Racial and gender exclusion affect novel group identity

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content Copyright
2012

Charisse
L’Pree
Corsbie-‐Massay

RACIAL
AND
GENDER
EXCLUSION
AFFECT
NOVEL
GROUP
IDENTITY

by

Charisse
L’Pree
Corsbie-‐Massay

A
Dissertation
Presented
to
the

FACULTY
OF
THE
USC
GRADUATE
SCHOOL

UNIVERSITY
OF
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA

In
Partial
Fulfillment
of
the

Requirements
for
the
Degree

DOCTOR
OF
PHILOSOPHY

(PSYCHOLOGY)

August
2012

ii

Acknowledgements

This
project
began
with
a
very
personal
observation:
I
spent
hundreds
of

thousands
of
hours
in
front
of
a
television,
and
almost
never
saw
anyone
that
looked

like
me
or
had
a
similar
life
story.
I
wanted
to
know
how
this
exclusion,
or
absence,

from
television
affected
me.

But
no
individual
exists
in
a
vacuum,
and
the
wonderful
people
that
have

come
into
my
life
provide
important
counter
examples
to
the
“normality”
and

happiness
presented
onscreen.

This
research
has
been
30
years
in
the
making,
and
I

would
like
to
thank
everyone
that
I
have
met
in
that
time,
as
each
of
them
helped
me

discover
something
about
myself
and
made
this
research
possible.

My
family,
a
delightful
medley
of
geniuses
and
hooligans,
has
always
been

supportive.
My
mother
consistently
demonstrated
that
women
could
be
successful,

driven,
independent,
and
good
at
math.
My
stepfather
taught
me
that
loyalty
and

responsibility
were
essential
to
internal
happiness.
My
grandfather
always
touted

the
importance
of
enjoying
life;
“If
you
don’t
bring
home
at
least
one
‘B,’
then
you

aren’t
having
fun.”
And
my
brothers
showed
me
that
your
personal
choices
should

never
be
affected
by
other
people’s
mistakes.

My
friends
have
always
felt
like
family.
As
a
16-‐year-‐old
freshman,
Senior

House
was
a
second
home
where
I
learned
to
be
proud
of
weirdness
and

abnormality,
and
that
every
day
is
an
opportunity
for
new
experiences.
“Sport

Death:
Only
Life
Can
Kill
You.”
My
best
friend,
Teresa
Fazio,
is
the
smartest
person
I

know;
we
have
been
together
since
fourth
grade,
despite
being
completely
different

iii

people,
and
I
am
eternally
grateful
for
her
knowledge
and
love.
My
academic

brother,
Johnnie
Christensen,
held
my
hand
through
graduate
school
and
into
the

future,
regardless
of
geographical
distance.
Last,
but
definitely
far
from
my
least,
my

director,
editor,
and
friend,
Greg
Townsend,
provided
me
with
professional
and

perfect
videos,
and
I
regularly
credit
him
as
my
research
savior.

Over
the
years,
I
have
also
been
blessed
with
many
advisors
who
have
helped

me
grow
as
a
person
and
as
a
researcher.
Whitman
Richards
and
Pawan
Sinha
made

sure
that
I
graduated
from
MIT,
even
when
I
wanted
to
stop
trying.
Henry
Jenkins

taught
me
the
value
of
my
own
research
interests
at
an
early
age,
and
continued
to

do
so
as
a
member
of
my
dissertation
committee.
Tara
McPherson
ensured
that
I

pursued
these
interests
at
USC’s
School
of
Cinematic
Arts,
even
if
they
were
not

perfectly
in
line
with
my
degree
program.
Finally,
Stephen
Read
and
Lynn
Miller

granted
me
an
amazing
level
of
research
freedom
in
the
psychology
department,

which,
I
have
come
to
learn,
is
not
common,
and
deserves
my
extreme
gratitude.

In
the
interest
of
space,
I
have
omitted
hundreds
of
other
individuals
who

have
changed
me,
and
my
research,
for
they
are
one
and
the
same:
research
is
me-‐
search,
and
the
media
made
me
crazy.

iv

Table
of
Contents

Acknowledgements
ii

List
of
Tables
vi

List
of
Figures
vii

Abstract
viii

Introduction
1

Prior
Literature
2

Pilot
Study
1:
Racial
Exclusion
from
a
College
Promotional
Video
8

Pilot
Study
2:
Racial
Exclusion
from
a
College
Promotional
Brochure
11

Current
Research
13

Study
1:
Attraction
to
a
Novel
Group:
Digital
Heroes
15

Study
2:
Racial
Exclusion
from
a
Novel
Group
26

Study
3:
Gender
Exclusion
from
a
Novel
Group
40

General
Discussion
46

References
61

Appendix
A:
Digital
Heroes
Script
67

Appendix
B:
List
of
Measures
and
Reliability
Scores
for
Studies
2
and
3
69

Appendix
C:
Demographic
Measures
71

Appendix
D:
Rosenberg
Self-‐Esteem
72

v

Appendix
E:
12-‐item
Affect,
Needs,
and
Inclusion
(ANI)
73

Appendix
F1:
25-‐item
Group-‐Related
Behaviors
(i.e.,
Online
Activities)
74

Appendix
F2:
10-‐item
Group-‐Related
Behaviors
(i.e.,
Online
Activities)
76

Appendix
G:
Collective
Self-‐Esteem
with
Digital
Heroes
77

Appendix
H:
Attention,
Credibility,
and
Attitudes
79

Appendix
I:
Racial
and
Gender
Identity
80

vi

List
of
Tables

Table
1:
Rotated
component
matrix
of
Collective
Self-‐Esteem
(CSE)
Scale
23

Table
2:
Differences
by
self-‐categorization

24

Table
3:
Average
change
in
racial
identity
by
video
condition
and

self-‐categorization
as
a
Digital
Hero
37

Table
4:
Average
change
in
gender
identity
by
video
condition
and

self-‐categorization
as
a
Digital
Hero
44

Table
5:
List
of
Measures
and
Reliability
Scores
69

vii

List
of
Figures

Figure
1:
Interaction
between
video
condition
and
race
on
transformed

worth
as
a
university
member
10

Figure
2:
Digital
Heroes
control
video
18

Figure
3:
Interaction
between
self-‐categorization
and
self-‐esteem
on

importance
of
Digital
Heroes
to
self
and
worth
as
a
Digital
Hero
25

Figure
4:
Racial
exclusion
versions
of
the
Digital
Heroes
video
31

Figure
5:
3-‐way
interaction
between
video
condition,
self-‐categorization
as

a
Digital
Hero,
and
baseline
racial
identity
on
worth
as
a
Digital
Hero
35

Figure
6:
Interaction
between
video
condition
and
baseline
racial
identity

on
transformed
negative
affect
38

Figure
7:
Gender
exclusion
versions
of
the
Digital
Heroes
video
41

Figure
8:
3-‐way
interaction
between
video
condition,
self-‐categorization,

and
baseline
gender
identity
on
Importance
of
Digital
Heroes
to
self
43

Figure
9:
3-‐way
interaction
between
video
condition,
self-‐categorization,

and
baseline
racial
identity
on
Digital
Hero
identity
composite
47

Figure
10:
3-‐way
interaction
between
video
condition,
self-‐categorization,

and
baseline
gender
identity
on
Digital
Hero
identity
composite
48

viii

Abstract

Groups
are
an
important
component
of
self-‐concepts
and
essential
to

survival;
however,
the
demographic
composition
of
a
group
often
provides

important
cues
as
to
whether
an
individual
will
be
accepted
and
this
implicit

information
can
affect
our
identification
with
novel
groups.
Although
prior
research

regarding
ambient
belonging
and
group-‐level
ostracism
have
attempted
to
address

the
issue
of
gender
exclusion,
no
research
to
date
investigates
racial
exclusion,

identity
with
the
targeted
group
(e.g.,
racial
identity,
gender
identity),
or
affiliation

with
the
excluding
group.
Drawing
on
several
psychological
theories
including
social

identity,
ostracism,
and
discrimination,
the
current
research
features
independently

produced
videos
for
"Digital
Heroes,"
a
group
of
young
Americans
interested
in
new

and
interactive
media,
that
systematically
omit
specific
racial
and
gender
groups
to

investigate
the
effects
of
racial
and
gender
exclusion
on
viewer
self-‐concepts,

identity,
and
attitudes.

Results
reveal
that,
for
participants
that
self-‐categorize
with
a
novel
group

(i.e.,
"I
am
a
Digital
Hero"),
racial
and
gender
exclusion
interact
with
racial
and

gender
identity
in
a
similar
manner:
For
participants
highly
identified
with
their

race
or
gender,
demographic
group
exclusion
resulted
in
lower
Digital
Hero
identity,

whereas
participants
not
highly
identified
with
their
race
or
gender
reported

greater
Digital
Hero
identity
when
their
demographic
group
was
excluded.
These

findings
indicate
that
identification
with
the
targeted
demographic
group
(e.g.,
race,

gender)
activates
different
mechanisms
for
coping
with
demographic
group

ix

exclusion
from
a
group
with
which
the
participant
desires
to
belong,
and
provide

insight
into
the
effects
of
excluding
other
demographic
groups
(e.g.,
religion,

sexuality,
body
size).
Furthermore,
although
the
effects
of
racial
and
gender

exclusion
on
identity
with
the
novel
group
were
similar,
only
racial
exclusion

increased
negative
mood
indicating
that
racial
exclusion,
but
not
gender
exclusion,

was
personally
painful.
These
findings
are
relevant
to
a
variety
of
research
areas

including
intergroup
relations,
social
exclusion,
social
identity,
identity
threat,
and

discrimination
as
well
as
fields
outside
of
psychology
including
communication
and

media
studies,
political
science,
and
race
and
gender
studies.

1

Introduction

Groups
are
an
important
component
of
self-‐concepts
and
satisfy
several

psychosocial
needs,
including
our
need
to
belong
(Baumeister,
1986),
and
we
often

draw
on
a
variety
of
information
to
determine
whether
being
a
part
of
a
group
will

be
a
satisfying
experience.
The
experience
of
demographic
group
exclusion,
or
the

absence
of
one’s
subgroup
(e.g.,
race,
gender)
from
a
larger
novel
group
(e.g.,

college,
nationality)
is
an
important
situational
cue
that
can
indicate
that
members

of
a
specific
demographic
group
are
not
welcome
in,
or
appreciated
by,
the
larger

group.
This
experience
is
common
to
many
groups
including
the
elderly,
the

overweight,
and
communities
of
color,
and
can
threaten
fundamental
psychosocial

needs,
like
the
need
for
positive
self-‐esteem
and
the
need
to
belong,
especially
for

those
who
self-‐categorize
with
the
excluding
group.

The
current
research
is
in
line
with
a
growing
body
of
work
investigating

subtle
and
pervasive
forms
of
discrimination
and
exclusion
through
environmental

social
cues
that
activate
stereotypes
and
affect
behavior
(Steele,
Spencer,
&
Aronson,

2002;
Stout
&
Dasgupta,
2011).
It
is
hypothesized
that
demographic
group
exclusion

from
an
attractive
novel
group,
or
a
group
of
individuals
with
similar
backgrounds

and
interests,
will
be
moderated
by
self-‐categorization
with
the
novel
group
and

identity
with
the
demographic
group
(e.g.,
race,
gender)
targeted
for
exclusion.

Understanding
this
unique
experience
relies
on
a
combination
of
areas
in
social

psychology
including
social
identity,
discrimination,
and
social
exclusion.
The

2

current
research
presents
a
series
of
studies
that
draw
on
social
exclusion
and
social

identity
in
order
to
address
the
following
research
questions:

1. Does
demographic
group
exclusion
affect
self-‐categorization
with
a
novel

group?

2. Does
demographic
group
exclusion
affect
identity
with
a
novel
group?

3. Is
demographic
group
exclusion
a
form
of
identity
threat?

Prior
Literature

Recent
research
reveals
that
implicit
environmental
cues
regarding
the

composition
of
a
group
can
affect
participants’
desire
to
be
a
part
of
said
group.
This

work
draws
on
the
well-‐researched
area
of
social
exclusion,
which
reveals
that

various
forms
of
interpersonal
exclusion
including
rejection,
ostracism,
and
the

prospective
of
a
future
alone
result
in
negative
mood,
and
threats
to
psychosocial

needs
including
lower
self-‐esteem,
and
lower
feelings
of
belonging
and
control

(Baumeister
&
Leary,
1995).
Furthermore,
socially
excluded
participants
report

lower
ratings
of
(Williams
&
Sommer,
1997),
less
desire
to
engage
with
(Williams,

Govan,
Croker,
Tynan,
Cruickshank,
&
Lam,
2002),
and
greater
aggression
towards

the
source
of
exclusion
(Buckley,
Winkel,
&
Leary,
2004),
be
it
individuals
or
groups.

Recent
research
has
investigated
how
exclusionary
cues
can
result
in
similar

outcomes
to
interpersonal
social
exclusion.

In
a
series
of
studies
by
Cheryan,
Plaut,
Davies,
and
Steele
(2009),
female

undergraduate
students
reported
less
desire
to
pursue
computer
science
when

3

exposed
to
a
room
featuring
items
stereotypical
of
computer
science
like
Star
Trek

posters
and
video
games,
as
compared
to
a
room
filled
with
neutral
objects
like

nature
posters
and
phonebooks
(Study
1);
when
participants
were
told
that
the

work
environment
was
occupied
by
an
all
female
team
without
mention
of

“computer
science,”
they
still
reported
less
interest
in
the
work
team
(Study
2).
This

effect
was
mediated
by
perceived
masculinity
of
the
work
team;
stereotypical

environments
resulted
in
greater
perceived
masculinity
and
lower
feelings
of

belonging,
which
affected
interest
in
the
team.
Recent
studies
by
Stout
and
Dasgupta

(2011)
revealed
that
women
reported
greater
expected
ostracism
in
the
work

environment,
less
motivation
to
pursue
the
job,
and
less
identification
with
the
job

when
the
description
of
the
office
environment
at
a
potential
employer
featured

gender-‐exclusive
language
(e.g.,
“he”)
compared
to
women
who
read
matched

material
featuring
gender
inclusive
language
(e.g.,
“he
or
she”).
Combined,
this

research
indicates
that
exclusion
of
one’s
demographic
group
from
a
larger
novel

group,
either
through
stereotypical
environmental
cues
or
gender-‐specific

pronouns,
is
an
important
cue
that
informs
participants
of
their
place
within
a
novel

group,
and
decreases
identity
with
a
novel
group.

