adolescent development among youth in high-risk settings. American Psychologist, 48, 117-126. Jessor, R., Van Den Bos, J, Vanderryn, J., Costa, F.M ., & Turbin, M .S. (1995). Protective factors in adolescent problem behaviour: M oderator effects and developmental change. Developmental Psychology, 31, 923-933. Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1996a). PRELIS2 user’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1996b). LISREL8 user’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Jussim, L. (1990). Social reality and social problems: The role of expectancies. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 9-34. Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163-204. Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred undergraduates. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 30, 175-193.

230

Katz, P.A. (1976). The acquisition of racial attitudes in children. In P.A. Katz (Ed.), Towards the elimination of racism. New York: Pergamon. Kenrick, D.T., Neuberg, S.L., Cialdini, R.B. (1999). Social psychology: Unraveling the mystery. Needham Heights, M A: Allyn & Bacon. Kinch, J.W. (1963). A formalised theory of the self-concept. American Journal of Sociology, 68, 481-486. Kohn, M ., & Schooler, C. (1983). Work and personality: An inquiry into the impact of social stratification. New Jersey: Ablex. Klimidis, S., M inas, I.H., & Ata, A.W. (1992). The PBI-BC: A brief current form of the Parental Bonding Instrument for Adolescent Research. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 33, 374-377. Knight, T. (1997). Schools, delinquency, and youth culture. In A. Borowski & I. O’Connor (Eds.), Juvenile Crime and Justice Corrections. M elbourne: Longman. Krueger, J. (1994). Personal beliefs and cultural stereotypes about racial characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 536-548. Kulik, J.A. (1983). Confirmatory attribution and the perpetuation of social beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1171-1181. Kunda, Z. (1999). Social Cognition: Making Sense of People. Cambridge, M A: M assachusetts Institute of Technology. Kurdek, L.A., & Fine, M .A. (1994). Family acceptance and family control as predictors of adjustment in young adolescents: Linear, curvilinear, or interactive effects? Child Development, 65, 1137-1146.

231

Lepore, L., & Brown, R. (1997). Category and stereotype activation: Is prejudice inevitable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 275-287. Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. New York: M acMillan. Little, R.J., & Rubin, D.B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley. Loehlin, J.C. (1992). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and Structural analysis. Second edition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Luengo, M .A., Carrillo-de-la-Pena, M .T., Otero, J.M ., & Romero, E. (1994). A shortterm longitudinal study of impulsivity and antisocial behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 542-548. M acrae, N.C., Bodenhausen, G.V., M ilne, A.B., Thorn, T.M .J, and Castelli, L. (1997). On the activation of social stereotypes: The moderating role of processing objectives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 471-489. M ak, A.S. (1990). Testing a psychosocial control theory of delinquency. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 17, 215-230. M ak, A.S. (1993). A self-report delinquency scale for Australian adolescents. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45, 75-79. M ak, A.S. (1994). Parental neglect and overprotection as risk factors in delinquency. Australian Journal of Psychology, 46, 107-111. M ak, A.S. & Kinsella, C. (1996). Adolescent drinking, conduct problems, and parental bonding. Australian Journal of Psychology, 48, 15-20.

232

M alhotra, N.K. (1987). Analysing marketing research data with incomplete information on the dependent variable. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 74-84. M atsueda, R.L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1577-1611. M cConkey, K.M ., Roche, S.M., & Sheehan, P.W. (1989). Reports of forensic hypnosis: A critical analysis. Australian Psychologist, 24, 249-272. M cGarty, C., & de la Haye, A. (1997). Stereotype formation: Beyond illusory correlation. In R. Spears, P.J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S.A. Haslam (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life. Oxford: Blackwell. M cMahon, A. (1997). Rough justice: Juveniles and the reporting of crime in Townsville. In J. Bessant & R. Hil (Eds.), Youth, crime and the media: Media representation of and reaction to young people in relation to law and order. Hobart: National Clearinghouse for Youth Studies. M cMahon, B., & Quin, R. (1987). Stories and Stereotypes: A course in mass media. M elbourne: Longman Cheshire. M cKnight, J., & Sutton, J. (1994). Social Psychology. Sydney: Prentice Hall. M ead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. M erton, R.K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193-210. M iller, D.T., & Turnbull, W. (1986). Expectancies and interpersonal processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 233-256.

233

M oran, G.F., & Vinovskis, M .A. (1994). Troubled youth: Children at risk in early modern England, Colonial America, and 19th-Century America. In R.D Ketterlinus and M .E. Lamb (Eds.), Adolescent problem behaviours: Issues and Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. M organ, M. (1982). Television and adolescents’ sex role stereotypes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 947-955. M ulvey, E.P., Arthur, M.W., & Reppucci, N.D. (1993). The prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency: A review of the research. Clinical Psychology Review, 13, 133-167. M unck, I.M. (1979). Model building in comparative education: Applications of the LISREL method to cross-national survey data. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiskell. M uuss, R.E. (1996). Theories of adolescence. New York: M cGraw Hill. M yers, D.G. (1999). Social Psychology. Boston: McGraw Hill. Neale, J.M ., & Liebert, R.M. (1986). Science and Behaviour: An introduction to Methods of Research. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Neuberg, S.L. (1989). The goal of forming accurate impressions during social interactions: Attenuating the impact of negative expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 374-386. New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. (1990). NSW Lower Criminal Courts and Children's Courts Statistics.

234

Noller, P., & Patton, W. (1990). Maintaining family relationships at adolescence. In P.C.L. Heaven & V.J Callan (Eds.), Adolescence: An Australian perspective. Sydney: Harcourt Brace Janovich. Norusis, M.J. (1993). SPSS for Windows: Base system user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS, Inc. O’Connell, M ., Invernizzi, F., & Fuller, R. (1998). Newspaper readership and the perception of crime: Testing an assumed relationship through a triangulation of methods. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 29-57. O’Donnell, J., Hawkins, J.D., & Abbott, R.D. (1995). Predicting serious delinquency and substance use among aggressive boys. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 529-537. Offer, D., Ostrov, E., & Howard, K.I. (1981). The mental health professional’s concept of the normal adolescent. Archives of General Psychiatry, 38, 149-153. Offer, D., Ostrov, E., Howard, K.I., & Atkinson, R. (1988). The teenage world: Adolescents’ self-image in ten countries. New York: Plenum Publishing. Omaji, P.O. (1997). The violent juvenile offender. In A. Borowski & I. O’Connor (Eds.), Juvenile Crime and Justice Corrections. M elbourne: Longman. O’Keefe, G.J., & Reid-Nash, K. (1987). Crime news and real-world blues. Communication Research, 14, 147-163. Owen, L.S., & Carroll, M . (1997). An Australian agenda for delinquency research. In A. Borowski & I. O’Connor (Eds.), Juvenile Crime and Justice Corrections. M elbourne: Longman.

235

Parker, G., Tupling, H., & Brown, L.B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52, 1-10. Pedhazur, E.J. (1997). Multiple Regression in Behavioural Research: Explanation and Prediction. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College. Peterson, C. (1990). Disagreement, negotiation, and conflict resolution in families with adolescents. In P.C.L. Heaven & V.J Callan (Eds) Adolescence: An Australian perspective. Sydney: Harcourt Brace Janovich. Powers, S.I., Hauser, S.T., & Kilner, L.A. (1989). Adolescent mental health. American psychologist, 44, 200-208. Reiss, A.J. (1951). Delinquency and the failure of personal and social controls. American Sociological Review, 16, 196-207. Rendell, P. (1997). Youth and crime in television news bulletins. In J. Bessant & R.Hil (Eds.), Youth, crime and the media: Media representation of and reaction to young people in relation to law and order. Hobart: National Clearinghouse for Youth Studies. Richards, T.J., & Richards, L. (1994). Using computers in qualitative research. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1987). Eysenck’s personality factors and orientation toward authority among schoolchildren. Australian Journal of Psychology, 39, 151-161. Roberts, B.R. (1987). A confirmatory factor-analytic model of alienation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 346-351.

236

Rosch, E.H. (1978). Principles of categorisation. In E. Rosch & B.B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorisation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Roshier, R. (1973). The selection of crime news by the press. In S. Cohen & J. Young (Eds.), The Manufacture of News: Deviance, Social Problems and the Media. London: Constable. Roth, P.L. (1994). M issing data: A conceptual review for applied psychologists. Personnel Psychology, 47, 537-560. Rutter, M ., & Giller, H. (1983). Juvenile delinquency. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Sankey, M ., & Huon, G.F. (1999). Investigating the role of alienation in a multicomponent model of juvenile delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 95-107. Saris, W.E., & Stronkhorst, L.H. (1984). Causal modelling in nonexperimental Research: An introduction to the LISREL approach. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation. Schmidt, D.F., & Boland, S.M . (1986). The structure of impressions of older adults: Evidence for multiple stereotypes. Psychology and Aging, 1, 255-260. Scholte, E.M. (1992). Prevention and treatment of juvenile problem behaviour: A proposal for a socio-ecological approach. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20, 247-262. Schumaker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation Modelling. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schwalbe, M.L. & Staples, C.L. (1991). Gender differences in sources of self-esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54, 158-168.

