Response to Pettigrew\'s Rejoinder

COMMENTS AND REJOINDERS

205

COLEMAN, J. S., CAMPBELL, E. Q., HOBSON, C. J., MCPARTLAND, J., MOOD,A. M., WEINFELD, F. D., & YORK,R. L. Equality of Educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. LAMBERT, R. D., & BRESSLER, M. The sensitive-area complex: A contribution to the theory of guided culture contacts. American Journal of Sociology, 1955, 60, 583-592. MUSSEN, P. H. Some personality and social factors related to changes in children’s attitudes toward Negroes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1950,45,423-441. P E ~ I G R ET. WF. , Racially separate or together? Journal of Social Issues, 1969, 25, 43-69. SHERIF, M., HARVEY, D. J., WHITE,B. J., HOOD,W. R., & SHERIF, Caroline. Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. Norman, Oklahoma: Institute of Group Relations, 1961. U S . COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS. Racial isolation in the public schools. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.

Response to Pettigrew ’s Rejoinder

Russell Eisenman Temple University In his rejoinder Pettigrew advocates a position somewhat different from that in his original article. I n his rejoinder he advocates using Allport’s (1 954) four situational characteristics as criteria to analyze racial contact situations. Since Allport’s four conditions were not attained in the contact studies which I mentioned in my critique, Pettigrew feels he was justified in omitting them from his original article. A re-reading of that original article will show that his claim is unjustifiable. Pettigrew did not apply Allport’s four conditions to the articles he reviewed, but instead chose contact studies with favorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the four conditions were present. This is most apparent on pages 54 and 55 of Pettigrew’s original paper where, beginning his section on Contact Studies, he states, “The most solid social psychological evidence of racial attitude change comes from the contact studies. Repeated research in a variety of newly desegregated situations discovered that the attitudes of both whites and Negroes toward each other markedly improved.” Next, a series of studies are reported with favorable effects of contact. Yet most Seem to fall short of Allport’s four conditions; Pettigrew cannot reasonably use Allport’s conditions as a reason for not citing negative results, but ignore these conditions when dealing with positive results. An excellent review of contact studies is contained in a paper by Amir (1969). H e presents both positive and negative results,

206

COMMENTS AND REJOINDERS

and considers many important methodological problems. Amir also agrees with me and not Pettigrew when he writes: The studies reported earlier in this section considered the direction (i.e., positive or negative) of the initial attitude as a determinant and the intensity as an outcome. Specifically, it was found that initial positive attitudes tend to become more positive as a result of contact situations, and initial negative attitudes will tend to become more negative (Amir, 1969, p. 337).

Amir considers both equal-status contacts and non-equalstatus contacts. His review is recommended to all interested in this important area. REFERENCES ALLPORT, G.W. T h e nature ofprejudice. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954. AMIR,Y. Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 71, 31 9-342.

Comment on: The Promotion of Prejudice

Elizabeth Alfert University of California, Berkeley Studies of prejudice have often been concerned with demonstrating the relationship of prejudice to personality factors, to child rearing, or to social conditions. Social scientific journals have described expressions of prejudice, as well as ways to decrease it. It might be of interest, however, to follow a case in which the publicized views held by an educational psychologist would appear to increase prejudice and to examine the various factors that interacted and contributed to such a n effect. The Originator. Arthur Jensen, a Professor of Education at the University of California in Berkeley, had been asked by the Haruard Educational Review to write an article on the nature of intelligence and the extent to which it can be modified by experience. The editors of that journal sent Jensen a n outline of the topics they wanted him to treat and, according to the editors, this outline made no mention of racial differences in intelligence. I n a mimeographed statement dated March 5, 1969, the editors of the Harvard Educational Review, apparently trying to satisfy the many inquiries about the Jensen review, state: “The outline sent to Dr. Jensen made no specific mention of a discussion of racial differences in intelligence. However, it is our policy with respect to such outlines that they are only a general indication of the areas we want the author to cover and that he is free to carry out our general charge to him in the way he thinks most appropriate. ’’