However,
these
studies
do
not
address
several
important
questions:

(1)
Are
the
effects
of
racial
exclusion
similar?
"Environments
that
are

incompatible
with
one
of
the
more
prominent
social
identities
(e.g.,
gender,
race)

may
cause
a
powerful
deterrence"
(Cheryan,
Plaut,
Davies,
&
Steele,
2009,
p.2).
The

aforementioned
research
only
investigates
gender
exclusion,
citing
the
lack
of

4

gender
diversity
in
the
workplace.
Gender
exclusion
may
be
easier
to
manipulate

through
the
use
of
gender-‐specific
pronouns,
but
the
experience
of
racial
exclusion

and
diversity
is
just
as
important
and
pervasive.

(2)
Are
there
differences
between
subgroups?
In
the
above
studies,
effects

were
only
found
among
women,
but
comparative
exclusionary
manipulations
were

not
developed
for
men,
thereby
making
it
impossible
to
investigate
group

differences.
It
is
uncertain
as
to
whether
men
would
react
similarly
to
gender

exclusion
manipulations,
or
whether
the
effect
of
racial
exclusion
would
differ

between
racial
groups.

(3)
Does
identity
with
the
targeted
demographic
group
moderate
the
effects
of

demographic
group
exclusion?
Identification
with
the
targeted
group
(e.g.,
gender

identity)
was
not
assessed
in
the
aforementioned
studies.
Cheryan,
Plaut,
Davies,

and
Steele
(2009)
found
that
perceived
masculinity
mediated
the
effect
of
ambient

exclusion
on
identification
with
the
novel
group,
which
may
be
the
opposite
of

femininity,
or
female
gender
identification,
but
this
assumption
is
not
clear.
Identity

with
the
targeted
group
may
serve
to
moderate
or
even
mediate
the
effects
of

demographic
group
exclusion.

(4)
What
is
the
effect
of
self-‐categorization
with
the
novel
(excluding)
group?

The
design
of
the
aforementioned
research
feature
participants
that
are
not

affiliated
with
the
excluding
group
(i.e.,
non-‐computer
science
majors,
a
potential

work
environment).
Categorization
with
the
excluding
novel
group,
or
exclusion

from
an
ingroup,
may
affect
the
response
to
demographic
group
exclusion;
Prior

5

research
reveals
that
participants
temper
their
negative
reactions
to
social

exclusion
when
future
interactions
(e.g.,
work
group,
long
term-‐companions)
are

expected
(Williams
&
Sommer,
1997).

Although
social
exclusion
provides
a
cursory
framework
for
addressing

issues
of
demographic
group
exclusion,
addressing
these
pending
questions
demand

the
incorporation
of
social
identity,
or
the
importance
of
groups
to
the
individual.

According
to
Social
Identity
Theory
(SIT),
the
value
and
distinctiveness
associated

with
one’s
ingroups
(i.e.,
groups
with
which
the
individual
is
affiliated)
is
closely

related
to
personal
self-‐esteem,
and
this
connection
drives
individuals
to
maintain

positive
self-‐concepts
(Tajfel
&
Turner,
1979,
1986;
Baumeister
&
Leary,
1995).

Identity
with
stigmatized
groups
complicates
this
theoretical
rubric;
“Social
Identity

Theory
is
at
its
strongest
and
its
weakest
when
it
deals
with
the
case
of
minority

groups,
who
have
an
unsatisfactory
social
identity”
(Milner,
1996,
p.
263).
According

to
SIT
and
SCT,
individuals
should
choose
to
dis-‐identify
with
groups
that
are
of
low-‐
status
or
negatively
valued,
but
this
is
not
often
the
case.
Extensive
research
into

racial
identity
has
consistently
demonstrated
that
racial
and
ethnic
minorities

report
greater
racial
identity
(Phinney,
1992);
additional
work
into
optimal

distinctive
theory
(Brewer,
1991)
demonstrates
that
those
in
numerical
minorities

also
derive
positive
self-‐concepts
from
the
distinctiveness
of
the
smaller
group.

Social
identity
is
generally
associated
with
positive
personal
effects
like

feelings
of
belonging
and
prosocial
behavior
towards
other
ingroup
members

(Ashmore,
Deaux,
&
McLaughlin-‐Volpe,
2004),
but
identification
with
groups
can

6

leave
individuals
vulnerable
to
identity
threat,
or
negative
information
about
one’s

ingroups,
resulting
in
lower
self-‐esteem.

Identity
threat
can
range
from
explicit

attacks
like
discrimination
to
implicit
environmental
cues
like
ambient
belonging

and
group
level
ostracism,
and
reactions
to
identity
threat
are
moderated
by

identity
with
the
targeted
group.
As
described
above,
demographic
group
exclusion

is
an
indicator
of
an
individual’s
potential
place
within
a
group,
and
may
be

considered
an
identity
threat
especially
when
exclusion
comes
from
a
novel
group

to
which
the
individual
already
belongs
(e.g.,
national
identity,
university
affiliation).

Prior
research
reveals
that
identity
threat
and
increased
identity
salience
can
result

in
increased
identity
with
the
targeted
group
(Phinney,
1992;
Ethier
&
Deaux,

1994).
However
other
research
demonstrates
that
reactions
to
identity
threat

depend
on
identity
with
the
targeted
group.

Individuals
high
in
identity
with
the
targeted
group
are
more
likely
to
be

personally
affected
by
threats
to
their
demographic
group;
for
these
individuals,

their
group
identity
is
closely
tied
to
their
personal
identity
and
negative

information
about
the
group
often
indicates
negative
information
about
the

individual.
These
findings
are
most
prominent
among
traditionally
discriminated

racial
groups,
who
tend
to
report
higher
identity
with
their
race
(Phinney,
1992);

non-‐White
populations
are
more
likely
to
suffer
from
discrimination
and
report

greater
psychological
suffering
(Schmitt
&
Branscombe,
2002)
and
women
report

more
negative
reactions
to
interpersonal
rejection
(Leary,
Tambour,
Terdal,
&

Downs,
1995),
and
demonstrate
negative
effects
when
serving
as
the
only

7

representative
of
their
gender
in
a
group
(Sekaquaptewa
&
Thompson,
2002).

To

cope
with
this
personal
threat,
high-‐identified
individuals
are
also
more
likely
to

attribute
interpersonal
exclusion
to
issues
of
stigmatization
(Major,
Quinton,
&

McCoy,
2002;
Stroebe,
Ellemers,
Barreto,
&
Mummendey,
2009)
and
embrace
the

targeted
group,
drawing
on
positive
experiences
to
counteract
the
negative

information
(Ethier
&
Deaux,
1994).
Other
coping
mechanisms
include
denigrating

outgroups,
or
altering
the
comparison
outgroup
to
ensure
that
the
value
of
the

ingroup
is
elevated
(Crocker
&
Luhtanen,
1990;
Taylor
&
Brown,
1988).

Low-‐identified
individuals
may
not
experience
such
negative
effects
on
self-‐
concepts,
as
the
group
is
not
important
to
their
personal
identity;
research
on

privileged
groups
reveals
increased
positive
mood
(Heikes,
1991)
and
performance

(Steele
&
Aronson,
1995;
Sekaquaptewa,
&
Thompson,
2002)
when
faced
with

identity
threat.
These
individuals
may
consider
single
instances
of
discrimination
as

anomalies
(Major
&
O’Brien,
2005)
and
distance
themselves
from
the
threat
to
the

group
(Ethier
&
Deaux,
1994),
shifting
their
identity
to
an
alternative,
more
positive

group
(Ellemers,
Spears,
&
Doosje,
2002)
to
protect
their
self-‐esteem.
This
re-‐
categorization
of
self
serves
to
protect
self-‐concepts
according
to
Social

Categorization
Theory
(SCT),
which
acknowledges
that
identification
with
groups

changes
depending
on
psychological
and
social
context
(Turner,
1987),
and
this

flexible
identification
strategy
ensures
that
individuals’
self
concepts
and

psychosocial
needs
are
satisfied.

8

In
addition,
the
aforementioned
studies
investigating
ambient
belonging
and

group-‐level
ostracism
measure
key
dependent
variables
like
interest
in
and

identification
with
the
novel
group
(e.g.,
computer
science
major,
potential

workgroup
environment)
using
researcher-‐developed
2-‐
to
4-‐item
measures,
which

may
not
capture
the
dynamic
composition
of
“identity,”
which
can
include
multiple

elements
like
self-‐categorization,
public
and
private
evaluations,
importance
of
the

group
to
self,
attachment
and
interdependence,
social
embeddedness,
behavioral

involvement,
and
shared
content
and
meaning
(Ashmore,
Deaux,
&
McLaughlin,

2004).
In
the
following
studies,
the
Collective
Self-‐Esteem
(CSE)
scale
is
used,
which

is
one
of
the
only
scales
designed
to
assess
multiple
dimensions
of

social/collective/group
identity
across
different
types
of
groups
(Luhtanen
&

Crocker,
1992).

Pilot
Study
1:
Racial
Exclusion
from
a
College
Promotional
Video

A
pilot
study
was
conducted
to
investigate
the
following
question:
Does
racial

exclusion
from
an
affiliated
ingroup
affect
identity,
or
Collective
Self
Esteem,
with

the
affiliated
group
(e.g.,
participant’s
current
university),
and
do
these
effects
differ

by
racial
subgroups?
It
is
hypothesized
that
race
will
moderate
reactions
of

participants
to
racial
exclusion
from
a
video
representing
an
affiliated
ingroup
(i.e.,

university
identity).

9

Participants
and
Methods

140
American-‐born,
primary
English
speaking
undergraduate
students
who

identified
as
White
(67.9%),
Latino
(16.4%),
or
Asian/Pacific
Islander
(API;
15.7%)

were
recruited
to
watch
an
independently
produced
3-‐minute
promotional
video
for

the
University
of
Southern
California
(USC),
a
private,
predominantly
White

university,
that
either
featured
or
excluded
their
racial
group.
Participants
then

responded
to
a
20-‐item
PANAS,
the
10-‐item
Rosenberg
Self-‐Esteem
Scale
(1965),

and
the
16-‐item
Collective
Self-‐Esteem
Scale
(Luhtanen
&
Crocker,
1992)
adapted
to

assess
identity
with
the
university.
1

Results

The
interaction
between
video
condition
and
race
significantly
predicted

worth
as
a
university
member
(∆R
2

=
.049,
F(1,135)
=
7.020,
ß
=
.064,
p
=
.027);

whereas
racially
excluded
Latinos
and
APIs
reported
lower
worth
as
a
university

member,
racially
excluded
Whites
reported
greater
worth
as
a
university
member

compared
to
racially
matched
control
participants
who
viewed
a
video
wherein

their
racial
group
was
included
(See
Figure
1).
Post-‐hoc
probing
revealed
that
this

effect
was
significant
for
non-‐White
participants
(ß
=
-‐.080,
p
=
.046)
and
marginally

1

At
the
start
of
each
semester,
participants
completed
a
pre-‐screener
to
determine

eligibility
and
baseline
racial
identity
using
the
private
assessment
subscale
of
the

CSE
scale;
these
scores
were
not
valid
and
excluded
from
further
analysis.
The
Multi

Ethnic
Identity
Measure
(MEIM;
Phinney,
1992)
was
featured
in
the
second
half
of

data
collection,
and
revealed
that
Latino/API
students
reported
significantly
greater

racial
identity
compared
to
White
students
t(320)
=
4.246,
p
<
.001.

10

significant
for
White
participants
(ß
=
.047,
p
=
.082).

There
were
no
significant

effects
of
condition
on
mood
or
personal
self-‐esteem.

Figure
1:
Interaction
between
video
condition
and
race
on
transformed
worth

as
a
university
member

Discussion

The
findings
from
this
pilot
study
reveal
that
racial
subgroup
moderates

reactions
to
racial
exclusion
from
an
affiliated
group.
Traditionally
discriminated

groups
(i.e.,
Latino/Asian
Pacific
Islander)
reported
lower
worth
as
a
university

member
when
racially
excluded
from
the
promotional
video,
whereas
traditionally

privileged
(i.e.,
White)
participants
reported
greater
worth.
These
findings
are
in

line
with
the
prior
work
regarding
discrimination,
which
states
that
traditionally

discriminated
groups
may
experience
greater
psychological
suffering
when

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

0.5

Inclusion
Exclusion

Worth
as
a
USC
Member
(tr)

Video
Condition
(Race)

Latino/API
(ß
=
-‐.080*)
White
(ß
=
.047†)

11

threatened,
whereas
traditionally
privileged
groups
may
experience
a
boost
in
self-‐
esteem
and
performance.

Furthermore,
when
interpreted
through
the
lens
of
identification
with
the

targeted
demographic
group,
participants
assumed
to
report
high
racial
identity

(i.e.,
Latino/Asian
Pacific
Islander)
report
lower
worth
with
the
novel
group
when

racially
excluded,
which
may
indicate
a
detachment
from
the
university
to
maintain

positive
self-‐esteem.
Alternatively,
participants
assumed
to
report
low
racial

identity
(i.e.,
White)
report
greater
identity
with
the
novel
group
when
racially

excluded,
which
may
indicate
an
identity
shift
towards
the
positive
novel
group
to

maintain
positive
self-‐esteem,
as
their
racial
identity
is
not
as
important
to
the
self.

Prior
work
has
revealed
that
minority
groups
(e.g.,
Latino,
Asian/Pacific
Islander)

tend
to
report
greater
racial
identity
as
compared
to
majority
groups
(Phinney,

1992),
and
this
trend
was
replicated
in
a
matched
population.
This
interpretation

postulates
that
identity
with
the
targeted
subgroup
will
mediate
the
effect
of
the

interaction
between
race
and
video
condition.

Pilot
Study
2:
Racial
Exclusion
from
a
College
Promotional
Brochure

A
second
pilot
study
was
conducted
to
assess
the
research
question:
does

racial
exclusion
qualify
as
identity
threat?
Whereas
much
of
the
prior
literature

regarding
identity
threat
has
featured
overtly
negative
information
about

participants’
groups,
including
acts
of
discrimination
or
negative
societal

stereotypes,
it
is
possible
that
the
seemingly
neutral
absence
of
one’s
demographic

12

group
may
result
in
lower
identity
with
the
targeted
demographic
group
and

negative
self-‐concepts,
but
only
among
non-‐White
participants.

Participants
and
Methods

310
American-‐born,
primary
English
speaking
USC
students
who
identified

as
White
(51.6%),
Black
(9.9%),
Latino
(12.7%),
or
Asian
(25.8%;
including
South

Asian),
viewed
a
brochure
for
USC
that
either
featured
or
excluded
their
racial

group,
Participants
then
rated
the
brochure
on
a
10-‐point
scale
and
responded
to
a

12-‐item
measure
of
affect,
Negative
self-‐concepts,
and
general
inclusion,
two
items

assessing
brochure-‐related
inclusion
(i.e.,
“The
brochure
made
me
feel

included/excluded”),
and
the
16-‐item
Collective
Self-‐Esteem
Scale
(Luhtanen
&

Crocker,
1992)
adapted
for
USC.