237

Seeman, M . (1959). On the meaning of alienation. American Sociological Review, 34, 783-791. Sercombe, H. (1997). Youth crime and the economy of news production. In J. Bessant & R.Hil (Eds.), Youth, crime and the media: Media representation of and reaction to young people in relation to law and order. Hobart: National Clearinghouse for Youth Studies. Sherman, S.J., Judd, C.M ., & Park, B. (1989). Social cognition. In M.R. Rosenzweig & L.W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 10). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Shrauger, S.J., & Schoeneman, T.J. (1979). Symbolic interactionist view of selfconcept: Through the looking glass darkly. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 549-573. Smith, E.R., & M ackie, D.M . (1995). Social Psychology. New York: Worth Publishers. Snyder, M . (1992). M otivational foundations of behavioural confirmation. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Snyder, M ., Tanke, E.D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behaviour: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 656-666. Snyder, M ., & M eine, P. (1994). On the functions of stereotypes and prejudice. In M .P. Zanna & J.M. Olson (Eds.), The Psychology of Prejudice: The Ontario Symposium Volume 7. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

238

Snyder, M ., & Swann, W.B., Jr. (1978). Behavioural confirmation in social interaction: From social perception to social reality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 148-162. Spears, R., Oakes, P.J., Ellemers, N., & Haslam S.A. (1997). Introduction: The social psychology of stereotyping and group life. In R. Spears, P.J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S.A. Haslam (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Stereotyping and Group Life. Oxford: Blackwell. Srull, T.K., & Wyer, R.S., Jr. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1660-1672. Srull, T.K., & Wyer, R.S., Jr. (1980). Category accessibility and social perception: Some implications for the study of person memory and interpersonal judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 841-85. Standing Committee on Law and Justice (1999). Crime Prevention Through Social Support. Sydney, NSW: Parliament of New South Wales Legislative Council. Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stoller, C.L., Offer, D., Howard, K.I., & Koenig, L. (1996). Psychiatrists’ concept of adolescent self-image. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 25, 273-283. Sullivan, R., & Wilson, M .F. (1995). New directions for research in prevention and treatment of delinquency: A review and proposal. Adolescence, 30, 1-17. Surette, R. (1990). Criminal justice policy and the media. In R. Surette (Ed.), The M edia and Criminal Justice Policy. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas.

239

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row. Taylor, S.E. (1981). A categorisation approach to stereotyping. In D.L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behaviour. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Thompson, W.C., Fong, G.T., & Rosenhan, D.L. (1981). Inadmissible evidence and juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 453-463. Thornberry, T.P. (1987). Toward an interactional theory of delinquency. Criminology, 25, 863-887. Webber, R. (1998). Voices of authority: Press reports about ‘problematic’ young people. Just Policy, 14, 32-40. White, J.L., M offitt, T.E., Caspi, A., Bartusch, D.J., Needles, D.J., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M . (1994). M easuring impulsivity and examining its relationship to delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 192-205. White, R. (1997). Police practices, punishment and juvenile crime prevention. In A. Borowski & I. O’Connor (Eds.), Juvenile Crime and Justice Corrections. M elbourne: Longman. Willis, M .R. (1981). The maligning of adolescence: Why? Adolescence, 26, 953-958. Wills, T.A. (1981). Downward social comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245-271. Wilson, J.Q., & Herrnstein, R. (1985). Crime and human nature. New York: Simon & Schuster.

240

Windschuttle, K. (1988). The media: A new analysis of the press, television, radio and advertising in Australia. Ringwood, Vic: Penguin. Word, C.O., Zanna, M .P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of selffulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 109-120. Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 28-54.

241

APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix to Chapter 2 (Studies 1 through to 4)

STUDY 1: The cultural stereotype of youth List of descriptors (and mean social desirability ratings) produced in the content generation phase List of descriptors that were shown to comprise the cultural stereotype of youth STUDY 2A: Personal beliefs about youth List of descriptors that were shown to comprise young adults' personal beliefs about youth List of descriptors that were shown to comprise older adults' personal beliefs about youth STUDY 3A: Young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about youth List of descriptors that were shown to comprise young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about youth List of descriptors that were shown to comprise young people's beliefs about themselves

242

S TUDY 1 List of descriptors (and mean social desirability ratings) produced in the content generation phase Descriptor

Social desirability rating M SD

Is a drug addict Is violent Steals Is a drug user Bullies Is destructive Has low self-esteem Is disrespectful Is unhappy Is uneducated Is a trouble-maker Is dishonest Is rude Becomes pregnant Has problems at home Is depressed Is irresponsible Lacks ambition Has behaviour problems Is a dole bludger Graffitis Smokes Belongs to gangs Is undisciplined Is arrogant Uses marijuana Is easily led Is selfish Is impulsive Lacks confidence Is aggressive Is snobby Doesn't care about school Is lazy Has poor communication with parents Is spoilt

5.66 5.58 5.58 5.44 5.44 5.36 5.34 5.32 5.32 5.28 5.27 5.22 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.15 5.09 5.09 5.08 5.08 5.05 5.05 5.04 4.96 4.94 4.94 4.94 4.94 4.91 4.91 4.88 4.88 4.87 4.87 4.82 4.82

0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 0.9

243

Descriptor

Social desirability rating M SD

Is foolish Is annoying Has a bad attitude Has a defeatist attitude Swears Hates authority Watches too much TV Is bored Eats a lot of junk food Is moody Is materialistic Is rebellious Is confused Is unsupervised Is influenced by American culture Is under pressure Uses alcohol Shows off Is a fashion victim Friends are more important than family Is noisy Is wild Is skinny Is scruffy Has too easy a life Is nerdy Is sexually active Stays out until late Is fashion conscious Goes to dance parties Is outrageous Wants to be popular Hangs around in large groups Is risk taking Is layed back Is boy-girl crazy Is testing his or her limits Listens to loud music Is dreamy Skates Is outspoken

4.76 4.73 4.71 4.69 4.67 4.61 4.54 4.50 4.48 4.48 4.42 4.38 4.32 4.31 4.27 4.27 4.16 4.13 4.09 4.07 3.86 3.78 3.74 3.73 3.69 3.59 3.53 3.46 3.38 3.31 3.21 3.19 3.14 3.06 3.05 3.04 3.00 3.00 2.82 2.76 2.74

1.1 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.9 1.5 1.4 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.4

244

Descriptor

Social desirability rating M SD

Is carefree Surfs Is attractive Is talkative Wants freedom Is competitive Is adventure seeking Places great emphasis on individuality Is assertive Is sporty Is funny Is studious Has casual jobs Explores new things Is independent Is keen to travel Is smart Is computer literate Is healthy Is well mannered Is environmentally minded Is ambitious Is open minded Is caring Works hard to achieve goals Is confident Is enthusiastic Is helpful Does the right thing Is educated Is happy

2.31 2.24 2.14 1.99 1.96 1.95 1.76 1.74 1.65 1.64 1.49 1.48 1.41 1.38 1.34 1.28 1.13 1.11 1.11 1.10 1.04 1.00 0.94 0.89 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.78 0.69 0.54

1.5 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1

245

List of descriptors that were shown to comprise the cultural stereotype of youth Negative descriptors Is violent Is destructive Uses drugs Is disrespectful Is a trouble maker Is rude Has problems at home Is dishonest Is irresponsible Has behaviour problems Smokes Graffitis Belongs to gangs Is undisciplined Is impulsive Doesn’t care about school Is easily led Is selfish Is lazy Is arrogant Is aggressive Is spoilt Is foolish Has poor communication with parents Has a bad attitude Swears Hates authority Is moody Watches too much TV Eats junk food Is materialistic Is rebellious Is influenced by American culture Is unsupervised Is confused Uses alcohol Friends are more important than family Is a fashion victim Shows off

Neutral descriptors Is noisy Is wild Has too easy a life Is scruffy Stays out until late Is sexually active Is fashion conscious Goes to dance parties Wants to be popular Hangs out in large groups Is risk taking Is testing his or her limits Listens to loud music Is boy-girl crazy Positive descriptors Is dreamy Is outspoken Is talkative Wants freedom Is adventure-seeking Explores new things Is keen to travel Is computer literate

246

S TUDY 2A List of descriptors that were shown to comprise young adults' personal beliefs about youth Negative descriptors Is easily led Is impulsive Has poor communication with parents Swears Hates authority Watches too much TV Eats junk food Is moody Is materialistic Is rebellious Is confused Is influenced by American culture Is under pressure Uses alcohol Shows off Is a fashion victim Friends are more important than family Neutral descriptors Is noisy Is sexually active Stays out late Is fashion conscious Wants to be popular Hangs around in large groups Is risk taking Is boy-girl crazy Is testing his or her limits Listens to loud music Positive descriptors Wants freedom Is competitive Has casual jobs Explores new things Is keen to travel Is computer literate Is healthy Is educated

247

List of descriptors that were shown to comprise older adults' personal beliefs about youth Negative descriptors Is undisciplined Is easily led Is selfish Is impulsive Has poor communication with parents Is spoilt Swears Hates authority Watches too much TV Is bored Eats junk food Is moody Is materialistic Is rebellious Is unsupervised Is influenced by American culture Is under pressure Uses alcohol Shows off Is a fashion victim Friends are more important than family Neutral descriptors Is noisy Is sexually active Stays out late Is fashion conscious Wants to be popular Hangs around in large groups Is risk taking Is boy-girl crazy Is testing his or her limits Listens to loud music

Positive descriptors Is outspoken Wants freedom Is competitive Is adventure-seeking Is assertive Is sporty Has casual jobs Is independent Is keen to travel Is smart Is computer literate Is environmentally minded Is ambitious Is open minded Works hard to achieve goals Is confident Is enthusiastic Is educated

248

S TUDY 3A List of descriptors that were shown to comprise young people's perceptions of adults' beliefs about youth Negative descriptors Is disrespectful Is a trouble maker Is dishonest Is rude Is irresponsible Smokes Is undisciplined Is easily led Is selfish Is impulsive Doesn’t care about school Is lazy Is spoilt Is foolish Swears Hates authority Watches too much TV Eats junk food Is moody Is materialistic Is rebellious Is influenced by American culture Uses alcohol Shows off Is a fashion victim Friends are more important than family Neutral descriptors Is noisy Is wild Is scruffy Has too easy a life Stays out until late Is fashion conscious Goes to dance parties (raves) Wants to be popular Hangs around in large groups Is risk taking Is boy-girl crazy

Is testing his or her limits Listens to loud music Positive descriptors Is outspoken Is talkative Wants freedom Is sporty Is computer literate

249

List of descriptors that were shown to comprise young people's beliefs about themselves Negative descriptors Swears Hates authority Watches too much TV Eats junk food Is moody Is materialistic Is rebellious Is influenced by American culture Is under pressure Uses alcohol Is a fashion victim Neutral descriptors Stays out until late Is fashion conscious Wants to be popular Hangs around in large groups Is risk taking Is boy-girl crazy Is testing his or her limits Listens to loud music

Positive descriptors Is talkative Wants freedom Is competitive Is adventure seeking Is sporty Explores new things Is keen to travel Is computer literate Is healthy Is educated

250

Appendix B Appendix to Chapter 3 (Study 6) STUDY 6: Newspaper readership and stereotypic beliefs about youth Statistical summaries Table B4.1 Regression analysis summary table predicting beliefs that young people adhere to popular notions of adolescence from newspaper readership habits

M odel Regression

Sum of Squares df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

6.10

.02

1.42

1

1.42

Residual

22.58

96

0.24

Total

24.00

97

M odel

R

R2

Adj R 2

SE of Estimate

0.06

0.05

0.48

Stand. coeff Beta

t

Sig.