Results

Racially
excluded
participants
reported
marginally
lower
brochure-‐related

inclusion
(p
=
.067).
No
other
main
effects
of
condition
emerged.

However,
significant
effects
emerged
when
racial
groups
were
investigated

separately.
Among
non-‐White
racial
groups,
racially
excluded
Latinos
reported

lower
importance
of
the
university
to
self
(t(36)
=
2.369,
p
=
.023)
and
greater

negative
self-‐concepts
(t(36)
=
2.043,
p
=
.048);
this
was
the
only
non-‐White
racial

group
to
exhibit
significant
change
(i.e.,
racial
exclusion
did
not
affect
Black
and

Asian
participants’
mood,
racial
identity,
or
collective
self-‐esteem
with
the

university).
Alternatively,
racially
excluded
White
participants
reported
significant

13

greater
public
assessment
(t(156)
=
2.317,
p
=
.022)
and
rated
the
brochure

significantly
lower
(t(156)
=
2.102,
p
=
.039)
than
racially
included
Whites.

Discussion

Although
the
findings
in
Pilot
Study
2
were
not
as
straightforward,
the

findings
among
Latinos
replicates
and
expands
the
results
from
Pilot
Study
1;

Latinos
report
significantly
lower
university
identity
and
greater
negative
self-‐
concepts
when
racially
excluded,
exhibiting
both
a
detachment
from
the
excluding

ingroup
and
negative
self-‐concepts.
Alternatively,
racially
excluded
Whites
like
the

brochure
less
but
believe
that
the
public
will
like
the
university
more;
this
attitude
is

reflected
in
the
open-‐ended
responses
wherein
more
Whites
provided
comments

regarding
the
university’s
attempt
at
diversity
compared
to
non-‐Whites.
The
limited

results
may
be
due
to
the
differences
between
the
brochure
and
the
video;
many

participants
volunteered
that
they
did
not
believe
the
brochures
to
be
real,
even

though
the
brochure
was
adapted
from
official
university
materials.

Current
Research

These
pilot
studies
indicate
that
the
effects
of
demographic
group
exclusion

differ
according
to
participants
prior
affiliation
with
the
excluding
group
and
may
be

moderated
by
race
or
racial
identity.
No
study
to
date
has
investigated
the
effect
of

demographic
group
exclusion
on
categorization
with
the
novel
group;
in
the
studies

conducted
by
Cheryan,
Plaut,
Davies,
and
Steele
(2009)
and
Dasgupta
and
Stout

(2011),
the
design
ensures
that
participants
are
not
part
of
the
excluding
group.

14

Alternatively,
the
pilot
studies
feature
participants
who
are
already
part
of
the

excluding
group.
The
current
research
investigates
the
effect
of
demographic
group

exclusion
on
self-‐categorization
and
identity
with
a
novel
group,
as
well
as
personal

self-‐concepts.

This
research
is
unique
in
that
it
utilizes
independently
produced
videos

representing
a
novel
group,
Digital
Heroes;
this
design
ensures
control
over
two

important
variables:
(1)
participants’
familiarity
with
the
novel
group
in
question,

and
(2)
differences
in
manipulation
videos.
In
the
Cheryan,
Plaut,
Davies,
and
Steele

(2009)
studies,
the
novel
group
featured
is
“computer
science
majors,”
for
which

participants
clearly
possess
prior
stereotypes,
thus
allowing
the
researchers
to

utilize
“items
stereotypical
of
computer
scientists,”
which
were
perceived
to
be

more
masculine.

In
addition,
much
of
the
quantitative
research
conducted
that

feature
media
artifacts
usually
draw
samples
from
real
world
examples,
and
do
not

produce
completely
novel
media
manipulations,
and
researchers
are
often
forced
to

accept
slight
differences
between
manipulations
due
to
a
reliance
on
pre-‐produced

content.

It
is
important
to
note
key
differences
in
terminology
used
throughout
this

research,
especially
in
relation
to
categories,
groups,
and
identity.
Categories
refer

to
descriptive
qualities
common
to
a
collection
of
individuals
(e.g.,
race,
gender,

neighborhood
affiliation),
but
categorical
similarity
is
not
sufficient
for
group

formation
(Turner,
1996);
categories
become
groups
when
individuals
act
as
a

“locomoting
entity”
(Rabbie
&
Horowitz,
1988,
p.
119)
with
shared
perceptions

15

including
feelings
of
interdependence
and
a
common
fate
(Tajfel
&
Turner,
1979).

Once
a
group
is
formed,
“it
will
directly
affect
how
people
perceive
their
interests

and
lead
to
the
development
of
collective,
shared
interests”
(Turner
&
Bourhis,

1996,
p.
35),
and
the
importance
of
a
group
to
one’s
personal
self
is
commonly

referred
to
as
social,
collective,
or
group
identity.
Students
at
a
college
may
be

categorically
similar,
but
this
category
does
not
evolve
into
a
group
until
a
common

goal
is
present
(e.g.,
advancement
of
the
college
sports
team),
at
which
point,
this

common
goal
will
significantly
contribute
to
the
attitudes
and
behaviors
of

individuals
who
consider
this
group
important
to
their
personal
self.
The
current

research
investigates
the
effect
of
demographic
group
exclusion
on
each
of
these

levels
of
group
involvement,
self-‐categorization,
identification,
and
subsequent

effects
on
self-‐concepts.

Study
1:
Attraction
to
a
Novel
Group:
Digital
Heroes

To
ensure
the
viability
of
the
novel
attractive
group
featured
in
the
following

studies,
Study
1
explores
participant
responses
to
the
group,
including
experience
of

categorizing
and
identifying
with
Digital
Heroes.
The
term
“Digital
Hero”
was

designed
as
an
extension
of
Digital
Natives
or
“‘native
speakers’
of
the
digital

language
of
computers,
video
games,
and
the
Internet”
(Prensky,
2001,
p.
1).
This

general
description
encompasses
the
majority
of
participants
targeted
for
this
work.

In
the
following
research,
a
Digital
Hero
is
defined
as,
“A
person
who
uses
digital

technologies
as
educational
and
social
tools
to
enhance
and
improve
daily
life.”
It
is

16

important
to
note
that
Digital
Heroes
is
an
achievement-‐based
group,
or
a
group
to

which
participants
choose
to
belong
based
on
interests
and
behaviors.

H1:
Baseline
group-‐related
behaviors
(i.e.,
online
activities
like
those

described
in
the
video)
will
predict
self-‐categorization
as
a
Digital
Hero.
Other

demographic
factors
(e.g.,
gender,
race)
will
not
affect
categorization.

H1a:
Participants
who
self-‐categorize
as
Digital
Heroes
will
report
more

positive
ratings
of
the
video
and
greater
identity
with
the
group.

H2:
In
line
with
the
Self-‐as-‐Evaluative
Base
(SEB)
hypothesis
(Gramzow
&

Gaertner,
2005),
personal
self-‐esteem
will
interact
with
self-‐categorization
to

predict
identity
with
Digital
Heroes.
For
self-‐categorized
(SC)
participants,
self-‐
esteem
will
be
positively
correlated
with
group
identity,
and
self-‐esteem
will
be

negatively
correlated
with
group
identity
for
non-‐categorized
(NC)
participants.

Methods

Participants

127
undergraduate
students
who
identified
as
American-‐born,
native
English

speakers,
aged
18-‐24
(MAGE
=
19.92,
SDAGE
=
1.274;
75.2%
Female;
49.6%
White,

2.4%
Black,
28.0%
Asian,
10.4%
Latino,
9.6%
Multi-‐Racial)
were
recruited
via
the

psychology
subject
pool
and
received
credit
in
an
introductory
psychology
class.

Procedure

Participants
visited
the
Qualtrics
online
survey
and
completed
a
series
of

demographic
questions
including
age,
gender,
race,
and
Internet
habits.
Participants

17

responded
to
the
10-‐item
Rosenberg
Self-‐Esteem
Scale,
a
25-‐item
assessment
of

online
behaviors,
and
a
baseline
measure
of
affect,
needs,
and
general
inclusion

(ANI).
Participants
then
watched
the
Digital
Heroes
video.
Afterwards,
participants

rated
their
enjoyment
of
the
video
on
a
10-‐point
scale
(1
=
“I
did
not
enjoy
the
video

at
all,”
10
=
I
enjoyed
the
video
very
much”),
and
responded
to
whether
they

considered
themselves
Digital
Heroes
and
Digital
Natives.
Participants
then

completed
a
25-‐item
word
fragment
distraction
task,
a
follow-‐up
version
of
the
12-‐
item
ANI
and
the
16-‐item
Collective
Self-‐Esteem
(CSE)
Scale
(Luhtanen
&
Crocker,

1992)
adapted
to
assess
identification
with
Digital
Heroes.
After
these
measures,

participants
had
the
opportunity
to
elaborate
on
why
they
did
(or
did
not)
consider

themselves
to
be
Digital
Heroes,
identify
actors
featured
in
the
video,
and
provide

any
additional
thoughts
(optional).

Materials

Digital
Heroes
Video:
The
video
was
developed
with
the
participant

population
in
mind,
young
American-‐born,
native
English
speakers.
The
two-‐minute

video
featured
a
small
group
of
seven
Digital
Heroes,
four
women
and
three
men

(see
Figure
2).
A
brief
pilot
survey
revealed
that
all
of
the
actors
appeared
to
be

under
30,
with
participants
reporting
average
ages
between
23-‐27
years.

Survey
prompts
define
Digital
Heroes
as
“a
group
of
young
Americans

interested
in
digital
technologies
and
interactive
media.”
The
script
(see
Appendix

A)
was
adapted
from
Jenkins’
(2009)
MacArthur
paper
describing
new
media

18

literacies,
or
“a
set
of
cultural
competencies
and
social
skills
that
young
people
need

in
the
new
media
landscape…
that
build
on
the
foundation
of
traditional
literacy,

research
skills,
technical
skills,
and
critical
analysis
skills
taught
in
the
classroom”

(p.
4).
The
actors
in
the
video
describe
Digital
Heroes’
behaviors,
activities,
and

beliefs,
which
include
embracing
interactive
media
as
a
mode
of
self-‐expression
and

communication
(e.g.,
“Digital
Heroes
don’t
just
read
the
paper;
we
rate,
comment,

and
contribute
to
the
news!”).

Figure
2:
Digital
Heroes
control
video

Measures

Race
(Appendix
C):
Participants
were
asked
to
select
one
racial
or
ethnic

group
in
the
demographic
questionnaire
at
the
start
of
the
survey;
choices
included

African
American/Black,
Asian/Pacific
Islander,
Caucasian/White,
Hispanic/Latino,

South
Asian,
Middle
Eastern,
Multiracial,
Other,
or
Refuse
to
Answer.
All
participants

were
considered
eligible.

19

Rosenberg
Self-‐Esteem
Scale
(Appendix
D):
Personal
self-‐esteem
was

measured
using
the
10-‐item
Rosenberg
Self-‐Esteem
Scale
(Rosenberg,
1965).
This

popular
validated
scale
asks
participants
to
rate
their
agreement
with
statements
on

a
Likert
scale
ranging
from
1
(“Disagree
Strongly”)
to
4
(“Agree
Strongly”);
there

was
no
neutral
midpoint.
Items
included
“I
feel
I
have
a
number
of
good
qualities”

and
“I
feel
I
do
not
have
much
to
be
proud
of”
(α
=
.878).

Affect,
Needs
and
Inclusion
(ANI;
Appendix
E):
This
researcher-‐developed

12-‐item
scale
includes
three
items
assessing
negative
affect
(α
=
.816),
three
items

assessing
positive
affect
(α
=
.806),
four
items
assessing
Negative
self-‐concepts
(α
=

.792),
and
two
items
assessing
general
feelings
of
inclusion
(α
=
.809).
Participants

rated
their
agreement
with
statements
on
a
Likert
scale
ranging
from
1
(“Strongly

Disagree”)
to
5
(“Strongly
Agree”)
with
3
as
“Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree.”
The
video

did
not
elicit
a
significant
change
in
affect,
needs,
or
inclusion;
therefore
this

measure
is
not
described
in
the
following
analyses.

Online
Activity
(Appendix
F1):
Participants
reported
the
frequency
with

which
they
engaged
in
25
different
online
behaviors
using
a
Likert
scale
ranging

from
1
(“Never”)
to
4
(“Often”).

Video
Rating:
“On
a
scale
of
1
to
10,
how
much
did
you
enjoy
the
video?”
(M

=
5.12,
SD
=
2.142).

Self-‐Categorization
as
a
Digital
Hero/Native:
Participants
answered
‘Yes’

or
‘No”
to
the
question:
“After
watching
the
video,
would
you
consider
yourself
a

Digital
Hero?”

20

Collective
Self-‐Esteem
with
Digital
Heroes
(CSE;
Appendix
G):
The

participant’s
potential
identification
with
Digital
Heroes
was
determined
using
an

adaptation
of
the
16-‐item
Collective
Self-‐Esteem
Scale
(CSE;
Luhtanen
&
Crocker,

1992).
The
CSE
was
designed
to
assess
individual
differences
in
collective
rather

than
personal
self-‐esteem,
or
how
much
of
an
individual’s
self-‐esteem
is
based
on

external
entities,
and
consists
of
four
subscales:
(1)
private
assessment
of
the
group

(e.g.,
“I
feel
good
about
Digital
Heroes,”
α
=
.830),
(2)
public
assessment
of
the
group,

or
perceptions
of
other’s
impressions
(e.g.,
“Overall,
Digital
Heroes
are
considered

good
by
others,”
α
=
.793),
(3)
worth
as
a
member
of
the
group
(e.g.,
“I
would
be
a

worthy
Digital
Hero,”
α
=
.725),
and
(4)
importance
of
the
group
to
the
individual’s

self
(e.g.,
“Being
a
Digital
Hero
would
be
an
important
reflection
of
who
I
am,”
α
=

.825).
Participants
reported
their
agreement
with
each
statement
using
a
Likert

scale
ranging
from
1
(Strongly
Disagree)
to
7
(Strongly
Agree)
with
4
as
“Neither

Agree
nor
Disagree.”

Note
on
Analyses:
The
following
analyses
feature
binary
logistic
regressions

to
determine
categorization
with
the
novel
group,
univariate
and
multivariate

Analyses
of
Variance
(ANOVAs),
and
linear
regressions.
All
multivariate
Fs
are
based

on
Pillai’s
Trace
as
recommended
by
Olson
(1976).

Cleaning
Data
(Missing
Variables
&
Transformations)

Missing
variables
were
replaced
with
race-‐
and
gender
-‐matched
means
for

each
individual
item.
Missing
variables
were
imputed
only
for
participants
that
did

21

not
respond
to
a
single
item
within
a
given
measure.
Two
participants
did
not

complete
any
of
the
12-‐item
ANI
and
one
participant
did
not
respond
to
either
of
the

video
specific
reported
inclusion/exclusion
items;
the
responses
for
these

participants
remain
missing
due
to
the
item-‐specific
approach
used
to
handle

missing
variables.

Negative
Affect
was
positively
skewed
and
the
composite
values
were

submitted
to
logarithmic
transformation.
Negative
self-‐concepts
was
also
positively

skewed
and
composite
values
were
submitted
to
a
square
root
transformation.

Results

Confirming
Collective
Self-‐Esteem
(CSE)
with
Digital
Heroes

A
principal
component
analysis
(PCA)
was
conducted
on
the
16
items
with

orthogonal
rotation
(varimax).
The
Kaiser-‐Meyer-‐Okin
measure
verified
the

sampling
adequacy
for
the
analysis,
KMO
=
.908,
above
the
acceptable
value
of
.5.

Bartlett’s
test
of
sphericity
χ
2

(120)
=
921.717,
p
<
.001,
indicated
that
the

correlations
between
items
were
sufficiently
large
for
PCA.

Three
components
had
eigenvalues
over
Kaiser’s
criterion
of
1
and
in

combination
explained
59.671%
of
the
variance.
Table
1
shows
the
factor
loadings

after
rotation;
items
assessing
importance
to
self
(13-‐16)
factored
together
and

separately
from
the
other
components.
Private
assessment
(items
5-‐8)
factored
with

worth
as
a
member
(items
1-‐4)
and
public
assessment
(items
9-‐12).
A
confirmatory

factor
analysis
(CFA)
revealed
that
the
four-‐factor
structure
improved
the
model;

22

therefore,
the
original
four-‐factor
structure
of
the
collective
self-‐esteem
scale
is

featured
in
the
following
analyses.

I
am
a
Digital
Hero:
Predicting
Categorization
and
Identification

Engagement
in
group-‐related
behaviors
significantly
predicted
self-‐
categorization
with
the
novel
group,
Digital
Heroes.
36.7%
of
participants
self-‐
categorized
as
Digital
Heroes
after
watching
the
video.
A
binary
logistic
regression

indicated
that
group-‐related
behaviors
significantly
predicted
categorization
as
a

Digital
Hero
(χ
2

=
47.991,
p
<
.001).
The
model
did
not
improve
when
other

demographic
variables
(e.g.,
race,
gender,
self-‐esteem)
or
internet
usage
(e.g.,
hours,

preferred
devices)
were
entered.

A
one-‐way
multivariate
ANOVA
revealed
that
participants
who
categorized

as
Digital
Heroes
(i.e.,
self-‐categorized,
SC)
reported
significantly
higher
ratings
of

the
video
(t(126)
=
2.838,
p
=
.006)
and
greater
identification
with
Digital
Heroes

(F(4,122)
=
9.164,
p
<
.001,
η
2

=
.231).
See
Table
2
for
means.

23

Table
1:
Rotated
component
matrix
of
Collective
Self-‐Esteem
(CSE)
Scale

Component

1
2
3

(1)
I
would
be
a
worthy
Digital
Hero.
.631

.439

(2)
I
feel
that
I
don’t
have
much
to

offer
as
a
Digital
Hero.

-‐.589

(3)
I
would
be
a
cooperative

participant
in
the
activities
of

Digital
Heroes.

.700

(4)
I
would
feel
useless
as
a
Digital

Hero.

-‐.559

(5)
I
would
regret
being
a
Digital
Hero.
-‐.591
.462

(6)
In
general,
I
would
be
glad
to
be
a

Digital
Hero.

.723

(7)
Overall,
I
feel
that
Digital
Heroes

are
not
worthwhile.

-‐.548
.408

(8)
I
would
feel
good
about
being
a

Digital
Hero.

.637
-‐.404

(9)
Overall,
Digital
Heroes
are

considered
good
by
others.

-‐.657

(10)
Most
people
consider
Digital

Heroes,
on
the
average,
to
be

ineffective.

.760

(11)
In
general,
others
respect
Digital

Heroes.

-‐.705

(12)
In
general,
others
think
that

Digital
Heroes
are
unworthy.

.763

(13)
Overall,
being
a
Digital
Hero
has

very
little
to
do
with
how
I
feel

about
myself.

-‐.783

(14)
Being
a
Digital
Hero
would
be
an

important
reflection
of
who
I
am.

.762

(15)
Being
a
Digital
Hero
would
be

unimportant
to
my
personal

identity.

-‐.711

(16)
In
general,
being
a
Digital
Hero

would
be
an
important
part
of
my

self
image.

.762

24

Table
2:
Differences
by
self-‐categorization
(*p
<
.005;
**p
<
.001)

Self-‐Categorized

(SC)

Participants

Non-‐
Categorized

(NC)

Participants

t-‐Test

Total
Behaviors

2.409
(.377)
2.037
(.389)
t(119)
=
5.051**

Video
Rating
5.85
(2.095)
4.78
(2.043)
t(126)
=
2.838*

Collective
Self-‐Esteem

Public
Assessment
of

Digital
Heroes

3.495
(.554)
3.194
(.552)
t(125)
=
2.491**

Private
Assessment
of

Digital
Heroes

3.723
(.528)
3.139
(.642)
t(125)
=
5.241**

Worth
as
a
Digital

Hero

3.587
(.556)
3.019
(.593)
t(125)
=
5.312**

Importance
of
Digital

Hero
to
Self

2.788
(.751)
2.228
(.713)
t(125)
=
4.171**

A
multivariate
ANOVA
investigating
collective
self-‐esteem
with
Digital

Heroes
revealed
a
significant
effect
of
self-‐categorization
(F(4,118)
=
8.977,
p
<
.001,

η
2

=
.233)
and
a
marginally
significant
positive
effect
of
personal
self-‐esteem

(F(4,118)
=
2.357,
p
=
.058,
η
2

=
.074),
but
the
interaction
between
self-‐
categorization
and
self-‐esteem
was
not
a
significant
multivariate
predictor;
self-‐
categorized
participants
reported
greater
identity
with
Digital
Heroes,
and
self-‐
esteem
was
marginally
correlated
with
greater
identity.
Tests
of
between-‐subjects

effects
and
a
series
of
linear
regressions
revealed
that
the
interaction
significantly

predicted
importance
of
Digital
Heroes
to
self
(F(1,121)
=
4.445,
p
=
.037,
η
2

=
.035,

ß
=
.178,
∆R
2

=
.031)
such
that
higher
self-‐esteem
was
associated
with
lower

importance
of
Digital
Heroes
to
the
self
for
non-‐categorized
(NC)
participants
(See

Figure
3a).
The
interaction
also
marginally
predicted
worth
as
a
member
(F(1,121)

25

=
3.041,
p
=
.085,
η
2

=
.024,
ß
=
.142,
∆R
2

=
.020)
such
that
higher
self-‐esteem
was

associated
with
higher
worth
as
a
Digital
Hero
for
self-‐categorized
(SC)
participants

(See
Figure
3b).

Figure
3:
Interaction
between
self-‐categorization
and
self-‐esteem
on

importance
of
Digital
Heroes
to
self
and
worth
as
a
Digital
Hero

(a)
(b)

Discussion

These
findings
reveal
that
Digital
Heroes
is
a
viable
group
for
American-‐born,

native
English
speakers,
aged
18-‐24.
Engagement
in
group-‐related
behaviors

predicted
categorization
with
the
novel
group
and
categorization
was
associated

with
greater
identity
with
Digital
Heroes.
Exploratory
Factor
Analyses
(EFA)
on
the

16-‐item
Collective
Self-‐Esteem
(CSE)
scale
revealed
that
private
assessment
of
the

novel
group
was
associated
with
the
perceived
public
attitudes
towards
the
group

as
originally
hypothesized,
but
it
is
more
strongly
related
to
perceived
worth
as
a

member.
It
is
important
to
note
that
both
of
the
identity-‐based
measures
(i.e.,
worth

as
a
member
and
importance
to
self)
factored
cleanly
and
without
overlap.
In

1.75
1.95
2.15
2.35
2.55
2.75
Low High
Importance to Self
Personal Self-Esteem
Self-Categorized Non-Categorized
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
Low High Worth as an Member
Personal Self-Esteem
Self-Categorized Non-Categorized

26

Studies
2
and
3,
the
four-‐factor
model
of
collective
self-‐esteem
with
Digital
Heroes
is

employed.

36.7%
of
participants
categorized
with
the
group,
and
engagement
in
group-‐
related
behaviors
(i.e.,
online
activities)
alone
predicted
self-‐categorization.
Self-‐
esteem
interacted
with
self-‐categorization
as
predicted.
For
self-‐categorized
(SC)

participants,
who
were
hypothesized
to
perceive
Digital
Heroes
as
an
ingroup
and

exhibit
ingroup
favoritism,
personal
self-‐esteem
was
correlated
with
increased

group
identity.
Conversely,
for
non-‐categorized
(NC)
participants,
who
were

hypothesized
to
perceive
Digital
Heroes
as
an
outgroup
and
exhibit
outgroup

discrimination
or
denigration,
self-‐esteem
negatively
predicted
importance
to
self.

These
findings
demonstrate
that
self-‐categorization
was
a
valid
measure
of

affiliation
with
Digital
Heroes.

Study
2:
Racial
Exclusion
from
a
Novel
Group

Research
Question
1:
Does
demographic
group
exclusion
affect
self-‐
categorization
with
the
novel
group?
Whereas
prior
studies
have
selected
for
(or

against)
categorization
with
the
novel
excluding
group,
the
current
research

features
a
completely
novel
group,
thus
allowing
self-‐categorization
with
the
novel

group
to
vary.
It
is
hypothesized
that
participants
whose
demographic
group
is

excluded
from
the
video
will
be
less
likely
to
self-‐categorize
with
the
novel
group

(H1).

27

Research
Question
2:
Does
demographic
group
exclusion
affect
identity
with
a

novel
group?
Exclusion
of
one’s
demographic
group
from
a
novel
group
provides

information
regarding
the
extent
to
which
an
individual
will
belong
or
be
accepted

in
a
new
group.
It
is
hypothesized
that
demographic
group
exclusion
will
result
in

lower
novel
group
identity,
but
this
will
moderated
by
self-‐categorization
with
the

novel
group
and
identity
with
the
targeted
demographic
group;
in
other
words,
the

3-‐way
interaction
between
video
condition
(racial
or
gender
inclusion/exclusion),

self-‐categorization
with
the
novel
group
(“I
am/am
not
a
Digital
Hero”),
and
the

identity
with
the
targeted
demographic
group
(i.e.,
racial
identity,
gender
identity)

will
predict
identity
with
the
novel
group
(H2).
The
expected
pattern
for
self-‐
categorized
participants
(i.e.,
“I
am
a
Digital
Hero)
is
similar
to
the
findings
in
the

pilot
study,
which
featured
participants
already
categorized
with
the
novel
group

(i.e.
university
affiliation);
participants
reporting
high
race
or
gender
identity
will

report
less
identity
with
the
novel
group
when
excluded
from
the
video
(H2a),

whereas
participants
reporting
low
race
or
gender
identity
will
report
more
identity

with
the
novel
group
compared
to
included
controls
(H2b).
For
participants
who
do

not
self-‐categorize
with
the
novel
group,
demographic
group
exclusion
is

hypothesized
to
elicit
lower
identity
with
the
novel
group,
regardless
of
racial
or

gender
identity
(H2c);
this
hypothesis
is
in
line
with
the
prior
literature
regarding

ambient
belonging
and
group
level
ostracism
among
non-‐categorized
participants.

Research
Question
3:
Is
demographic
group
exclusion
a
form
of
identity
threat?

Absence
of
one’s
demographic
groups
(e.g.,
race,
gender)
from
novel
groups
can
be

28

considered
negative
information
about
one’s
demographic
groups
and
oneself,
and

may
be
a
threat
to
demographic
group
identity.
It
is
hypothesized
that
demographic

group
exclusion
from
a
novel
group
will
increase
identity
with
the
targeted

demographic
group
(H3),
and
this
effect
will
be
strongest
among
participants
that

categorize
with
the
novel
group
(H3a).
Demographic
group
exclusion
will
also
result

in
more
negative
mood
and
negative
self-‐concepts
(H4),
and
this
effect
will
be

strongest
among
self-‐categorized
participants
(H4a).

Methods

Participants

157
American-‐born,
native
English
speakers,
aged
18-‐30
(MAGE
=
20.42,
SDAGE

=
1.898;
72%
Female),
who
identified
as
one
of
the
four
target
racial
groups
(51.6%

White,
6.4%
Latino,
10.8%
Black,
31.2%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
or
API)
were

considered
eligible
for
Study
2.
Participants
were
recruited
from
several
online

sources
including
social
networking
sites
like
Facebook
and
Twitter,
and
the
micro

task
program
Mechanical
Turk,
but
the
majority
(73.9%)
of
participants
accessed

the
survey
via
the
USC
psychology
subject
pool.
Participants
recruited
through
the

subject
pool
received
credit
in
an
introductory
psychology
class;
participants
not

recruited
through
the
subject
pool
were
entered
into
a
lottery
for
a
$20
online
gift

certificate
to
Amazon.com.
Efforts
were
made
to
ensure
that
participants
could
not

repeat
the
study
(e.g.,
requiring
a
valid
email
address,
cookies
to
restrict
website

access).

29

Procedure

Recruited
participants
were
directed
to
www.iamadigitalhero.org,
and

completed
a
brief
demographic
questionnaire
including
age,
gender,
race,
Internet

usage,
and
engagement
in
online
activities;
participants
also
completed
a
6-‐item

measure
assessing
baseline
racial
and
gender
identity
as
well
as
a
single
item

assessing
self-‐esteem.
Participants
were
randomly
assigned
to
video
condition

(racial
inclusion/
Exclusion)
and
watched
the
video
for
Digital
Heroes.
After
the

video,
participants
rated
their
enjoyment
of
the
video
on
a
10-‐point
scale
(1
=
“I
did

not
enjoy
the
video
at
all,”
10
=
“I
enjoyed
the
video
very
much”),
responded
to
the

question,
“Do
you
consider
yourself
a
Digital
Hero?”
and
completed
a
thought-‐listing

task.
Participants
then
provided
detailed
ratings
of
Digital
Heroes
including

attitudes
and
perceived
credibility,
completed
the
12-‐item
assessment
of
affect,

needs
and
inclusion
(ANI),
the
16-‐item
CSE
scale
adapted
for
identity
with
Digital

Heroes
featured
in
Study
1,
and
a
follow-‐up
measure
of
racial
and
gender
identity.