7.35

.00

-2.46

.02

1

0.24

M odel

Unstandardised coeff B SE

1 (Constant)

2.35

0.32

Pop Notions

0.03

0.02

-0.24

251

Table B4.2 Regression analysis summary table predicting beliefs that young people lack discipline from newspaper readership habits

M odel Regression

Sum of Squares df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

11.26

.00

2.52

1

2.52

Residual

21.48

96

0.22

Total

24.00

97

M odel

R

R2

Adj R 2

SE of Estimate

0.11

0.10

0.47

Stand. coeff Beta

t

Sig.

11.11

.00

-3.36

.00

1

0.32

M odel

Unstandardised coeff B SE

1 (Constant)

2.22

0.32

(Lack of) Discipline

0.04

0.02

-0.32

252

Table B4.3 Regression analysis summary table predicting beliefs that young people are seeking independence from newspaper readership habits

M odel Regression

Sum of Squares df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

1.92

.17

0.47

1

0.47

Residual

23.53

96

0.25

Total

24.00

97

M odel

R

R2

Adj R 2

SE of Estimate

0.02

0.01

0.50

Stand. coeff Beta

t

Sig.

5.84

.00

-1.39

.17

1

M odel 1 (Constant) (Seeking) Independence

0.14

Unstandardised coeff B SE 2.05

0.35

0.01

0.01

-0.14

253

Table B4.4 Regression analysis summary table predicting beliefs that young people are conventional from newspaper readership habits

M odel Regression

Sum of Squares df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

0.33

.57

0.08

1

0.08

Residual

23.73

95

0.25

Total

23.81

96

M odel

R

R2

Adj R 2

SE of Estimate

0.03

-0.07

0.50

Stand. coeff Beta

t

Sig.

4.41

.00

0.57

.57

1

0.06

M odel

Unstandardised coeff B SE

1 (Constant)

1.39

0.32

Conventionalism

0.00

0.01

0.06

254

Table B4.5 Regression analysis summary table predicting beliefs that young people engage in problem behaviour from newspaper readership habits

M odel Regression

Sum of Squares df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

3.81

.05

0.92

1

0.92

Residual

23.08

96

0.24

Total

24.00

97

M odel

R

R2

Adj R 2

SE of Estimate

0.04

0.03

0.49

Stand. coeff Beta

t

Sig.

7.37

.00

-1.95

.05

1

M odel 1 (Constant) Problem Behaviour

0.20

Unstandardised coeff B SE 2.13

0.29

0.03

0.02

-0.20

255

Table B4.6 Discriminant function analysis summary table predicting newspaper readership habits (Tests of equality of group means) Wilks’ Lambda

F

df1

df2

Sig.

Popular notions of adolescence

0.94

5.82

1

95

.02

Undisciplined

0.90

10.67

1

95

.00

Independence seeking

0.98

2.00

1

95

.16

Conventional

0.99

0.33

1

95

.57

Problem behaviour

0.95

4.88

1

95

.03

256

Appendix C Appendix to Chapter 4 (Studies 7 and 8) STUDY 7: Stereotypic beliefs about youth: Effects on evaluations of young people M aterials Pilot materials for the scrambled sentence task Scrambled sentence task Target paragraph Trait rating scales Filler task Statistical summaries STUDY 8: The behavioural confirmation of stereotypic beliefs about youth M aterials Trait rating scales Outside observer rating scale Statistical summaries

257

S TUDY 7 M aterials Pilot materials for the scrambled sentence task In the space provided below, please list as many behaviours as come to mind that are characteristic of ‘irresponsibility in young people.’ If you need, you may continue writing on the back of the page.

Now, could you please list as many behaviours as come to mind that are characteristic of ‘disrespectfulness in young people.’ Again, if you run out of space, continue on the back of the page.

258

Below is a list of behaviours that could be said to be characteristic of either “disrespectfulness” or “irresponsibility”. For each behaviour, please indicate the typical age group that the behaviour is most characteristic of. For example, if you believe that the item is most descriptive of the behaviour of young people and doesn’t describe adult behaviour at all, you would circle ‘7’. Alternatively, if you think that the item completely describes adult behaviour but is not at all characteristic of young people’s behaviour, then you should circle ‘1’. A rating of ‘4’ would indicate that the behaviour is equally characteristic of young people and adults. __________________________________________________________________ completely describes adults

completely describes y outh

1. Ignores social rules

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

2. Damages people’s property

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

3. Speeds when driving

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

4. Is never grateful

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

5. Has unprotected sex

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

6. Disregards personal safety

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

7. Takes many risks

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

8. Unhelpful toward others

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

9. Uses illegal drugs

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

10. Is a litterer

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

11. Left school early

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

12. Jumps the queue

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

13. Lives for today

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

14. Is always noisy

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

15. Lies to others

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

16. Behaviour is inconsiderate

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

17. Vandalises public property

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

18. Disobeys authority figures

1

: 2

: 3

: 4

: 5

: 6

: 7

259

completely describes adults

completely describes youth

19. Uses bad language

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

20. Often carries weapons

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

21. Always interrupts people

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

22. Often dresses inappropriately

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

23. Drives while drunk

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

24. Leaves electricity running

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

25. Has bad manners

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

26. Unwilling to work

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

27. Is always impatient

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

28. Uncaring of others

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

29. A smart alec

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

30. Defies his elders

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

31. Not security conscious

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

32. Deliberately ignores people

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

33. Late for work

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

34. Speaks over others

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

35. Doesn’t save money

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

36. Disregards others' safety

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

37. Is a shoplifter

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

38. Disregards others’ feelings

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

39. Gets into fights

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

40. Enters without knocking

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

41. Degrades other people

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

42. Threatens elderly people

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

260

completely describes adults

completely describes youth

43. Loses borrowed items

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

44. Ignores people’s advice

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

45. Forgets important appointments 46. Intolerant of elders

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

47. Leaves lights on

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

48. Graffitis public spaces

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

49. Careless with belongings

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

50. Is never punctual

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

51. Eats junk food

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

52. Doesn’t do chores

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

53. Always slams doors

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

54. Rebels against parents

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

55. Pollutes the environment

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

56. Shouts at others

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

57. Never plans ahead

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

58. Never cleans up

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

59. Has loud parties

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

60. Often drinks excessively

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

61. Room is untidy

1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

:

6

:

7

261

Scrambled sentence task Youth prime condition Be low is a se rie s of scramble d se nte nce s. Each sentence begins with the word “he” and contains four othe r words. Your task is to unscramble each sente nce so that it is me aningful and grammatically corre ct. This can only be achieved by eliminating an incorre ct word. The word “he ” is always the first word of the se ntence . For e ach scramble d se nte nce ple ase numbe r the thre e additional words ne ede d to form the me aningful and grammatically corre ct se nte nce . E.G. He planting2 is 1 tulips 3 are 1. He loud has have parties 2. He vandalises if property public 3. He threatens people an elderly 4. He the an answered phone 5. He has have the card 6. He carries often the weapons 7. He personal safety had disregards 8. He gets in on fights 9. He chores do a doesn’t 10. He thought an through it 11. He people’s damages does property 12. He the matter our discussed 13. He without with enters knocking 14. He uses drugs a illegal 15. He ignores social that rules 16. He for prepared it of 17. He got the a things 18. He has never is grateful 19. He cleans at up never 20. He a their shoplifter is 21. He read book by the

262

22. He is unprotected has sex 23. He is running electricity leaves 24. He date thee set the 25. He is defies elders his 26. He against is parents rebels 27. He public has spaces graffitis 28. He figures the disobeys authority

Neutral prime condition Be low is a se rie s of scramble d se nte nce s. Each sentence begins with the word “he” and contains four other words. Your task is to unscramble e ach se nte nce so that it is me aningful and grammatically corre ct. This can only be achieved by eliminating an incorre ct word. The word “he ” is always the first word of the se ntence . For e ach scramble d se nte nce ple ase numbe r the thre e additional words ne e de d to form the me aningful and grammatically corre ct se nte nce . E.G. He planting2 is 1 tulips 3 are 1. He the an answered phone 2. He has have the card 3. He reached it for of 4. He away it threw a 5. He date thee set the 6. He saw figure an a 7. He thought an through it 8. He an reported it on 9. He the matter our discussed 10. He ordered thus meal the 11. He for prepared it of 12. He got the a things 13. He box it lifted the 14. He bought a under ticket 15. He read book by the

263

16. He under the sound heard 17. He of door opened the 18. He a last arrived at 19. He often a comes over 20. He locked four window the 21. He marked before line the 22. He the doubted off reason 23. He saw a either movie 24. He for a hoped it 25. He you spoke most of 26. He a gave gift are 27. He for prepared it of 28. He so shirt has a