Participants
were
thanked
for
their
time
and
received
a
confirmation
email

that
they
were
entered
into
the
lottery.
Participants
were
contacted
after
one
week

and
asked
to
participate
in
a
5-‐minute
follow-‐up
survey
for
an
additional
entry
into

the
lottery.
Overall,
approximately
37%
of
participants
who
provided
their
email

address
returned
for
the
follow-‐up
survey.
Participants
were
debriefed
at
the
end
of

the
follow-‐up
survey.
If
participants
did
not
return
for
the
follow-‐up
survey,
they

received
the
debriefing
text
via
email.

30

Materials

Four
additional
versions
of
the
video
were
produced
that
systematically

omitted
White
(a),
Black
(b),
Latino
(c),
and
API
(d)
actors
(See
Figure
4).
Prior
to

data
collection,
still
images
of
the
actors
were
piloted
to
ensure
that
the
actors

featured
in
the
exclusion
conditions
were
not
considered
to
be
members
of
group

targeted
for
exclusion
by
members
of
that
group.
In
other
words,
no
White
pilot

participants
thought
any
of
the
individuals
in
the
White
exclusion
video
(Fig.
4a)

were
White,
no
Latinos
thought
any
of
the
individuals
in
the
Latino
exclusion
video

(Fig.
4c)
were
Latino,
and
so
on.

Measures

Several
of
the
measures
featured
in
Study
1
were
utilized
for
Studies
2
and
3.

Certain
items
including
the
Single
Item
Self-‐Esteem
Scale
(SISE),
subgroup
identity,

attitudes
towards
and
credibility
of
Digital
Heroes,
self-‐reported
attention,
and
the

thought-‐listing
task
were
added
after
the
start
of
data
collection.
Ns,
means,
and

reliabilities
for
all
of
the
measures
are
available
in
Appendix
B.

Race
(Appendix
C):
Participants
were
asked
to
provide
their
ethnic
or
racial

group
in
the
same
manner
featured
in
Study
1.
Participants
were
considered
eligible

if
they
self-‐identified
as
one
of
the
target
racial
groups.

31

Figure
4:
Racial
exclusion
versions
of
the
Digital
Heroes
video

(a)
(b)

(c)
(d)

Online
Activity
(Appendix
F2):
To
reduce
the
25-‐item
online
behavioral

scale
featured
in
Study
1,
the
scale
was
subjected
to
an
exploratory
factor
analysis

(EFA),
which
revealed
that
five
components
accounted
for
40.540%
of
the
variance.

These
factors
included
(1)
contribution
behaviors,
(2)
surfing
behaviors,
(3)
online

relationships,
(4)
resource
seeking,
and
(5)
social
networking.
The
first
four
factors

significantly
predicted
categorization
as
a
Digital
Hero,
and
the
items
that
accounted

for
the
greatest
variance
were
combined
and
featured
in
the
shortened
scale.

Although
the
fifth
factor,
social
networking,
was
not
a
significant
predictor
of

categorization
as
a
Digital
Hero,
one
item
was
retained.
Participants
rated
frequency

of
their
behaviors
on
a
Likert
scale
that
ranged
from
1
(“Never”)
to
6
(“Very

Frequently”).
A
9-‐item
composite
variable
was
constructed
provided
a
valid

32

measure
of
online
activity
(α
=
.778);
this
composite
did
not
include
the
item

regarding
social
networking;
this
revised
composite.

Racial
and
Gender
Identity
(Appendix
I):
The
centrality
subscale
of
the

Multidimensional
Inventory
of
Black
Identity-‐Teen
(MIBI-‐t,
Scottham,
Sellers,
&

Nguyen,
under
review)
was
tailored
to
measure
identity
with
the
participants
self-‐
reported
racial
and
gender
group.
Participants
rated
their
agreement
on
a
Likert

scale
that
ranged
from
1
(“Strongly
Agree”)
to
5
(“Strongly
Disagree”)
with
3
as

“Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree.”
This
3-‐item
scale
assesses
the
importance
of
a
given

social
group
to
one’s
personal
identity
and
was
featured
both
at
baseline
(i.e.,
prior

to
watching
the
video)
and
follow-‐up
(i.e.,
after
watching
the
video).
Reliability

scores
are
available
in
Appendix
A.

Single
Item
Self-‐Esteem
Scale
(SISE;
Robins,
Hendin,
Trzesniewski,
2001):

A
single
item
was
used
to
assess
self-‐esteem;
participants
were
asked
to
rate
their

agreement
with
the
statement,
“I
have
high
self-‐esteem,”
on
a
5-‐point
scale
where
1

is
“Strongly
Disagree,”
and
5
is
“Strongly
Agree,”
with
3
as
“Neither
Agree
nor

Disagree.”

Video
Rating:
“On
a
scale
of
1
to
10,
how
much
did
you
enjoy
the
video?”

Self-‐Categorization
as
a
Digital
Hero:
Participants
answered
‘Yes’
or
‘No”

to
the
question:
“After
watching
the
video,
would
you
consider
yourself
a
Digital

Hero?”

Digital
Hero
Credibility
(Appendix
H):
Participants
responded
to
7

statements
assessing
how
knowledgeable,
trustworthy,
and
the
extent
to
which
they

33

thought
the
messages
of
Digital
Heroes
were
“believable.”
Participants
rated
their

agreement
on
a
Likert
scale
that
ranged
from
1
(“Strongly
Agree”)
to
5
(“Strongly

Disagree”)
with
3
as
“Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree.”

Attitudes
Towards
Digital
Heroes
(Appendix
H):
Participants
rated
how

positive,
beneficial,
wise
and
favorable
being
a
Digital
Hero
would
be
on
an
11-‐point

bipolar
scale.

Affect,
Needs,
and
Inclusion
(ANI;
Appendix
E):
This
12-‐item
scale
featured

in
Study
1
measures
affect,
needs,
and
feelings
of
general
inclusion.

Collective
Self-‐Esteem
with
Digital
Heroes
(CSE;
Appendix
F):
This
16-‐
item
scale
featured
in
Study
1
measures
public
and
private
assessments
of
Digital

Heroes,
worth
as
a
Digital
Hero,
and
importance
of
Digital
Heroes
to
self.

Self-‐Reported
Attention
and
Interest
(Appendix
H):
Three
items
assessed

participant’s
self-‐reported
attention
and
interest.
Participants
rated
their
agreement

on
a
Likert
scale
that
ranged
from
1
(“Strongly
Agree”)
to
5
(“Strongly
Disagree”)

with
3
as
“Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree.”
Although
the
reliability
(α
=
.586)
was
not

above
the
.70
value
considered
acceptable,
the
construct
was
determined
to
be
a

valuable
assessment
of
participants’
engagement
with
the
video.

Cleaning
Data
(Missing
Variables
and
Transformations)

Missing
variables
were
handled
in
the
same
manner
as
in
Study
1;
missing

items
were
replaced
with
gender-‐,
race-‐,
and
condition-‐matched
means.
Negative

affect
exhibited
positive
skew
and
was
subjected
to
a
logarithmic
transformation.

34

Negative
self-‐concepts
exhibited
positive
skew
and
was
subjected
to
a
square
root

transformation.
General
inclusion
exhibited
a
limited
number
of
outliers
(≤
1%)
and

was
winsorized
at
1%.
Attitudes
towards
Digital
Heroes
exhibited
a
moderate

negative
skew
and
was
transformed
using
a
square
root
function.

Results

56.1%
of
participants
self-‐categorized
as
Digital
Heroes
and
a
binary
logistic

regression
revealed
that
online
activities
significantly
predicted
self-‐categorization

(χ
2

=
34.707,
p
<
.001).
There
was
no
effect
of
race
or
video
condition.
Gender

exhibited
a
marginally
significant
effect
(χ
2

=
3.558,
p
=
.059);
men
were
more
likely

than
women
to
self-‐categorize
as
Digital
Heroes.

The
3-‐way
interaction
between
video
condition
(racial
inclusion/exclusion),

self-‐categorization
with
the
novel
group
(“I
am/am
not
a
Digital
Hero”),
and

continuous
racial
identity
significantly
predicted
Digital
Hero
identity
according
to
a

multivariate
General
Linear
Model
featuring
all
four
subscales
of
the
collective
self-‐
esteem
(CSE)
scale
(F(3,
131)
=
2.606,
p
=
.039,
η
2

=
.074).
This
effect
was
not

mediated
by
mood,
threats
to
psychosocial
needs/negative
self-‐concepts,
video

rating,
or
self-‐reported
attitudes
and
attention.

The
multivariate
effect
was
driven
by
worth
as
a
Digital
Hero
according
to

tests
of
between-‐subjects
effects;
regression
analyses
were
conducted
on
worth

such
that
video
condition,
self-‐categorization,
and
racial
identity
were
entered
in

Step
1,
the
subsequent
2-‐way
interactions
were
entered
in
Step
2,
and
the
3-‐way

35

interaction
was
entered
in
Step
3.
The
3-‐way
interaction
between
video
condition,

self-‐categorization,
and
racial
identity
significantly
predicted
worth
as
a
member

(∆R
2

=
.029,
p
=
.017,
and
ß
=
-‐.173;
see
Figure
5).

As
hypothesized,
among
self-‐
categorized
participants,
racial
exclusion
resulted
in
lower
Digital
Hero
identity
for

participants
reporting
high
racial
identity
(H1a)
and
greater
Digital
hero
identity
for

participants
reporting
low
racial
identity
(H1b).

Figure
5:
3-‐way
interaction
between
video
condition,
self-‐categorization
as
a

Digital
Hero,
and
baseline
racial
identity
on
worth
as
a
Digital
Hero
(ßs)

Post-‐hoc
probing
of
the
interaction
reveals
that
the
interaction
between

video
condition
and
self-‐categorization
was
only
significant
for
high
racial
identity

participants
(ßSCHIGHID
=
-‐.192,
pSCHIGHID
=
.053;
ßNCHIGHID
=
.240;
pNCHIGHID
=
.018).

Furthermore,
this
effect
was
not
mediated
by
other
CSE
subscales.
When

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

3.9

4.1

Inclusion
Exclusion

Worth
as
a
Digital
Hero

Video
Condition
(Race)

SCLOWID
(.025)
SCMEDID
(-‐.084)
SCHIGHID
(-‐.192*)

NCLOWID
(-‐.030)
NCMEDID

(.105)
NCHIGHID
(.240*)

36

investigated
separately,
the
interaction
between
video
condition
and
racial
identity

was
a
marginally
significant
predictor
of
worth
among
self-‐categorized
participants

(∆R
2

=
.042,
F(1,63)
=
3.303,
p
=
.074)
and
non-‐categorized
participants
(∆R
2

=
.038,

F(1,72)
=
2.961,
p
=
.090).

It
is
also
important
to
note
that
racial
exclusion
resulted
in
a
convergence
of

responses
towards
the
neutral
midpoint
(i.e.,
“Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree”).
In

order
to
examine
this
effect,
each
item
in
the
Affect,
Needs,
and
Inclusion
(ANI)
scale

and
CSE
scale
was
coded
such
that
responses
of
“3:
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree”

were
coded
as
1
and
all
other
responses
were
coded
as
a
0.
Racially
excluded

participants
reported
a
higher
number
of
neutral
midpoint
responses
compared
to

racially
included
participants
(F(1,142)
=
3.813,
p
=
.053,
η
2

=
.026)
after
controlling

for
racial
identity
and
self-‐categorization,
indicating
that
racial
exclusion
may
lead

to
a
numbing
or
detachment
from
the
novel
group
regardless
of
categorization.

A
simple
paired
samples
t-‐Test
revealed
a
significant
decrease
in
racial

identity
across
participants
after
watching
the
video
(t(121)
=
2.107,
p
=
.037),

indicating
that
the
presentation
of
an
attractive
novel
group
resulted
in
an
overall

decrease
in
racial
identity.
Planned
comparisons
revealed
that
the
decrease
was

only
significant
among
racially
excluded
self-‐categorized
participants
(t(25)
=
2.383,

p
=
.025;
See
Table
3).
A
repeated
measures
GLM
analysis
revealed
that
the

interaction
between
video
condition
and
self
categorization
was
a
marginally

significant
predictor
of
change
in
racial
identity
(F(1,118)
=
3.330,
p
=
.071,
η
2

=

.027).

37

Table
3:
Average
change
in
racial
identity
by
video
condition
and
self-‐
categorization
as
a
Digital
Hero;
negative
values
indicate
a
decrease
in
racial

identity

Self-‐Categorized
Non-‐Categorized

Included
0.000
(.504)
-‐0.146
(.586)

Excluded
-‐0.244*
(.520)
-‐0.038
(.497)

Racial
exclusion
also
resulted
in
greater
negative
mood
(∆R
2

=
.026,
p
=
.052,

ß
=
.156);
excluded
participants
reported
greater
agreement
with
the
statements,
“I

feel
sad/ashamed/angry.”
In
addition,
the
interaction
between
video
condition
and

racial
identity
was
significant
(∆R
2

=
.041,
ß
=
.204,
p
=
.013)
such
that
effect
of
video

condition
on
negative
mood
increased
as
racial
identity
increased.
Post
hoc
probing

revealed
that
the
effect
of
racial
exclusion
was
significant
among
participants

reporting
high
(ß
=
.060,
p
=
.002)
and
medium
(ß
=
.026,
p
=
.048)
racial
identity

(See
Figure
6).

Discussion

Counter
to
H1,
racial
exclusion
did
not
significantly
affect
categorization
with

Digital
Heroes.
Although
racial
exclusion
affected
mood,
psychosocial
needs,
and

identification
with
the
novel
group,
racial
exclusion
did
not
affect
self-‐categorization

as
a
Digital
Hero
as
hypothesized
in
H1.
Again,
self-‐categorization
was
best

predicted
by
online
activities
assessed
at
baseline;
counter
to
Study
1,
there
was
a

marginal
effect
of
gender
on
self-‐categorization
such
that
men
were
more
likely
to

self-‐categorize
as
a
Digital
Hero.

38

Figure
6:
Interaction
between
video
condition
and
baseline
racial
identity
on

transformed
negative
affect
(ßs)

As
hypothesized,
the
3-‐way
interaction
between
video
condition
(racial

inclusion/exclusion),
self-‐categorization
as
a
Digital
Hero,
and
baseline
racial

identity
was
a
significant
predictor
of
Digital
Hero
Identity.
In
line
with
H2a,
racial

exclusion
resulted
in
lower
novel
group
identity
among
self-‐categorized
participants

who
reported
high
racial
identity,
and
this
effect
was
significant.
Alternatively,
racial

exclusion
resulted
in
greater
novel
group
identity
among
self-‐categorized

participants
who
reported
low
racial
identity
in
line
with
H2b,
but
the
effect
was
not

significant.