Target paragraph Adult version Ben catches the train to work on most days. It is peak hour around that time, and so he always makes sure to get to the front of the queue so that he gets a seat. Last Tuesday Ben slept in a little and arrived just as the train doors were closing. He managed to slip through the doors and a woman smiled at him and said, “That was lucky!” Ben walked straight passed her to an empty seat. As the train began to move, Ben spotted a friend of his, Tim, at the opposite end of the carriage. He yelled out to Tim to come over. His voice was so loud that everyone in the carriage looked up. Tim came over and they chatted for a few minutes. They made plans to see a movie on the weekend and Tim got off at the next stop. At that moment, Ben realised that he hadn’t eaten because he had been running late. The breakfast that his wife had made for him was probably still sitting on the table He took out a M ars bar from his bag, put his feet up on the chair in front of him, and ate his breakfast. For the remainder of the journey Ben read the newspaper. Finally the train arrived at his station. Ben got off and threw the M ars bar wrapper toward a nearby rubbish bin. He missed and it landed on the ground. He shrugged his shoulders and headed toward his work. On the way, Ben passed his favourite CD store. He just had to go in and buy something. When he got to the counter, he realised he only had $20 of his own money and $15 that he owed a friend. The CD he wanted

264

was $30 so he decided to use $10 of what he owed his friend. He would give him $5 today and pay the rest back another day. As he left the store he glanced at his watch and realised he was already 10 minutes late for work. Where had the time gone? He ran as fast as he could and walked through the doors 15 minutes late. When his boss asked why he was late Ben said that the train had arrived late. His boss commented on how unreliable public transport was and Ben took his seat. Youth version Ben catches the train to school on most days. It is peak hour around that time, and so he always makes sure to get to the front of the queue so that he gets a seat. Last Tuesday Ben slept in a little and arrived just as the train doors were closing. He managed to slip through the doors and a woman smiled at him and said, “That was lucky!” Ben walked straight passed her to an empty seat. As the train began to move, Ben spotted a friend of his, Tim, at the opposite end of the carriage. He yelled out to Tim to come over. His voice was so loud that everyone in the carriage looked up. Tim came over and they chatted for a few minutes. They made plans to see a movie on the weekend and Tim got off at the next stop. At that moment, Ben realised that he hadn’t eaten because he had been running late. The breakfast that his mum had made for him was probably still sitting on the table He took out a M ars bar from his bag, put his feet up on the chair in front of him, and ate his breakfast. For the remainder of the journey Ben read the newspaper. Finally the train arrived at his station. Ben got off and threw the M ars bar wrapper toward a nearby rubbish bin. He missed and it landed on the ground. He shrugged his shoulders and headed toward his school. On the way, Ben passed his favourite CD store. He just had to go in and buy something. When he got to the counter, he realised he only had $20 of his own money and $15 that he owed a friend. The CD he wanted was $30 so he decided to use $10 of what he owed his friend. He would give him $5 today and pay the rest back another day. As he left the store he glanced at his watch and realised he was already 10 minutes late for school. Where had the time gone? He ran as fast as he could and walked through the doors 15 minutes late. When his teacher asked why he was late Ben said that the train had arrived late. His teacher commented on how unreliable public transport was and Ben took his seat.

265

Trait rating scales Now could you please think back to your overall impression that you formed of Ben and then rate Ben on the following scales. Please make your rating by circling the appropriate number opposite each item. not at all

extremely

1. disrespectful

1

: 2

: 3

: 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8

: 9

: 10

2. irresponsible

1

: 2

: 3

: 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8

: 9

: 10

3. boring

1

: 2

: 3

: 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8

: 9

: 10

4. rude

1

: 2

: 3

: 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8

: 9

: 10

5. unreliable

1

: 2

: 3

: 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8

: 9

: 10

6. superficial

1

: 2

: 3

: 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8

: 9

: 10

7. insulting

1

: 2

: 3

: 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8

: 9

: 10

8. selfish

1

: 2

: 3

: 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8

: 9

: 10

9. greedy

1

: 2

: 3

: 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8

: 9

: 10

10. offensive

1

: 2

: 3

: 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8

: 9

: 10

11. thoughtless

1

: 2

: 3

: 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8

: 9

: 10

12. narrow-minded

1

: 2

: 3

: 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8

: 9

: 10

13. insolent

1

: 2

: 3

: 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8

: 9

: 10

14. distrustful

1

: 2

: 3

: 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : 8

: 9

: 10

266

Filler task Be low is a spe e d and accuracy numbe r che cking te st. You will be presented with pairs of numbe rs. If the two numbe rs in e ach pair are exactly the SAME, write the letter ‘S’ in the space provide d; if the y are DIFFERENT, write the le tte r ‘D’ in the space provide d. You must start and stop work immediate ly when you are told. Work as fast as you can without making mistake s.

S ample items

S 1. 6359....6359

S

S 2. 235....253

D

1. 284....284

_______

22. 5903....5903

_______

2. 1027....1027

_______

23. 44438069986....44438069884 ______

3. 34214....34214

_______

24. 142909340447....142908340447 ____

4. 618177232....618177232

_______

25. 5843280....5843250

_______

5. 6115181....6115181

_______

26. 1043672....1043672

_______

6. 9176....9177

_______

27. 44388....44377

_______

7. 977908....977908

_______

28. 906959195185....906959194185 ____

8. 364618349....364518349

_______

29. 41471025629....41471025629 ______

9. 889899....889898

_______

30. 919414631....919419631

_______

10. 437598....437568

_______

31. 80065418....80063418

_______

11. 3662063441....3662063441 _______

32. 67727....67727

_______

12. 78472....78427

_______

33. 5940241....5940241

_______

13. 876862154....876862154

_______

34. 303372....303373

_______

14. 4760921077....4760921077 _______

35. 9018481326....9018481326 _______

15. 56888759416....56888759416 ______

36. 61813196820....61813198620 ______

16. 25745....25746

_______

37. 4288....4288

17. 315....305

_______

38. 77943005392....77943055392 ______

18. 28501643362....28501643362 ______

39. 788319761694....788319761694 ____

19. 6329....6329

40. 877....877

______

20. 456558265176....456558265176 ____

41. 914305964....914304964

_______

21. 396....396

42. 849777....849977

_______

_______

_______

_______

267

43. 7371....7371

_______

72. 87452....87452

_______

44. 722056201....720256201

_______

73. 2519648....2519648

_______

45. 75138....75138

_______

74. 230241460444....230241464444 ____

46. 374860....374960

_______

75. 55856....55836

_______

47. 68080235903....68008235903 ______

76. 6845196959....6845196659 _______

48. 1423986....1423986

_______

77. 69337316128....69337316128 ______

49. 4905....4900

_______

78. 66421....66421

_______

50. 336578....336579

_______

79. 662141....662241

_______

51. 7632....7623

_______

80. 87054652....87053652

_______

52. 4333420259....4333420259 _______

81. 4690610306....4690611306 _______

53. 2831934....28331914

82. 1188530....1188530

_______

54. 971921633469....971921633469 ____

83. 11059206....11059206

_______

55. 828037142....828037142

84. 339424202....339424212

_______ _______

_______

______

56. 368....368

_______

85. 2849....2849

57. 65107100....65107110

_______

86. 1519746723....1519746423 _______

58. 24655....24655

_______

87. 564127088....564121088

_______

88. 5749364....5749394

_______

89. 778....778

_______

61. 4751493396....4751439395 _______

90. 241070....241070

_______

62. 24655....24655

_______

91. 50000778234....50000787234 ______

63. 272640775....272640755

_______

92. 44377....44377

64. 406464457....406465457

_______

93. 9057551747....9057551747 _______

59. 272640775....272640755 60. 7914....7914

______ _______

_______

65. 62707342601....62707342601 ______

94. 50746467....50747467

_______

66. 624003....624003

_______

95. 440470220284....440470220087 ____

67. 984818979....984817979

_______

96. 946....946

68. 50641918....50641908

_______

97. 7573517049....7573517069 _______

69. 3854....3854

_______

98. 761836163416....761836263416 ____

70. 4686097....4686097

_______

99. 1737718164....1737718164 _______

71. 907....907

_______

100. 5495575....5495575

_______

_______

268

S TUDY 7 Statistical summaries Table C5.1 ANOVA summary table for irresponsible ratings according to prime type (neutral versus youth) and target age (adult versus youth)

M odel Regression

Sum of Squares

df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

2.09

.06

t

Sig.

44.11

7

6.30

Residual

156.74

52

3.01

Total

200.85

59

M odel

Unstandardised Coeff. B SE

(Constant)

12.34

1.56

Prime type

1.48

1.56

Target age

0.26

Subject age

Stand Coeff Beta

7.89

.00

.81

0.95

.35

1.56

.14

0.16

.87

-0.27

0.08

-.67

-3.41

.00

Prime x Target age

2.70

1.56

1.48

1.72

.09

Subject age x Target age

0.01

0.08

-.13

-0.15

.88

Subject age x Prime type

0.08

0.08

-1.01

-1.13

.26

Subject age x Target age x Prime type -0.13

0.08

-1.46

-1.62

.11

269

Table C5.2 T-test summary table for differences in irresponsible ratings of the youth target according to prime type (youth versus neutral) Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth prime

15

7.47

1.51

0.39

Neutral prime

15

6.53

1.81

0.47

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

1.54

28

0.61

-0.31, 2.18

.14

Table C5.3 T-test summary table for differences in irresponsible ratings of the adult target according to prime type (youth versus neutral) Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth prime

15

7.00

2.07

0.53

Neutral prime

15

7.20

2.01

0.52

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

-0.27

28

0.74

-1.73, 1.33

.79

270

Table C5.4 T-test summary table for differences in irresponsible ratings of the target (adult versus youth) after the youth prime Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth target

15

7.47

1.51

0.39

Adult target

15

7.00

2.07

0.53

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

0.71

28

0.66

-0.89, 1.82

.70

Table C5.5 T-test summary table for differences in irresponsible ratings of the target (adult versus youth) after the neutral prime Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth target

15

6.53

1.81

0.47

Adult target

15

7.20

2.01

0.52

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

-0.96

28

0.70

-2.10, 0.76

.35

271

Table C5.6 ANOVA summary table for disrespectful ratings according to prime type (neutral versus youth) and target age (adult versus youth)

M odel Regression

Sum of Squares

df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

2.63

.02

t

Sig.