Racial
exclusion
also
affected
non-‐categorized
participants,
but
in
the

opposite
direction
hypothesized
in
H2c.
Non-‐categorized
participants
with
high

0.13

0.15

0.17

0.19

0.21

0.23

0.25

0.27

0.29

0.31

Inclusion
Exclusion

Negative
Affect
(tr)

Video
Condition
(Race)

Low
RaceID
(-‐.007)
Med
RaceID
(.026*)
High
RaceID
(.060**)

39

racial
identity
reported
significantly
greater
Digital
Hero
identity
when
racially

excluded
compared
to
included
controls.
This
may
be
due
to
a
greater
overall
social

identity,
or
collective
self-‐esteem,
among
these
individuals;
prior
research
has

demonstrated
that
social
identity
is
correlated
across
dimensions
such
that

individuals
reporting
greater
racial
identity
are
also
more
likely
to
report
greater

gender
identity,
and
identity
with
other
social
groups.
In
the
current
study,
racial

and
gender
identity
were
highly
correlated
(r
=
.351,
p
<
.001).
When
high-‐racially

identified
participants
are
faced
with
identity
threat,
they
may
increase
their

identity
with
any
available
positive
group
to
increase
overall
self-‐concepts.

The
emphasis
on
a
novel
group
resulted
in
a
decrease
in
racial
identity
across

all
participants,
and
this
decrease
was
only
significant
for
self-‐categorized
racially

excluded
participants;
again,
these
findings
were
counter
to
the
original
hypothesis

which
stated
that
exclusion
would
result
in
increased
racial
identity.
These
results

indicate
that,
when
faced
with
demographic
group
exclusion,
individuals’
distance

themselves
from
the
targeted
group.
Although
prior
studies
have
demonstrated
that,

when
faced
with
discrimination,
individuals
with
high
racial
identity
may
embrace

the
targeted
group
as
a
coping
strategy,
this
was
not
replicated
in
this
study.
This

discrepancy
may
be
due
to
the
implicit
nature
of
demographic
group
exclusion,

which
may
activate
the
coping
strategy
of
detachment
from
the
group
targeted
for

exclusion,
especially
among
participants
who
want
to
belong
to
the
novel
group.

Finally,
as
hypothesized
in
H4,
racial
exclusion
from
the
novel
group
resulted

in
greater
negative
affect
and
this
effect
was
strongest
among
participants
reporting

40

high
racial
identity.
These
findings
indicate
that
racial
exclusion
can
be
considered
a

threat
to
identity,
i.e.,
negative
information
about
a
group
that
may
be
internalized

by
an
individual
thus
causing
negative
affect
and
negative
self-‐concepts.

Study
3:
Gender
Exclusion
from
a
Novel
Group

To
extend
the
findings
regarding
racial
exclusion
to
other
subgroups,
Study
2

was
replicated
to
investigate
gender
exclusion.
The
hypotheses
of
Study
2
are

adjusted
to
apply
to
gender
exclusion
and
edited
to
be
in
line
with
Study
2
results.

Methods

Participants

188
American
born,
native
English
speakers,
aged
18-‐30
(MAGE
=
20.20,
SDAGE

=
2.179;
68.7%
Female),
were
considered
eligible
for
the
study.
There
was
no
racial

eligibility
criterion
for
Study
3,
and
the
sample
is
diverse
(43.6%
White,
28.8%

Asian,
11.2%
Multiracial,
9.0%
Latino,
5.3%
Black,
2.1%
Other).
Studies
2
and
3

were
conducted
simultaneously
and
featured
the
same
recruitment
methods
and

participant
reimbursement;
again
the
majority
of
participants
were
accessed
via
the

USC
psychology
subject
pool
(79.3%).

Procedure

The
procedure
was
the
same
as
that
of
Study
2.
Participants
were
randomly

assigned
to
one
of
two
video
conditions:
Gender
Inclusion
or
Gender
Exclusion.

41

Materials

The
original
video
featured
in
Study
1
served
as
gender
inclusion
control.

Two
additional
videos
were
produced
for
Study
3:
male
exclusion
condition
(Figure

7a)
and
female
exclusion
(Figure
7b).
All
videos
included
racially
diverse
actors.

Pilot
studies
ensured
that
all
participants
in
the
gender
exclusion
video
were

perceived
to
be
the
appropriate
gender.

Figure
7:
Gender
exclusion
versions
of
the
Digital
Heroes
video

(a)
(b)

Measures

Study
3
employed
the
same
measures
used
in
Study
2;
total
Ns
and
reliability

scores
are
available
in
Appendix
B.

Data
was
cleaned
and
transformed
using
the

same
methods
as
those
in
Study
2.

Results

49.4%
of
participants
categorized
as
a
Digital
Hero
and,
according
to
a
binary

logistic
regression,
online
activities
significantly
predicted
self-‐categorization
(χ
2

=

51.923,
p
<
.001).
There
was
no
effect
of
race
or
video
condition.
Gender
exhibited
a

marginally
significant
effect
(χ
2

=
3.267,
p
=
.071);
men
were
more
likely
than

women
to
self-‐categorize
as
Digital
Heroes.

42

The
3-‐way
interaction
between
video
condition
(gender

inclusion/exclusion),
self-‐categorization
(“I
am/am
not
a
Digital
Hero),
and

continuous
gender
identity
was
a
marginally
significant
predictor
of
Digital
Hero

identity
according
to
a
multivariate
GLM
(F(4,164)
=
2.222,
p
=
.069,
η
2

=
.051).
This

effect
was
not
mediated
by
mood,
negative
self-‐concepts,
or
self-‐reported
attitudes

and
attention.
The
3-‐way
interaction
marginally
predicted
video
ratings
(F(1,175)
=

3.38,
p
=
.068,
η
2

=
.019,
ß
=
-‐1.518),
and
mediated
the
multivariate
effect
of
the

interaction
on
Digital
Hero
identity,
such
that
the
3-‐way
interaction
was
no
longer

significant
after
controlling
for
video
ratings
(p
=
.109).

This
effect
was
primarily
driven
by
importance
of
Digital
Heroes
to
self

according
to
tests
of
between-‐subjects
effects;
regression
analyses
were
conducted

on
importance
to
self
such
that
video
condition,
self-‐categorization,
and
gender

identity
were
entered
in
Step
1,
the
subsequent
2-‐way
interactions
were
entered
in

Step
2,
and
the
3-‐way
interaction
was
entered
in
Step
3.
The
3-‐way
interaction
was

significant
(F(1,169)
=
6.159,
∆R
2

=
.031,
p
=
.014,
ß
=
-‐.169,
η
2

=
.035)
and
the
effect

of
the
interaction
on
importance
to
self
remained
significant
even
after
controlling

for
video
ratings
(F(1,168)
=
5.015,
p
=
.026,
η
2

=
.029);
see
Figure
8.
As

hypothesized,
among
self-‐categorized
participants,
gender
exclusion
resulted
in

lower
Digital
Hero
identity
for
participants
reporting
high
gender
identity
(H1a)
and

greater
Digital
Hero
identity
for
participants
reporting
low
gender
identity
(H1b).

Post-‐hoc
probing
of
the
interaction
reveals
that
the
interaction
is
only

significant
for
low
gender
identity
participants
(ßSCLOWID
=
.247,
pSCLOWID
=
.053,

43

ßNCLOWID
=
-‐.201,
pNCLOWID
=
.040).
Furthermore,
this
effect
was
not
mediated
by
other

CSE
subscales.
When
self-‐categorized
participants
were
investigated
separately,
the

effect
of
video
condition
was
significant
(ß
=
.743,
p
=
.049),
and
the
interaction

between
video
condition
and
gender
identity
was
a
marginally
significant
predictor

of
importance
of
Digital
Heroes
to
self
(∆R
2

=
.045,
ß
=
-‐.192,
F(1,67)
=
3.433,
p
=

.068).
When
non-‐categorized
participants
were
investigated
separately,
the
effect
of

video
condition
was
marginally
significant
(ß
=
-‐.577,
p
=
.059),
and
the
interaction

between
video
condition
and
gender
identity
was
marginally
significant
(p
=
.099).

Figure
8:
3-‐way
interaction
between
video
condition,
self-‐categorization,
and

baseline
gender
identity
on
Importance
of
Digital
Heroes
to
self
(ßs)

Again,
regression
plots
reveal
a
convergence
around
the
neutral
midpoint
for

self-‐categorized
participants.
After
controlling
for
gender
identity,
the
2-‐way

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

Inclusion
Exclusion

Importance
of
Digital
Heroes
to
Self

Video
Condition
(Gender)

SCLOWID
(.247*)
SCMEDID
(.088)
SCHIGHID
(-‐.071)

NCLOWID
(-‐.201*)
NCMEDID
(-‐.081)
NCHIGHID
(.040)

44

interaction
between
self-‐categorization
and
condition
was
significant
(F(1,174)
=

5.293,
∆R
2

=
.028,
ß
=
.171,
p
=
.023,
η
2

=.030)
such
that
self-‐categorized
(SC)

participants
provided
more
neutral
responses
when
their
gender
was
excluded
(t-‐
test);
the
effect
was
not
significant
for
non-‐categorized
participants.

A
simple
paired
samples
t-‐Test
revealed
a
significant
decrease
in
gender

identity
across
participants
after
watching
the
video
(t(149)
=
2.859,
p
=
.005)

indicating
that
the
presentation
of
an
attractive
novel
group
resulted
in
an
overall

decrease
in
gender
identity
in
a
manner
similar
to
Study
2.
Planned
comparisons

revealed
that
the
decrease
was
marginally
significant
among
gender
excluded
self-‐
categorized
participants
(t(29)
=
1.709,
p
=
.098,
See
Table
4),
and
the
interaction

between
video
condition
and
self-‐categorization
was
not
a
significant
predictor
of

change
in
gender
identity.

Table
4:
Average
change
in
gender
identity
by
video
condition
and
self-‐
categorization
as
a
Digital
Hero;
negative
values
indicate
a
decrease
in
gender

identity

Self-‐Categorized
Non-‐Categorized

Inclusion
-‐0.143
(.430)
-‐0.180
(.568)

Exclusion
-‐0.300
(.961)†
-‐0.011
(.453)

Finally,
contrary
to
H4,
gender
exclusion
did
not
affect
personal
identity
(i.e.,

mood,
threads
to
psychosocial
needs),
indicating
that
gender
exclusion
was
not

threatening
to
personal
identity.

45

Discussion

Similar
to
the
findings
in
Study
2,
gender
exclusion
did
not
affect
self-‐
categorization
with
Digital
Heroes.
Again
self-‐categorization
was
best
predicted
by

baseline
measures
of
online
activities,
or
group-‐related
behaviors,
and
gender

exhibited
a
marginal
effect.

As
hypothesized
the
3-‐way
interaction
between
video
condition
(gender

inclusion/exclusion),
self-‐categorization
as
a
Digital
Hero,
and
baseline
gender

identity
was
a
significant
predictor
of
identity
with
the
novel
group
in
a
manner

similar
to
that
of
racial
exclusion.
In
line
with
H2a,
gender
exclusion
resulted
in

lower
group
identity
among
self-‐categorized
participants
who
reported
high
gender

identity,
but
this
effect
was
not
significant.
Alternatively,
gender
exclusion
resulted

in
greater
group
identity
among
self-‐categorized
participants
who
reported
low

gender
identity,
in
line
with
H2b,
and
this
effect
was
significant.

Similar
to
the
findings
in
Study
2,
gender
exclusion
also
affected
participants

who
did
not
categorize
with
Digital
Heroes,
resulting
in
significantly
lower
Digital

Hero
identity
among
those
reporting
low
gender
identity.
These
findings
are
in
line

with
prior
literature
(Cheryan,
Plaut,
Davies,
&
Steele
2009;
Stout
&
Dasgupta,
2011)

and
H2c.
For
these
participants,
the
lack
of
gender
representation
may
indicate
that

their
gender
group
does
not
belong
or
will
not
be
accepted
in
the
novel
group,

Digital
Heroes.
However,
the
lack
of
an
effect
among
non-‐categorized
high
gender

identified
participants
also
demands
investigation;
for
these
individuals,
gender

46

may
be
a
chronically
salient
category,
and
participants
are
well
versed
in
coping

with
treats
to
this
identity.

Again,
the
emphasis
on
a
novel
group
resulted
in
a
decrease
in
gender

identity
across
all
participants,
and
this
decrease
was
marginally
significant
for
self-‐
categorized
gender
excluded
participants
as
hypothesized
in
H3a.
Similar
to
racial

identity,
when
faced
with
gender
exclusion,
individuals’
distance
themselves
from

their
gender
identity.
However,
counter
to
H4,
there
was
no
data
to
suggest
that

gender
exclusion
threatened
personal
identity.

General
Discussion

These
studies
are
some
of
the
first
to
investigate
racial
exclusion
and

incorporate
group
affiliation,
providing
greater
understanding
of
how
we
perceive

the
demographic
composition
of
groups
and
our
place
within
them.
Demographic

group
exclusion
is
a
common
phenomenon;
we
regularly
encounter
groups
that
do

not
include
members
of
our
race
or
gender,
but
with
which
we
feel
a
connection.

The
effects
of
demographic
group
exclusion
were
moderated
by
self-‐categorization

with
the
novel
group
and
identity
with
the
targeted
demographic
group
(e.g.,
race,

gender)
in
a
consistent
fashion
across
both
racial
and
gender
exclusion.

Although
racial
and
gender
exclusion
affected
different
subscales
of
the

Collective
Self-‐Esteem
Scale
(i.e.,
racial
exclusion
affected
worth
as
a
member,

whereas
gender
exclusion
affected
importance
to
self),
the
pattern
of
effects
were

similar.
These
subscales
were
highly
correlated
(r2
=
.493**,
r3
=
.583**);
therefore,

47

for
clarity,
a
composite
scale
consisting
of
these
two
subscales
was
constructed
(α2
=

.814,
α3
=
.828).
Regression
analyses
on
this
composite
identity
measure
revealed

that
the
interactions
remained
significant
and
resulted
in
similar
effects
(See
Figures

9
and
10).
These
consistent
results
provide
insight
into
the
potential
effects
of

excluding
other
demographic
groups
(e.g.,
sexuality,
body
size,
politics,
religion,
etc.)

and
larger
collective
groups
including
national
identity.

Figure
9:
3-‐way
interaction
between
video
condition,
self-‐categorization,
and

baseline
racial
identity
on
Digital
Hero
identity
composite
(ßs)
2

2

Regression
analyses
on
the
composite
identity
measure
revealed
that
the
3-‐way

interaction
between
video
condition
(racial
inclusion/exclusion),
self-‐categorization

as
a
Digital
Hero,
and
baseline
racial
identity
was
significant
(∆R
2

=
.023,
ß
=
-‐.132,

F(1,137)
=
4.319,
p
=
.040).

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

Inclusion
Exclusion

Digital
Hero
Identity
Composite

Video
Condition
(Race)

SCLOWID
(.079)
SCMEDID
(.003)
SCHIGHID
(-‐.082)

NCLOWID
(-‐.003)
NCMEDID
(.113†)
NCHIGHID
(.229*)

48

Figure
10:
3-‐way
interaction
between
video
condition,
self-‐categorization,
and

baseline
gender
identity
on
Digital
Hero
identity
composite
(ßs)
3

It
is
important
to
note
that
demographic
group
exclusion
affected
identity

with
the
novel
group
without
affecting
self-‐categorization.
It
was
originally

hypothesized
that
demographic
group
exclusion
would
affect
self-‐categorization

with
Digital
Heroes,
but
the
data
did
not
support
this
hypothesis.
In
the
latter
two

studies,
prior
engagement
in
group
related
behaviors
served
as
the
best
predictor
of

self-‐categorization
with
the
novel
group;
with
respect
to
diverse
achievement
based

groups,
these
findings
indicate
that
demographic
group
exclusion
was
not
sufficient

3

Regression
analyses
on
the
composite
identity
measure
revealed
that
the
3-‐way

interaction
between
video
condition
(gender
inclusion/exclusion),
self-‐
categorization
as
a
Digital
Hero,
and
baseline
gender
identity
was
significant
(∆R
2

=

.032,
F(1,171)
=
6.223,
p
=
.014).

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

Inclusion
Exclusion

Digital
Hero
Identity
Composite

Video
Condition
(Gender)

SCLOWID
(.195†)
SCMEDID
(.057)
SCHIGHID
(-‐.081)

NCLOWID
(-‐.084)
NCMEDID
(.027)
NCHIGHID
(.137)

49

to
alter
participants’
binary
self-‐categorization.
However,
an
effect
of
measurement

emerges
when
comparing
the
frequency
of
self-‐categorization
in
Study
1
to
Studies

2
and
3;
participants
who
completed
the
shorter
measure
of
online
activities
in

Studies
2
and
3
were
more
likely
to
self-‐categorize
as
Digital
Heroes
compared
to

participants
who
completed
the
longer
scale
in
Study
1.

The
importance
of
these
findings
is
two-‐fold;
(1)
participants
appear
to
self-‐
categorize
prior
to
watching
the
video
based
on
the
limited
information
provided
in

the
measure
of
online
activities,
and
(2)
the
extended
version
of
the
online
activities

measure
reduced
participants
willingness
to
self-‐categorize,
presumably
due
to

more
detailed
Digital
Hero
behaviors.
The
effects
of
the
extended
online
activities

measure
may
also
be
emblematic
of
the
availability
heuristic,
which
states
that
ease

of
retrieval
is
a
valuable
cue
that
individuals
employ
to
determine
the
frequency
and

probability
of
events
(Tversky
&
Kahneman,
1973).
The
extended
online
activities

measure
forced
participants
to
consider
more
group-‐related
behaviors,
thus

decreasing
the
cognitive
availability
of
their
engagement
with
group-‐related

activities.

These
findings
reinforce
the
differences
between
categorization,
group,
and

identity
described
earlier.
A
category
is
a
shared
characteristic
among
of
collection

of
individuals
(e.g.,
individuals
active
and
interested
in
interactive
media),
and

becomes
a
group
when
these
individuals
seek
to
achieve
common
goals.
Despite

categorizing
with
the
group
(i.e.,
acknowledging
similar
characteristics),

participants
still
exhibited
varied
identity.
This
stable
effect
of
self-‐categorization

50

allowed
for
a
more
robust
analysis
into
the
effects
of
demographic
group
exclusion.

Across
the
studies,
self-‐categorized
participants
reported
higher
ratings
of
video,

more
positive
mood,
and
reported
greater
attention,
to,
credibility
of,
and

identification
with
the
novel
group;
these
findings
confirm
that
the
video
presented

a
group
with
whom
some
participants
felt
a
connection.

However,
this
connection
also
left
self-‐categorized
participants
vulnerable
to

the
effects
of
demographic
group
exclusion.
It
was
originally
hypothesized
that

demographic
group
exclusion
would
result
in
lower
identity
with
the
novel
group,

and
greater
negative
mood
and
negative
self-‐concepts.
In
general,
the
findings

indicated
that
this
was
true,
but
only
for
self-‐categorized
participants.
With
both

university
affiliation
and
the
experimental
novel
group,
Digital
Heroes,
the
effect
of

demographic
group
exclusion
was
consistently
moderated
by
identity
with
the

targeted
group
(i.e.,
race,
gender);
whereas
participants
highly
identified
with
the

targeted
group
reported
lower
identity
with
the
larger
group
when
their

demographic
group
was
excluded,
participants
not
highly
identified
with
the

targeted
group
reported
greater
identity
with
the
larger
group
when
excluded.

Alternatively,
demographic
exclusion
identity
exhibited
the
opposite
effect

among
participants
who
did
not
self-‐categorize
with
Digital
Heroes
(i.e.,
non-‐
categorized);
for
non-‐categorized
participants,
demographic
group
exclusion

resulted
in
greater
identity
with
the
novel
group
among
participants
reporting
high

racial
or
gender
identity,
whereas
non-‐categorized
participants
with
low
racial
or

gender
identity
demonstrated
lower
identity.
However,
the
strength
of
these
effects

51

differed
between
racial
and
gender
exclusion;
racial
exclusion
elicited
greater

identity
with
the
novel
group
for
high
racially
identified
participants,
counter
to
the

original
hypothesis,
and
gender
exclusion
elicited
lower
identity
with
the
novel

group
for
low
racially
identified
participants,
in
line
with
the
original
hypothesis
and

the
prior
literature
by
Cheryan,
Plaut,
Davies,
and
Steele
(2009)
and
Stout
and

Dasgupta
(2011).
These
effects
present
additional
questions
that
are
not
addressed

by
the
prior
research.

Demographic
group
exclusion
also
significantly
affected
racial
and
gender

identity;
participants
reported
decreased
racial
and
gender
identity
after
watching

the
video,
and
self-‐categorized
excluded
participants
reported
at
least
marginally

significant
decreases.
These
findings,
counter
to
the
original
hypothesis
that

excluded
participants
would
report
an
increase
in
demographic
group
identity,

provide
evidence
for
alternative
identity-‐based
coping
mechanisms
like
identity

detachment.
Flexible
identity
structures
allow
individuals
to
distance
from
a

negatively-‐coded
group
to
protect
individual
self-‐esteem.
In
line
with
Self-‐
Categorization
Theory
(SCT,
Turner,
1987),
and
Hogg
and
Abrams
(1990),

participants
are
motivated
to
categorize
and
identify
in
a
manner
that
will
result
in

the
greatest
positive
self-‐concepts
given
the
context,
and
without
explicit

discrimination,
or
the
opportunity
to
interact
with
or
discriminate
against

alternative
outgroups,
the
only
option
is
to
adjust
personal
identity.
In
Studies
2
and

3,
wherein
Digital
Heroes
is
presented
as
a
positive
attractive
group,
excluded

participants,
and
especially
those
that
self-‐categorize,
may
benefit
from

52

downplaying
their
demographic
group
identity
in
order
to
fit
in
with
the
novel

group.

This
theory
is
in
line
with
the
findings
regarding
the
frequency
of
neutral

responses;
racial
exclusion
resulted
in
more
neutral
midpoint
responses
across
both

self-‐categorized
and
non-‐categorized
participants,
whereas
gender
exclusion
only

elicited
this
effect
among
self-‐categorized
participants.
Although
this
apparent

identity
detachment
was
not
explicitly
investigated,
these
findings
are
in
line
with

the
“numbness
hypothesis”
presented
by
Twenge,
Cantanese,
and
Baumeister

(2002),
which
states
that
Instead
of
eliciting
the
emotional
distress
commonly

believed
to
be
associated
with
exclusion,
people
may
respond
with
low
arousal,

"empty,
neutral,
and
even
bored
feelings"
(Massong,
Dickson,
Ritzler,
&
Layne,

1982)
in
order
to
prevent
isolating
affect.
According
to
this
hypothesis,
exclusion

will
result
in
a
"deconstructed
state,"
which
while
somewhat
vague,
is

operationalized
as
present
oriented,
disordered
time
perception,
lack
of
meaningful

existence,
lethargy,
lack
of
emotion,
and
an
escape
from
self-‐awareness.
"If
social

exclusion
thwarts
a
basic
human
drive
and
challenges
one's
self-‐worth,
then
people

might
prefer
to
escape
self-‐awareness
and
emotional
distress
by
hiding
out
in
a

mental
state
marked
by
numbness,
lack
of
meaningful
thought,
and
a
narrow
focus

on
concrete,
immediate
stimuli"
(Twenge,
Cantanese,
&
Baumeister,
2002).
This

theory,
although
focusing
on
exclusion's
numbing
effect
on
mood,
demands
that

exclusion
affects
mood,
therefore
the
comparison
between
exclusion
and
acceptance

should
reveal
an
effect
on
mood
independent
of
effects
to
psychosocial
needs.

53

However,
racial
and
gender
exclusion
elicited
different
effects
with
respect
to

personal
self-‐concepts.
Racial
exclusion
resulted
in
greater
negative
affect
and
this

effect
was
moderated
by
racial
identity
such
that
the
effect
was
strongest
among

high
racially
identified
participants;
alternatively
the
same
effect
was
not
present

for
gender
exclusion.
These
findings
indicate
that
racial
exclusion
may
be
more

distressing
and
personally
threatening
to
participants
compared
to
gender

exclusion.

Furthermore,
the
effects
of
racial
and
gender
exclusion
on
Digital
Hero

identity
were
driven
by
different
subscales
of
the
Collective
Self-‐Esteem
(CSE)
scale;

whereas
racial
exclusion
affected
worth
as
a
member
of
the
novel
group
(Pilot
Study

1,
and
Study
2),
gender
exclusion
affected
importance
of
the
novel
group
to
self

(Study
3).
Although
prior
research
often
conflates
racial
and
gender
identity,
it
is

important
to
address
the
cultural
differences
between
these
two
constructs.

Whereas
racial
exclusion
is
often
considered
to
be
counter
to
the
American
ideal,

gender
exclusion
is
a
common
occurrence
and
a
regular
component
of
culture.
We

are
accustomed
to
being
separated,
and
even
excluded,
based
on
gender;
consider

separate
sex
bathrooms
as
an
everyday
form
of
gender
exclusion.

This
research
builds
on
the
prior
literature
regarding
ambient
belonging
and

group
level
ostracism
presented
earlier,
which
found
that
gender
based
exclusion

resulted
in
lower
identity
with
the
novel
group
among
non-‐categorized
participants,

but
did
not
exhibit
a
significant
effect
on
mood
(Cheryan,
Plaut,
Davies,
&
Steele,

2009).
Taken
together,
both
racial
and
gender
exclusion
from
a
novel
group
affect

54

identity
with
the
novel
group,
but
racial
exclusion
appears
to
be
a
more
powerful

form
of
identity
threat
for
all
participants,
whereas
gender
exclusion
is
only

threatening
to
identity
for
those
who
self-‐categorize
with
the
novel
group.

Limitations
and
Future
Work

The
current
research
provides
a
unique
glimpse
into
the
effects
of

demographic
group
exclusion,
but
several
research
questions
remain.
(1)
How
does

the
dynamic
self
serve
as
a
base
with
which
to
evaluate
novel
groups?
(2)
What
is

the
process
of
group
impression
formation?
(3)
How
does
demographic
group

exclusion
affect
different
subgroups?
(4)
Does
demographic
group
exclusion
exhibit

short-‐
and
long-‐term
effects
on
message
elaboration
and
retention?

(1)
How
does
the
dynamic
self
serve
as
a
base
with
which
to
evaluate
novel

groups?
According
to
the
self-‐as-‐evaluative
base
(SEB)
hypothesis,
personal
self-‐
esteem
will
positively
predict
novel
ingroup
identity
and
negatively
predict

outgroup
identity.
Data
from
Study
1
supported
this
hypothesis
using
the
robust
10-‐
item
Rosenberg
Self-‐Esteem
Scale.
This
hypothesis
was
not
explicitly
tested
in

Studies
2
and
3,
but
the
Single
Item
Self-‐Esteem
(SISE)
scale
did
not
demonstrate

similar
effects.
Alternatively,
data
from
Studies
2
and
3
demonstrated
that
subgroup

identity
was
positively
correlated
with
novel
group
identity.
These
findings
demand

additional
research
investigating
the
role
of
the
dynamic
self
on
novel
group

identity,
assessing
trait,
and
state,
personal,
and
social
identities.

55

Future
studies
should
feature
robust
measures
of
personal
self-‐esteem
and

social
identity,
and
manipulate
the
current
emotional
state
of
the
participant
to

better
understand
how
seemingly
unrelated
threats
to
psychosocial
needs
and

social
identities
affect
perceptions
of
novel
groups.
Upcoming
research

interpersonally
excludes
and
discriminates
against
participants
prior
to
engaging

with
the
novel
group;
it
is
hypothesized
that,
for
self-‐categorized
participants,

immediate
threats
to
psychosocial
needs
will
be
associated
with
an
increased
desire

to
belong
to
the
novel
group,
whereas
non-‐categorized
participants
will
denigrate

and
aggress
against
the
novel
group
as
an
outgroup,
a
strategy
that
has
been
shown

to
enhance
personal
self-‐esteem.

(2)
What
is
the
process
of
group
impression
formation?
Drawing
on
the

research
regarding
impression
formation,
or
the
process
by
which
we
integrate

stereotypes
and
personal
attributes
in
judging
novel
targets,
the
current
research

offers
hints
regarding
the
formation
of
novel
group
impressions
and
how
these

prototypes
affect
self-‐categorization.
Future
studies
must
assess
participants’

perceptions
of
the
novel
group
prior
to
the
video
to
investigate
the
creation
of,
and

confidence
in,
preliminary
prototypes.
Furthermore,
it
is
hypothesized
that

flexibility
in
these
prototypes
will
moderate
ratings
of,
attitudes
towards,
and

identification
with
the
novel
group.