56.98

7

8.14

Residual

160.96

52

3.10

Total

217.93

59

M odel

Unstandardised Coeff. B SE

(Constant)

12.57

1.59

Prime type

2.71

1.59

Target age

1.66

Subject age

Stand Coeff Beta

7.93

.00

1.42

1.71

.09

1.59

.87

1.05

.30

-0.29

0.08

-.68

-3.52

.00

Prime x Target age

2.34

1.59

1.23

1.47

.15

Subject age x Target age

0.07

0.08

-.86

-0.98

.33

Subject age x Prime type -0.16

0.08

-1.79

-2.05

.05

Subject age x Target age x Prime type -0.11

0.08

-1.20

-1.38

.17

272

Table C5.7 T-test summary table for differences in disrespectful ratings of the youth target according to prime type (youth versus neutral) Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth prime

15

7.60

1.30

0.34

Neutral prime

15

6.20

1.93

0.50

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

2.33

28

0.60

0.17, 2.63

.03

Table C5.8 T-test summary table for differences in disrespectful ratings of the adult target according to prime type (youth versus neutral) Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth prime

15

7.27

1.98

0.51

Neutral prime

15

7.07

2.25

0.58

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

0.26

28

0.77

-1.39, 1.79

.80

273

Table C5.9 T-test summary table for differences in disrespectful ratings of the target (adult versus youth) after the youth prime Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth target

15

7.60

1.30

0.34

Adult target

15

7.27

1.98

0.51

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

0.55

28

0.61

-0.92, 1.59

.59

Table C5.10 T-test summary table for differences in disrespectful ratings of the target (adult versus youth) after the neutral prime Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth target

15

6.20

1.93

0.50

Adult target

15

7.07

2.25

0.58

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

-1.13

28

0.77

-2.44, 0.70

.27

274

Table C5.11 ANOVA summary table for semantically related to irresponsible ratings according to prime type (neutral versus youth) and target age (adult versus youth) Sum of Squares

df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

778.27

7

111.18

2.649

.03

Residual

2320.32

52

44.62

Total

3098.58

59

M odel

Unstandardised Coeff. B SE

t

Sig.

(Constant)

48.77

6.02

Prime type

5.05

6.02

Target age

0.44

Subject age Prime x Target age

M odel Regression

Stand Coeff Beta

8.10

.00

0.70

0.84

.41

6.02

0.06

0.07

.94

-1.04

0.30

-.67

-3.46

.00

10.91

6.02

1.52

1.81

.07

0.07

0.30

-0.02

-0.03

.98

Subject age x Prime type -0.33

0.30

-0.97

-1.10

.28

Subject age x Target age x Prime type -0.50

0.30

-1.46

-1.66

.10

Subject age x Target age

275

Table C5.12 T-test summary table for differences in semantically related to irresponsible ratings of the youth target according to prime type (youth versus neutral) Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth prime

15

7.57

1.52

0.39

Neutral prime

15

6.28

1.95

0.51

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

2.01

28

0.64

-0.10, 2.59

.05

Table C5.13 T-test summary table for differences in semantically related to irresponsible ratings of the adult target according to prime type (youth versus neutral) Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth prime

15

7.08

1.98

0.51

Neutral prime

15

7.15

1.70

0.44

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

-0.10

28

0.92

0.67

1.44, 1.31

276

Table C5.14 T-test summary table for differences in semantically related to irresponsible ratings of the target (adult versus youth) after the youth prime Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth target

15

7.57

1.52

0.39

Adult target

15

7.08

1.98

0.51

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

0.75

28

0.64

-0.83, 1.80

.46

Table C5.15 T-test summary table for differences in semantically related to irresponsible ratings of the target (adult versus youth) after the neutral prime Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth target

15

6.28

1.95

0.51

Adult target

15

7.15

1.70

0.44

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

-1.30

28

0.67

-2.24, 0.50

.21

277

Table C5.16 ANOVA summary table for semantically related to disrespectful ratings according to prime type (neutral versus youth) and target age (adult versus youth) Sum of Squares

df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

671.22

7

95.89

1.79

.11

Residual

2788.96

52

53.63

Total

3460.18

59

M odel

Unstandardised Coeff. B SE

t

Sig.

(Constant)

44.70

6.60

Prime type

12.37

6.60

Target age

7.65

Subject age Prime x Target age

M odel Regression

Stand Coeff Beta

6.77

.00

1.63

1.88

.07

6.60

1.01

1.16

.25

-0.99

0.33

-.60

-2.99

.00

7.87

6.60

1.04

1.19

.24

-0.37

0.33

-1.01

-1.11

.27

Subject age x Prime type -0.69

0.33

-1.91

-2.10

.04

Subject age x Target age x Prime type -0.37

0.33

-1.03

-1.13

.27

Subject age x Target age

278

Table C5.17 T-test summary table for differences in semantically related to disrespectful ratings of the youth target according to prime type (youth versus neutral) Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth prime

15

6.65

1.84

0.48

Neutral prime

15

5.68

2.18

0.56

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

1.34

28

0.74

-0.52, 2.49

.19

Table C5.18 T-test summary table for differences in semantically related to disrespectful ratings of the adult target according to prime type (youth versus neutral) Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth prime

15

6.40

1.67

0.43

Neutral prime

15

6.40

1.99

0.51

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

0.00

28

1.00

0.67

-1.37, 1.37

279

Table C5.19 T-test summary table for differences in semantically related to disrespectful ratings of the target (adult versus youth) after the youth prime Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth target

15

6.65

1.84

0.48

Adult target

15

6.40

1.67

0.43

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

0.39

28

0.64

-1.06, 1.56

.70

Table C5.20 T-test summary table for differences in semantically related to disrespectful ratings of the target (adult versus youth) after the neutral prime Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth target

15

5.67

2.18

0.56

Adult target

15

6.40

1.99

0.51

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

-0.96

28

0.76

-2.29, 0.83

.34

280

Table C5.21 ANOVA summary table for semantically unrelated evaluatively negative ratings according to prime type (neutral versus youth) and target age (adult versus youth) Sum of Squares

df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

296.62

7

42.37

1.06

.40

Residual

2073.97

52

39.88

Total

2370.58

59

M odel

Unstandardised Coeff. B SE

t

Sig.

(Constant)

33.17

5.69

Prime type

5.29

5.69

Target age

0.07

Subject age

M odel Regression

Stand Coeff Beta

5.83

.00

.84

0.93

.36

5.69

-.01

-0.01

.99

-0.56

0.28

-.42

-1.98

.05

Prime x Target age

1.44

5.69

.23

0.25

.80

Subject age x Target age

0.03

0.28

.13

0.13

.89

Subject age x Prime type -0.33

0.28

-1.09

-1.15

.26

Subject age x Target age x Prime type

0.28

-.17

-0.18

.86

0.05

281

Table C5.22 T-test summary table for subjects’ recall of youth primes in the adult versus youth target conditions Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Youth target

15

2.27

1.58

0.41

Adult target

15

3.40

2.26

0.58

Variances

t

df

2 tail Sig.

SE of Diff

95% CI

Equal

-1.59

28

0.71

-2.59, 0.33

.12

282

S TUDY 8 M aterials Trait rating scales Before introduction of the prime During the word guessing game, you would have almost certainly formed an initial impression of your interaction partner. Based on that impression, please rate him or her in terms of each of the following characteristics. Please make your ratings by circling the appropriate number on each of the relevant rating scales. ___________________________________________________________________ My interaction partner seems to be: not at all

extremely

1. rude

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

2. arrogant

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

3. boring

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

4. courteous

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

5. superficial

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

6. insulting

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

7. narrow-minded

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

8. offensive

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

9. humorless

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

10. incompetent

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

11. impolite

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

283

After introduction of the prime Now that you have interacted with your partner a second time, your impression of him or her might well have changed in some respects. Based on the interaction you have just had with your partner, please now indicate the degree to which he or she is characterised by each of the traits presented below. Please make your ratings by circling the appropriate number on each of the relevant rating scales. ____________________________________________________________________ My interaction partner seems to be: not at all

extremely

1. rude

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

2. arrogant

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

3. boring

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

4. courteous

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

5. superficial

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

6. insulting

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

7. narrow-minded

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

8. offensive

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

9. humorless

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

10. incompetent

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

11. impolite

1 :

2 :

3 : 4 : 5 : 6 :

7 : 8 : 9 : 10

284

Outside observer rating scale 1 - The individual is extremely polite. Continues to give clues in a friendly manner, regardless of the other’s performance. 2 - The individual is neither polite nor rude. Flattened affect indicating civil, yet indifferent attitude. 3 - Subtle signs of frustration. Occasional sighing, terseness of language. Use of long “no’s”. 4 - M oderate signs of frustration. Frequent sighing, increasing voice volume, and terseness of language. Abrupt use of “no”. 5 - Significant signs of frustration. Characterised by outward annoyance and impatience, but still attempts to remain civil. 6 - Display of moderate outward rudeness. Heightened voice level, significant outward annoyance and impatience. 7 - High levels of outward rudeness. Yelling, use of insults, and derogatory comments.

285

S TUDY 8 Statistical summaries Table C5.23 Contrasts used in the ANOVA reported in Table C5.24

M SD Contrast coefficients Between A Within B1 B2 Interaction AB1 AB2

Youth prime (n = 28) Pre Pre Post Perc. Targ. Perc. 2.93 2.87 3.10 0.72 0.50 0.60

Post Targ. 3.27 0.70

Pre Perc. 2.70 0.75

Adult prime (n = 26) Pre Post Targ. Perc. 2.43 2.57 0.68 0.79

Post Targ. 2.40 0.66

1

1

1

1

-1

-1

-1

-1

1 1

1 -1

-1 1

-1 -1

1 1

1 -1

-1 1

-1 -1

1 1

1 -1

-1 1

-1 -1

-1 -1

-1 1

1 -1

1 1

286

Table C5.24 ANOVA summary table for outside observer rudeness ratings according to prime type (youth versus adult), role (perceiver versus target) and time (before prime versus after prime)

Source

SS

Between subjects 39.84 Prime type

df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

6.77

.02

26

7.75

1

7.75

Error

32.08

25

1.15

Within subjects

26.06

81

Time

0.25

1

0.25

2.55

.12

Prime type X Time

0.92

1

0.92

9.30

.01

Error

2.77

25

0.10

Role

0.17

1

0.17

0.28

.60

Prime type X Role

0.60

1

0.60

1.01

.32

16.67

25

0.60

Prime type X Time X Role

0.05

1

0.05

0.33

.57

Error

4.38

25

0.16

Error

287

Table C5.25 ANOVA summary table for outside observer rudeness ratings of targets before the introduction of the prime according to prime type (youth versus adult) Sum of Squares

df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

1.12

.30

Between Groups

0.36

1

0.36

Within Groups

8.10

25

0.32

Total

8.46

26

Table C5.26 ANOVA summary table for outside observer rudeness ratings of targets after the introduction of the prime according to prime type (youth versus adult) Sum of Squares

df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

6.98

.01

Between Groups

2.40

1

2.40

Within Groups

8.60

25

0.34

11.00

26

Total

288

Table C5.27 ANOVA summary table for outside observer rudeness ratings of perceivers before the introduction of the prime according to prime type (youth versus adult) Sum of Squares Between Groups

df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

0.10

.95

0.67

1

0.67

Within Groups

10.68

25

0.42

Total

11.35

26

Table C5.28 ANOVA summary table for outside observer rudeness ratings of perceivers after the introduction of the prime according to prime type (youth versus adult) Sum of Squares Between Groups

df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

4.53

.04

2.75

1

2.75

Within Groups

15.16

25

0.61

Total

17.91

26

289

Table C5.29 Regression analysis summary table predicting target rudeness from prime type

M odel

Sum of Squares df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

6.98

.01

Regression

2.40

1

2.40

Residual

8.60

25

0.34

Total

11.00

26

M odel

R

R

Adj R 2

SE of Estimate

0.22

0.19

0.59

Stand. coeff Beta

t

Sig.

15.85

.00

2.64

.01

1

0.47

2

M odel

Unstandardised coeff B SE

1 (Constant)

2.40

0.15

Prime

0.60

0.23

0.47

290

Table C5.30 Regression analysis summary table predicting perceiver rudeness from prime type

M odel Regression

Sum of Squares df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

4.52

.04

2.75

1

2.75

Residual

15.16

25

0.61

Total

17.91

26

M odel

R

R

Adj R 2

SE of Estimate

0.15

0.12

0.78

Stand. coeff Beta

t

Sig.

12.76

.00

2.13

.04

1

0.39

2

M odel

Unstandardised coeff B SE

1 (Constant)

2.57

0.20

0.64

0.30

Prime

0.39

291

Table C5.31 Regression analysis summary table predicting target rudeness from perceiver rudeness

M odel

Sum of Squares df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

8.82

.01

Regression

2.87

1

2.87

Residual

8.13

25

0.33

11.00

26

Total

M odel 1

M odel 1 (Constant) Perceiver rudeness

R 0.51

2

2

SE of Estimate

R

Adj R

0.26

0.23

0.57

Stand. coeff Beta

t

Unstandardised coeff B SE 1.53

0.40

0.40

0.14

0.51

Sig. 3.82

.00

2.97

.01

292

Table C5.32 Regression analysis summary table predicting target rudeness from prime type, mediated by perceiver rudeness

M odel

Sum of Squares df

M ean Square

F

Sig.

6.32

.01

Regression

3.80

1

1.90

Residual

7.20

25

0.30

11.00

26

Total

M odel 1

R 0.59

2

2

SE of Estimate

R

Adj R

0.35

0.29

0.55

Stand. coeff Beta

t

M odel

Unstandardised coeff B SE

1 (Constant)

1.62

0.39

Prime type

0.41

0.23

0.32

Perceiver rudeness

0.30

0.14

0.39

Sig. 4.18

1.76 2.16

.00 .09 .04

293

Table C5.33 Contrasts used in the ANOVA reported in Table C5.34 Post prime

Pre prime

M SD Contrast coefficients Between A1 A2 Within B Interaction A1B A2B

Yth. Perc. 9.13 2.91

Yth. Targ. 9.73 3.10

Adlt. Perc. 11.73 3.71

Adlt. Targ. 8.73 2.41

Yth. Perc. 9.20 3.41

Yth. Targ. 9.87 3.03

Adlt. Perc. 9.67 3.32

Adlt. Targ. 9.13 3.32

1 1

1 -1

-1 1

-1 -1

1 1

1 -1

-1 1

-1 -1

1

1

1

1

-1

-1

-1

-1

1 1

1 -1

-1 1

-1 -1

-1 -1

-1 1

1 -1

1 1

294

Table C5.34 ANOVA summary table for rudeness ratings according to prime type (youth versus adult), role (perceiver versus target) and time (before prime versus after prime)

Source

SS

df

Between subjects 1018.30

M ean Square

F

Sig.

49

Prime type

3.33

1

3.33

0.19

.66

Role

9.63

1

9.63

0.56

.46

43.20

1

43.20

2.51

.12

Error

962.13

50

17.18

Within subjects

275.00

54

Time

4.03

1

4.03

0.94

.34

Prime type X Time

6.53

1

6.53

1.51

.22

Role X Time

12.03

1

12.03

2.79

.10

241.60

50

4.31

10.80

1

10.80

2.50

.11

241.60

50

4.31

Prime type X Role

Error Prime type X Role X Time Error

295

Table C5.35 Paired sample T-test summary table comparing outside observer and perceiver ratings of targets after the introduction of the prime Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Observer rating

27

2.67

0.65

0.13

Perceiver rating

27

1.15

0.46

0.09

Pair: Observer ratingPerceiver rating

27

1.52

0.70

0.13

t

df

2 tail Sig.

95% CI

11.27

26

Observer ratingPerceiver rating

.00

1.24, 1.80

Table C5.36 Paired sample T-test summary table comparing outside observer and target ratings of perceivers after the introduction of the prime Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Observer rating

27

2.85

0.83

0.16

Target rating

27

1.07

0.38

0.07

Pair: Observer ratingTarget rating

27

1.78

0.98

0.19

t

df

2 tail Sig.

95% CI

9.38

26

Observer ratingTarget rating

.00

1.39, 2.17

296

Table C5.37 Paired sample T-test summary table comparing outside observer and perceiver ratings of targets before the introduction of the prime Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Observer rating

27

2.54

0.57

0.11

Perceiver rating

27

1.19

0.48

0.09

Pair: Observer ratingPerceiver rating

27

1.35

0.65

0.13

t

df

2 tail Sig.

95% CI

10.84

26

Observer ratingPerceiver rating

.00

1.10, 1.61

Table C5.38 Paired sample T-test summary table comparing outside observer and target ratings of perceivers after the introduction of the prime Variable

N

M ean

SD

SE of M ean

Observer rating

27

2.76

0.61

0.12

Target rating

27

1.07

0.38

0.07

Pair: Observer ratingTarget rating

27

1.69

0.70

0.14

t

df

2 tail Sig.

95% CI

12.59

26

Observer ratingTarget rating

.00

1.41, 1.96

297

Appendix D Appendix to Chapter 5 (Study 9) STUDY 9: A structural model of problem behaviour: The role of young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs M aterials Cover sheet Parental care and overprotection measure Liking for school measure Young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs measure Impulsiveness measure Venturesomeness measure Normlessness measure Association with problem peers measure Engagement in problem behaviour measure Statistical summaries

298

S TUDY 9 M aterials Cover sheet This questionnaire forms part of a research study that is concerned with some of the primary experiences of teenagers in our society. In particular, we are wanting to find out about the different family-, school-, and peer-related experiences that teenagers have. Some of those experiences might be pleasant, while others can be more difficult. Our major goal is to shed some light on the way those difficult experiences can affect teenagers’ getting into some kind of trouble. We really need your help to answer these questions. Your responses to this questionnaire will be kept strictly confidential. No one other than the researchers will have access to your individual responses, and the information you give will be used only for research purposes. Thank you for your help.

299

Parental care and overprotection measure Below is a list of various attitudes and behaviours of parents. Please read each item carefully and indicate the extent to which they are characteristic of the attitudes and behaviours of your parents by circling the most appropriate number next to each item. _____________________________________________________________________ M Y M OTHER:

n ever

sometimes

usually

1. Does not help me as much as I need.

0

:

1

:

2

2. Seems emotionally cold to me.

0

:

1

:

2

3. Appears to understand my problems and worries.0

:

1

:

2

4. Likes me to make my own decisions.

0

:

1

:

2

5. Tries to control everything I do.

0

:

1

:

2

6. Tends to baby me.

0

:

1

:

2

7. Can make me feel better when I am upset.

0

:

1

:

2

8. Gives me as much freedom as I want.

0

:

1

:

2

M Y FATHER:

n ever

sometimes

usually

1. Does not help me as much as I need.

0

:

1

:

2

2. Seems emotionally cold to me.

0

:

1

:

2

3. Appears to understand my problems and worries.0

:

1

:

2

4. Likes me to make my own decisions.

0

:

1

:

2

5. Tries to control everything I do.

0

:

1

:

2

6. Tends to baby me.

0

:

1

:

2

7. Can make me feel better when I am upset.

0

:

1

:

2

8. Gives me as much freedom as I want.

0

:

1

:

2

300

Liking for school measure The following statements describe various thoughts and feelings sometimes expressed by secondary school students. We would like you to express your personal opinions by showing your agreement or disagreement with each statement. Circle 0 if you strongly agree with the statement or 4 if you strongly disagree. Otherwise, circle 1 or 3 to show that you tend to agree or disagree, and circle 2 only if you really cannot decide. _____________________________________________________________________ strongly agree

strongly d isagree

1. I am happy with the amount of freedom we have at school.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

2. I am not popular with my schoolmates.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

3. The subjects I am doing at school seem to have little relevance to the kind of job I like. 0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

4. I am interested in the subjects I do at school.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

5. The variety of subjects and units to choose from school is appropriate. 0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

6. My teachers do not show enough concern and interest in me.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

7. I find my fellow students helpful with regard to school work.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

8. I have difficulty with my school work.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

9. There is too much school work to do most of the time.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

10. I do not like the present methods of assessment at school.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

11. If I had the choice, I would rather work than stay on at school.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

301

strongly agree

strongly d isagree

12. The school should be more relaxed about rules and regulations.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

13. The standards of teaching at school are generally high and satisfactory.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

14. I have been able to get adequate guidance from school counsellors and teachers when I have work or personal problems.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

15. I often skip classes.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

16. I find the social climate at school to be generally warm and friendly.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

17. I find the teaching methods at school to be sufficiently varied and stimulating.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

18. The extracurricular activities at school (e.g. sports, clubs, interest groups, social functions, etc.) are generally boring.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

19. The variety of extracurricular activities at school is satisfactory.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

20. If not for my parents’ wish, I would leave school if I could.

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

:

4

302

Young people’s perceptions of adults’ beliefs measure We are inte re ste d in how you think adults in our community would characterise the ‘average ’ or ‘typical’ te enage r’. Please rate e ach of the behaviours in the way you think an adult in our community would re spond if the y were making judgements about the ave rage te enage r today. So, a rating of 7 would indicate that you believe an adult would think the de scriptor is e xtre me ly characte ristic of a typical te e nage r. Arating of 0 would me an that you be lie ve an adult would think the ite m is e xtre me ly uncharacteristic of a typical te enage r. Make the rating by circling the appropriate numbe r. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ extremely extremely uncharacteristic characteristic

1. Uses alcohol

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

2. Is disrespectful

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

3. Wants to be popular

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

4. Is rebellious

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

5. Watches too much T .V.

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

6. Is spoilt

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

7. Is easily led

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

8. Is noisy

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

9. Swears

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

10. Is a fashion victim

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

11. Listens to loud music

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

12. Is risk-taking

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

13. Eats a lot of junk food

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

14. Is rude

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

15. Is a trouble-maker

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

16. Smokes

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

17. Is materialistic

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

18. Is irresponsible

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

19. Is dishonest

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

20. Stays out until late

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

303

extremely uncharacteristic

extremely characteristic

21. Has too easy a life

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

22. Hates authority

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

23. Goes to dance parties (raves) 0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

24. Is selfish

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

25. Is wild

0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

26. Hangs around in large groups 0

: 1

: 2

: 3

:

4

: 5

: 6

:

7

Impulsiveness measure Below is a list of questions which describe the way people may sometimes feel and behave. Please read each question very carefully and indicate whether each of them are characteristic of you. Please answer each question by circling the appropriate number opposite each question. _____________________________________________________________________ NO YES 1. Do you generally do and say things without stopping to think?

0

:

1

2. Do you often get into a jam because you do things without thinking?

0

:

1

3. Do you usually think carefully before doing anything?

0

:

1

0

:

1

5. Do you often buy things on impulse?

0

:

1

6. Are you an impulsive person?

0

:

1

7. Do you often do things on the spur of the moment?

0

:

1

4. Do you mostly speak before thinking things out?

304

Venturesomeness measure Below is a list of questions which describe the way people may sometimes feel and behave. Please read each question very carefully and indicate whether each of them are characteristic of you. Please answer each question by circling the appropriate number opposite each question. _____________________________________________________________________ NO YES 1. Would you enjoy parachute jumping?

0

:

1

2. Would you like to learn to fly an aeroplane?

0

:

1

3. Do you find it hard to understand people who risk their necks climbing mountains?

0

:

1

4. Would you enjoy the sensation of skiing very fast down a high mountain slope?

0

:

1

5. Would you like to go cave-exploring?

0

:

1

6. Do you quite enjoy taking risks?

0

:

1

7. Do you enjoy new and exciting happenings and sensations, even if they are a little frightening and unusual?

0

:

1

8. Do you sometimes like doing things that are a bit frightening?

0

:

1

9. Would life with no danger in it be too dull for you?

0

:

1

305

Normlessness measure Below is a list of questions which describe the way people may sometimes feel and behave. Please read each question very carefully and indicate whether each of them are characteristic of you. Please answer each question by circling the appropriate number opposite each question. _____________________________________________________________________ agree

d isagree

1. It’s all right to do anything you want as long as you stay out of trouble.

0

:

1

2. It’s all right to get around the law as long as you don’t actually break it.

0

:

1

3. If something works, it doesn’t matter whether it’s right or wrong.

0

:

1

whatever the law allows

4. Do you believe that it’s all right to do whatever the law allows, or are there some things that are wrong even if they are legal?

0

some thin gs are wrong even if legal

:

1

306

Association with problem peers measure Below is a list of things that people might do. Please read each question carefully and indicate how many of your friends have done each of those things, by circling the appropriate number opposite each question. _____________________________________________________________________ HOW MANY OF YOUR FRIENDS HAVE............ 1. Obtained free games from coinoperated space invaders or other games machines?

none of my friends

a few of my friends

many of my friends

all of my friends

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

2. Bought beer, wine, spirits, or other kinds of liquor? 0

:

1

:

2

:

3

3. Used a weapon of some sort, e.g. knife,stick, chains or bottle in a fight?

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

4. Stolen things or parts out of a car? 0

:

1

:

2

:

3

5. Used illegal drugs, such as amphetamines (e.g. speed) or cocaine?

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

6. Stolen money of more than $10 in one go?

0

:

1

:

2

:

3

7. Purposely hurt or beat up someone? 0

:

1

:

2

:

3

8. Taken and driven a car or a motor bike that belonged to someone else without the owner’s consent? 0

:

1

:

2

:

3

9. Taken part in a fist fight in which a group of people was against another group? 0

:

1

:

2

:

3

307

Engagement in problem behaviour measure • Be low is a list of things that young people might do. Young people engage in a variety of activities and some might break a social rule from time to time. We want to get a true picture of the things that young pe ople in Australia, like you might do.The way you can he lp is by re ading e ach of the ite ms in this questionnaire carefully and checking whether the ite m describe s some thing that you have done in the past ye ar. •Your re sponse s to this que stionnaire will be kept strictly confidential. Please DO NOT put your name on the que stionnaire . That way the re is no way you can be identified. The information you give will be use d only for re se arch about group re sponse s. • Please re spond to all the que stions by circling the appropriate number opposite each question. HAVE YO U IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS

No

Ye s

1. Driven an unregistered car?

0

:

1

2. Driven a car or a motor bike on the roadwithout a driver’s license or a learner’s permit?

0

:

1

3. Driven a car or a bike when drunk or over the legal alcohol limit?

0

:

1

4. Raced with other vehicles while driving a car or a motor bike on the road?

0

:

1

5. Taken and driven a car or a motor bike that belonged to someoneelse without the owner’s consent?

0

:

1

6. Stolen things or parts out of a car?

0

:

1

7. Stolen a bicycle or parts from a bicycle?

0

:

1

8. Gone to see an R film?

0

:

1

9. Failed to keep a promise?

0

:

1

10. Bought beer, wine, spirits, or other kinds of liquor?

0

:

1

11. Drunk alcohol in a public place, e.g., a disco, pub, tavern, or bistro?

0

:

1

0:

1

12. Got onto a bus or into a cinema, swimming pool, disco etc without paying the proper fee? 13. Not attended class or wagged school?

0

:

1

14. Run away from home (at least overnight)?

0

:

1

15. Shoplifted from supermarkets, department stores, or shops?

0

:

1

308

No

Ye s

16. Stolen money of less than $10 (in one go) from shops, school, locker rooms, home, people’s milk money, etc.?

0

:

1

17. Stolen money of more than $10 in one go?

0

:

1

18. Been late for school, a meeting, an appointment, etc.?

0

:

1

19. Broken into a house/building with the intention of stealing something, e.g., money, exam papers, or other things?

0

:

1

20. Cheated or stolen food, drinks, or other goods from dispenser machines, e.g., by tilting or banging the machines, or using the “ wrong” coins?

0

:

1

21. Obtained free games from coin-operated space invaders or other games machines (not including reward of goodperformance by machines in the form of bonus games)?

0

:

1

22. Purposely messed up other people’s property, e.g. turning on water taps in people’s gardens, letting off fire-crackers in mail boxes, burning rubbish bins, etc.? 0

:

1

23. Purposely damaged property by starting a fire?

0

:

1

24. Purposely damaged things in public places, e.g.telephone boxes, street signs, road lamps, etc.?

0

:

1

25. Purposely damaged school desks, windows, or other school property, e.g., kicking holes in the wall?

0

:

1

26. Put graffiti on walls, toilet doors, bus panels, or other public places?

0

:

1

27. Done something that your parents did not want you to do?

0

:

1

28. Taken part in a fist fight in which a group of people was against another group?

0

:

1

29. Purposely hurt or beat up someone?

0

:

1

30. Used a weapon of some sort, e.g., knife, stick, chains or bottle in afight?

0

:

1

31. Used or threatened to use force to get money or things from another person? 0 :

1

32. Used marijuana (also called grass, dope or hash)?

0

:

1

33. Used illegal drugs, such as amphetamines (e.g. speed) or cocaine?

0

:

1

34. Abused barbiturates (also called barbs) by not properly following medical advice?

0

:

1

309

No

Ye s

35. Tricked someone on the telephone, e.g., false restaurant booking, false reports of fire alarm, bombs, etc.?

0

:

1

36. Made abusive phone calls, e.g., saying nasty or obscene things?

0

:

1

37. Been warned by the police (but without being charged) for something that you did?

0

:

1

38. Appeared in the Children’s Court for something that you did?

0

:

1

39. Told a lie to someone?

0

:

1

310

S TUDY 9 Statistical summaries Table D6.1 Results of t tests comparing male participants with no missing data with those who had missing data on at least one variable. Group Participants with Participants with no missing data missing data (n = 179) (n = 80) M SD M SD M other care 1.99 Father care 2.69 M other overprotection 2.99 Father overprotection 2.61 Liking for school 43.30 Perceptions of community beliefs 108.20 Impulsiveness 2.50 Venturesomeness 6.11 Normlessness 1.83 Association with problem peers 6.13 Engagement in problem 5.11 behaviour * Significant at t.05/11 (256) = 2.89

1.57 2.03 1.72 1.80 9.86 28.59 1.80 2.30 1.22 5.11 5.50

2.47 2.72 3.05 2.55 42.10 103.13 3.04 5.92 1.97 6.89 7.66

1.74 1.72 1.60 1.51 8.57 33.88 1.83 2.01 1.01 6.21 8.28

t -2.16 -0.12 0.25 0.24 0.85 1.04 -2.11 0.61 -0.87 -0.99 -2.35

311

Table D6.2 Results of t tests comparing female participants with no missing data with those who had missing data on at least one variable. Group Participants with Participants with no missing data missing data (n = 178) (n = 59) M SD M SD M other care 2.52 Father care 3.28 M other overprotection 3.10 Father overprotection 3.03 Liking for school 40.65 Perceptions of community beliefs 111.11 Impulsiveness 3.17 Venturesomeness 5.70 Normlessness 1.62 Association with problem peers 4.90 Engagement in problem 5.26 behaviour * Significant at t.05/11 (234) = 2.81

1.85 2.08 1.84 2.06 9.44 32.83 1.95 2.35 1.07 4.77 5.33

2.62 3.30 3.31 2.74 40.55 113.49 3.24 5.71 1.84 5.71 5.33

1.88 2.06 1.74 1.61 6.41 31.04 1.83 2.16 0.95 4.84 5.45

t -0.35 -0.07 0.76 0.87 0.07 -0.40 -0.20 -0.05 -1.38 -1.10 -0.08

312

PRELIS commands for the male model analysis DA NI=11 NO=259 M I=-1 TR=LI RA=A:\M ALES.DAT LA PROBEH PEER ALIEN COM MBEL SCHLIKE M CARE DCARE MOVERPR DOVERPR IM PULS VENT OU XB M A=PM SM =MALEMOD.PMM SA=M ALEM OD.ACM PRELIS generated correlation matrix for the male model 1. PROBEH 2. PEER 3. ALIEN 4. COMMBEL 5. SCHLIKE 6. MCARE 7. DCARE 8. MOVERPR 9. DOVERPR 10. IMPULS 11. VENT

1 1.00 0.67 0.22 0.19 -0.29 -0.07 -0.08 -0.01 -0.00 0.48 0.34

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1.00 0.13 0.18 -0.19 -0.06 0.01 0.01 -0.00 0.38 0.28

1.00 -0.11 -0.25 0.12 0.09 0.07 -0.05 0.30 0.10

1.00 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.17

1.00 -0.31 -0.30 -0.10 -0.11 -0.22 -0.06

1.00 0.57 0.20 0.12 0.26 0.18

1.00 0.15 0.29 0.17 0.05

1.00 0.56 0.09 -0.05

1.00 0.12 -0.13

1.00 0.23

1.00

PRELIS generated means and standard deviations for the male model

PROBEH PEER ALIEN COMM BEL SCHLIKE M CARE DCARE M OVERPR DOVERPR IM PULS VENT

M

SD

5.11 6.13 0.00 1.08 43.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.50 5.11 1.00 0.29 9.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

313

PRELIS commands for the female model analysis DA NI=11 NO=237 M I=-1 TR=LI RA=A:\FEMALES.DAT LA PROBEH PEER ALIEN COM MBEL SCHLIKE M CARE DCARE MOVERPR DOVERPR IM PULS VENT OU XB M A=PM SM =FEM ALEM OD.PM M SA=FEMALEMOD.ACM PRELIS generated correlation matrix for the female model 1. PROBEH 2. PEER 3. ALIEN 4. COMMBEL 5. SCHLIKE 6. MCARE 7. DCARE 8. MOVERPR 9. DOVERPR 10. IMPULS 11. VENT

1 1.00 0.68 0.28 0.33 -0.33 -0.22 -0.33 0.02 0.29 0.43 0.29

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

1.00 0.22 0.36 -0.21 -0.18 -0.28 -0.05 0.24 0.31 0.14

1.00 0.10 -0.25 0.19 0.23 -0.14 0.06 0.08 0.10

1.00 -0.12 0.22 0.11 0.06 0.11 0.14 0.14

1.00 -0.35 -0.33 -0.23 -0.31 -0.22 0.02

1.00 0.46 0.26 0.28 0.23 -0.03

1.00 0.17 0.26 0.31 0.10

1.00 0.52 0.22 -0.05

1.00 0.20 0.06

1.00 0.27

1.00

PRELIS generated means and standard deviations for the female model

PROBEH PEER ALIEN COMM BEL SCHLIKE M CARE DCARE M OVERPR DOVERPR IM PULS VENT

M

SD

5.26 4.90 0.00 1.11 40.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.33 4.77 1.00 0.33 9.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

314

LISREL commands for initial male model analysis DA NI=11 NO=179 M A=PM LA PROBEH PEER ALIEN COM MBEL SCHLIKE M CARE DCARE MOVERPR DOVERPR IM PULS VENT PM FI=M ALES.PM M AC FI=M ALES.ACM M O NY=3 NX=8 NE=2 NK=6 BE=FU,FI GA=FU,FI TD=SY,FI TE=SY,FI VA .938 LY 1 1 VA .120 TE 1 1 VA .949 LY 3 2 VA .100 TE 3 3 VA .969 LX 1 1 VA .061 TD 1 1 VA .889 LX 2 2 VA .210 TD 2 2 VA .835 LX 8 6 VA .303 TD 8 8 VA 1.00 LX 3 3 VA 1.00 LX 5 4 VA 1.00 LX 7 5 VA 0.00 TD 7 7 FR LY 2 1 FR TE 2 2 FR LX 4 3 LX 6 4 FR TD 3 3 TD 4 4 TD 5 5 TD 6 6 FR BE 1 2 FR GA 2 2 GA 2 5 GA 1 5 GA 1 6 GA 1 1 GA 1 3 GA 1 2 GA 1 4 LK COMM SCHOOL CARE OVERPR IM P VENTURE LE DELINQ NORM PATH DIAGRAM OU M I EF SC

315

LISREL commands for the modified male model with parental overprotection (OVERPR) removed DA NI=11 NO=179 MA=PM LA PROBEH PEER ALIEN COM MBEL SCHLIKE M CARE DCARE MOVERPR DOVERPR IM PULS VENT SE PROBEH PEER ALIEN COM MBEL SCHLIKE M CARE DCARE IMPULS VENT/ PM FI=M ALES.PM M AC FI=M ALES.ACM M O NY=3 NX=6 NE=2 NK=5 BE=FU,FI GA=FU,FI TD=SY,FI TE=SY,FI VA .938 LY 1 1 VA .120 TE 1 1 VA .949 LY 3 2 VA .100 TE 3 3 VA .969 LX 1 1 VA .061 TD 1 1 VA .889 LX 2 2 VA .210 TD 2 2 VA .835 LX 6 5 VA .303 TD 6 6 VA 1.00 LX 3 3 VA 1.00 LX 5 4 VA 0.00 TD 5 5 FR LY 2 1 FR TE 2 2 FR LX 4 3 FR TD 3 3 TD 4 4 FR BE 1 2 FR GA 2 2 GA 2 4 GA 1 5 GA 1 1 GA 1 3 GA 1 2 LK COMM SCHOOL CARE IM P VENTURE LE DELINQ NORM PATH DIAGRAM OU M I EF SC

316

LISREL commands for the modified male model with parental overprotection (OVERPR) and alienation (NORM) removed DA NI=11 NO=179 M A=PM LA PROBEH PEER ALIEN COM MBEL SCHLIKE M CARE DCARE MOVERPR DOVERPR IM PULS VENT SE PROBEH PEER COM M BEL SCHLIKE M CARE DCARE IMPULS VENT/ PM FI=M ALES.PM M AC FI=M ALES.ACM M O NY=2 NX=6 NE=1 NK=5 BE=FU,FI GA=FU,FI TD=SY,FI TE=SY,FI VA .938 LY 1 1 VA .120 TE 1 1 VA .969 LX 1 1 VA .061 TD 1 1 VA .889 LX 2 2 VA .210 TD 2 2 VA .835 LX 6 5 VA .303 TD 6 6 VA 1.00 LX 3 3 VA 1.00 LX 5 4 VA 0.00 TD 5 5 FR LY 2 1 FR TE 2 2 FR LX 4 3 FR TD 3 3 TD 4 4 FR GA 1 1 GA 1 2 GA 1 3 GA 1 4 GA 1 5 LK COMM SCHOOL CARE IM P VENTURE LE DELINQ PATH DIAGRAM OU M I EF SC

317

LISREL commands for female model analysis DA NI=11 NO=178 M A=PM LA PROBEH PEER ALIEN COM MBEL SCHLIKE M CARE DCARE MOVERPR DOVERPR IM PULS VENT PM FI=FEMALES.PM M AC FI=FEMALES.ACM M O NY=3 NX=8 NE=2 NK=6 BE=FU,FI GA=FU,FI TD=SY,FI TE=SY,FI VA .938 LY 1 1 VA .120 TE 1 1 VA .949 LY 3 2 VA .100 TE 3 3 VA .969 LX 1 1 VA .061 TD 1 1 VA .889 LX 2 2 VA .210 TD 2 2 VA .835 LX 8 6 VA .303 TD 8 8 VA .240 TD 5 5 VA 1.00 LX 3 3 VA 1.00 LX 5 4 VA 1.00 LX 7 5 VA 0.00 TD 7 7 FR LY 2 1 FR TE 2 2 FR LX 4 3 LX 6 4 LX 6 3 FR TD 3 3 TD 4 4 TD 6 6 FR BE 1 2 FR GA 2 3 GA 2 4 GA 1 5 GA 1 1 GA 1 2 GA 1 6 LK COMM SCHOOL CARE OVERPR IM P VENTURE LE DELINQ NORM PATH DIAGRAM OU M I EF SC