These
prototypes
may
also
extend
into
expectations
of
the
group
as
a

cohesive
unit.
It
is
possible
that
participants
did
not
perceive
the
group
as
an

interdependent
locomoting
entity
with
common
goals
and
a
shared
fate,

56

characteristics
essential
to
group
development
and
subsequent
group
identity;
or

demographic
group
exclusion
may
affect
the
perceptions
of
these
variables.
Future

studies
must
investigate
the
entitatitivity
of
Digital
Heroes,
or
the
degree
of
“group-‐
ness,”
which
may
affect
desire
to
belong
to
the
group
and
perception
of
positive

outcomes.

(3)
How
does
demographic
group
exclusion
affect
different
subgroups?

Although
the
current
research
features
a
diverse
population
sample,
it
did
not

include
sufficient
numbers
of
non-‐White
participants
to
thoroughly
investigate

racial
groups
independently.
No
differences
were
found
when
comparing
White
to

non-‐White
participants
after
controlling
for
baseline
racial
identity,
but
it
is

hypothesized
that
different
groups
may
exhibit
different
reactions
to
demographic

group
exclusion
given
the
dynamic
nature
of
threats
to
interpersonal
and
social

identities.

Furthermore,
demographic
group
exclusion
appears
to
successfully
induce

feelings
of
identity
conflict,
or
dual
identity
distress,
such
that
exclusion
from
the

novel
group
may
result
in
negative
emotions
associated
with
their
full,
dynamic
self

(e.g.,
“Black
Digital
Hero”).
In
order
to
mitigate
this
threat,
participants
decreased

their
identification
with
the
excluded
demographic
group,
presumably
to
assimilate

into
Digital
Heroes.
Future
work
must
investigate
the
distress
associated
with
dual

identities
to
assess
if
this
unique
effect
mediates
effects
to
individual
groups.

The
final
question
is
the
most
pressing
and
interesting
of
the
future
work;
(4)

Does
demographic
group
exclusion
affect
message
elaboration
and
long-‐term

57

retention
and
attitude
change?
We
are
presented
with
novel
groups
constantly,
but

rarely
must
we
immediate
determine
our
identification
with
these
novel
groups.

Instead,
the
hope
of
groups
in
recruiting
new
members
is
that
they
will
remember

the
messages
presented
by
the
group
and
this
will
affect
beliefs,
attitudes,
and

behavior
in
the
long-‐term.
The
Elaboration
Likelihood
Model
(ELM)
states
that
the

extent
to
which
an
individual
elaborates
the
message
(or
engages
in
effortful

processing)
will
determine
their
retention
and
internalization
of
the
message
(Petty

&
Cacioppo,
1986),
and
several
factors
can
affect
message
elaboration
including

mood,
motivation
to
engage
with
the
message,
available
resources,
and,
most

important
to
this
research,
characteristics
of
the
messages
source.

In
both
pilot
studies
investigating
racial
exclusion
from
an
affiliated
group

(i.e.,
university
promotional
materials),
racially
excluded
participants
provided

longer
responses,
but
this
effect
was
not
correlated
with
other
measures.
Upcoming

research
will
investigate
the
effect
of
demographic
group
exclusion
from
novel

groups
on
message
elaboration
using
participant
thought
listings
and
ratings.

Qualitative
investigation
of
these
findings
may
also
provide
hints
into
perceptions
of

explicit
or
implicit
discrimination.

Conclusion

The
current
research
addresses
an
everyday
experience,
the
absence
of
one’s

social
group;
whereas
most
research
investigates
what
is
present,
this
work

demonstrates
that
what
is
absent
can
affect
the
way
we
respond
to
novel
groups
and

58

messages.
An
important
strength
of
the
current
research
is
the
use
of
independently

produced
content
to
establish
a
novel
group
and
investigate
the
effect
of

demographic
group
exclusion
on
identity.
Whereas
many
researchers
employ

preexisting
content,
and
attempt
to
control
for
prior
exposure
and
personal

differences,
the
current
research
design
ensured
that
participants
would
not
be

familiar
with
the
group
nor
have
explicit
stereotypes
prior
to
the
start
of
the
study.

The
cognitive
implications
of
demographic
group
exclusion
are
far-‐reaching
and

understudied,
and
this
work
is
applicable
to
many
disciplines.

This
work
was
originally
inspired
by
the
communication
theory
of
symbolic

annihilation,
which
postulates
that
absence
of
one’s
social
group
from
mainstream

media
can
result
in
low
self-‐esteem
and
reduced
feelings
of
belonging
(Gerbner
&

Gross,
1976);
“Representation
in
the
fictional
world
signifies
social
existence;

absence
means
symbolic
annihilation”
(p.
182).
This
hypothesis
is
dependent
on
the

assumption
that
mainstream
media
reflects
dominant
social
values
(i.e.,
the

reflection
hypothesis;
Tuchman,
1978),
and,
over
time,
cultivates
norms
that
are

internalized
by
viewers
(i.e.,
cultivation
theory;
Gerbner
et
al.,
2002).
Due
to
the

emphasis
on
long-‐term
absence,
it
is
difficult
to
test
the
hypothesized
effects
of
this

phenomenon,
but
the
current
research
provides
a
snapshot
of
the
effects.
The

process
of
demographic
group
exclusion
was
designed
to
represent
a
single
instance

of
symbolic
annihilation,
and
this
simple
manipulation
elicited
significant
effects

when
implemented
in
materials
representing
pre-‐affiliated
groups
like
college

promotional
materials,
and
novel
groups
like
Digital
Heroes.
Similar
to
social

59

exclusion,
it
is
postulated
that
repeated
instances
of
demographic
group
exclusion

can
affect
long-‐term,
negative
self-‐concepts.

Everyday,
we
are
encouraged
to
identify
with
groups
including
brands,

political
groups,
interest-‐based
groups,
or
interpersonal
social
groups
like
a

community
sporting
league
or
a
group
of
colleagues.
Furthermore,
the
frequency

with
which
we
come
into
contact
with
novel
groups
has
increased
with
an

increasingly
prominent
interactive
media
environment,
where
online
social

networking
has
created
groups
regardless
of
real
world
boundaries.
When

considering
these
groups,
some
information
is
readily
available
and
accessible,

items
referred
to
as
explicit
characteristics
in
the
current
research.
Individuals
may

be
able
to
self-‐categorize
with
groups
based
on
this
limited
knowledge
(e.g.,
I
am
a

researcher),
but
simple
categorization
is
not
sufficient
to
identity
development;
as

we
learn
more
about
groups,
our
categorization
may
not
change,
but
the
extend
to

which
we
perceive
our
place
within
the
group
(i.e.,
worth
as
a
member,
importance

to
personal
identity)
may
be
affected
by
implicit
characteristics
of
the
group

including
demographic
composition.

The
replication
of
effects
across
multiple
subgroups
also
allows
this
research

to
be
applied
to
other
groups
outside
of
race
and
gender.
These
findings
improve

our
understanding
regarding
the
unique
situation
of
other
subgroups
including,
but

not
limited
to,
sexuality,
nationality,
body
size,
religion,
and
political
affiliation.

Participants
who
seek
to
categorize
with
a
group,
but
who
do
not
see
other

members
of
their
demographic
groups
may
demonstrate
greater
negative
emotions

60

and
self-‐concepts,
less
identification
with
the
novel
group,
or
reduce
their

demographic
group
identity
in
order
to
fit
in.
These
effects,
may
elicit
overall

personality
change
when
experienced
in
the
long-‐term.

61

References

Ashmore,
R.
D.,
Deaux,
K.,
&
McLaughlin-‐Volpe,
T.
(2004).
An
organizing
framework

for
collective
identity:
Articulation
and
significance
of
multidimensionality.

Psychological
Bulletin,
1,
80-‐114.

Baumeister,
R.
F.
(1986).
Identity:
Cultural
change
and
the
struggle
for
self.
New

York:
Oxford
University
Press.

Baumeister,
R.
F.,
&
Leary,
M.
R.
(1995).
The
Need
to
Belong:
Desire
for

Interpersonal
Attachments
as
a
Fundamental
Human
Motivation.

Psychological
Bulletin,
17,
497-‐529.

Brewer,
M.
B.
(1991).
The
social
self:
on
being
the
same
and
different
at
the
same

time.
Personality
and
Social
Psychology
Bulletin,
17,
475-‐482.

Buckley,
K.
E.,
Winkel,
R.
E.,
&
Leary
M.
R.
(2004).
Reactions
to
acceptance
and

rejection:
Effects
of
level
and
sequence
of
relational
evaluation.
Journal
of

Experimental
Social
Psychology,
40,
14-‐28.

Cheryan,
S.,
Plaut,
V.
C.,
Davies,
P.
G.,
&
Steele,
C.
M.
(2009).
Ambient
belonging:
How

stereotypical
cues
impact
gender
participation
in
computer
science.
Journal

of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
97,
1045-‐1060.

Crocker,
J.,
&
Luhtanen,
R.
(1990)
Collective
self-‐esteem
and
ingroup
bias.
Journal
of

Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
58,
60-‐67.

Ellemers,
N.,
Spears,
R.,
&
Doosje,
B.
(2002).
Self
and
Social
Identity.
Annual
Review

of
Psychology,
53,
161-‐186.

62

Ethier,
K.
A.,
&
Deaux,
K.
(1994).
Negotiating
social
identity
when
contexts
change:

Maintaining
identification
and
responding
to
identity
threat.
Interpersonal

Relations
and
Group
Processes,
67,
243-‐251.

Gerbner,
G.,
&
Gross,
L.
(1976).
Living
with
Television:
The
Violence
Profile.
Journal

of
Communication,
26,
173-‐199.

Gerbner,
G.,
Gross,
G.,
Morgan,
M.,
Signorielli,
N.,
Shanahan,
J.
(2002).
Growing
Up

with
Television:
Cultivation
Processes.
In
J.
Bryant
&
D.
Zillman
(Eds.)
Media

Effects:
Advances
in
Theory
and
Research.
Mahwah,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
43-‐67.

Gramzow,
R.
H.,

&
Gaertner,
L.
(2005).
Self-‐esteem
and
favoritism
toward
novel
in-‐
groups:
The
self
as
an
evaluative
base.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social

Psychology,
88,
801-‐815.

Heikes,
E.
J.
(1991).
When
men
are
the
minority:
The
case
of
men
in
nursing.

Sociological
Quarterly,
32,
389-‐401.

Hogg,
M.
A.,
&
Abrams,
D.
(1990).
Social
motivation,
self-‐esteem
and
social
identity.

In
D.
Abrams
&

M.
A.
Hogg
(Eds).
Social
identity
theory:
Constructive
and

critical
advances.
London:
Harvester
Wheatsheaf.
28-‐47.

Jenkins,
H.
(2009).
Confronting
the
challenges
of
participatory
culture:
Media

education
for
the
21
st

century.
MacArthur
Foundation.

Leary,
M.
R.,
Tambor,
E.
S.,
Terdal,
S.
K.,
Downs,
D.
L.
(1995).
Self-‐Esteem
as
an

Interpersonal
Monitor:
The
Sociometer
Hypothesis.
Journal
of
Personality
and

Social
Psychology,
68,
518-‐530.

63

Luhtanen,
R.,
&
Crocker,
J.
(1992).
A
Collective
Self-‐Esteem
Scale:
Self-‐Evaluation
of

One’s
Social
identity.
Personality
and
Social
Psychology
Bulletin,
18,
302-‐318.

Major,
B.,
&
O’Brien,
L.
T.
(2005).
The
Social
Psychology
of
Stigma.
Annual
Review
of

Psychology,
56,
393-‐421.

Major,
B.,
Quinton,
W.
J.,
&
McCoy,
S.
K.
(2002).
Antecedents
and
consequences
of

attributions
to
discrimination:
Theoretical
and
empirical
advances.
Advances

in
Experimental
Social
Psychology,
34,
251-‐330.

Massong,
S.
R.,
Dickson,
A.
L.,
Ritzler,
B.
A.,
&
Layne,
C.
(1982).
Assertion
and
defense

mechanism
preference.
Journal
of
Counseling
Psychology,
29,
591-‐6.

Milner,
D.
(1996).
Children
and
racism:
Beyond
the
value
of
the
dolls…
In
W.
P.

Robinson
(Ed.),
Social
Groups
&
Identities;
Developing
the
legacy
of
Henri

Tajfel.
Butterworth
Heinemann:
Cornwall.

Olson,
C.
L.
(1976).
On
choosing
a
test
statistics
in
multivariate
analysis
of
variance.

Psychological
Bulletin,
83,
579-‐586.

Petty,
R.
E.
&
Cacioppo,
J.
T.
(1986).
The
Elaboration
Likelihood
Model
of
Persuasion.

Advances
in
Experimental
Social
Psychology.
19,
123-‐192.

Phinney,
J.
S.
(1992).
The
multigroup
ethnic
identity
measure:
A
new
scale
for
use

with
diverse
groups.
Journal
of
Adolescent
Research,
7,
156-‐176.

Prensky,
M.
(2001).
Digital
natives,
digital
immigrants.
On
the
Horizon,
9,
1-‐6.

Rabbie,
L.
M.,
&
Horowitz,
M.
(1988).
Categories
versus
groups
as
explanatory

concepts
in
intergroup
relations.
European
Journal
of
Social
Psychology,
18,

117-‐123.

64

Robins,
R.
W.,
Hendin,
H.
M.,
&
Trzesniewski,
K.
H.
(2001).
Measuring
global
self-‐
esteem:
construct
validation
of
a
single-‐item
measure
and
the
Rosenberg

self-‐esteem
scale.
Personality
and
Social
Psychology
Bulletin,
27,
151-‐161.

Rosenberg,
M.
(1965).
Society
and
the
adolescent
self-‐image.

Princeton,
NJ:

Princeton
University
Press.

Schmitt,
M.
T.,
&
Branscombe,
N.
R.
(2002).
The
meaning
and
consequences
of

perceived
discrimination
in
disadvantaged
and
privileged
social
groups.

European
Review
of
Social
Psychology,
12,
167-‐199.

Scottham,
K.
M.,
Sellers,
R.
M.,
&
Nguyen,
H.
X.
(under
review).
A
measure
of
racial

identity
in
African
American
adolescents:
The
development
of
the

Multidimensional
Inventory
of
Black
Identity-‐
Teen.

Sekaquaptewa,
D.,
&
Thompson,
M.
(2002).
The
differential
effects
of
solo
status
on

members
of
high-‐
and
low-‐status
groups.
Personality
and
Social
Psychology

Bulletin,
28,
694-‐707.

Steele,
C.
M.,
&
Aronson,
J.
(1995).
Stereotype
threat
and
the
intellectual
test

performance
of
African
Americans.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social

Psychology,
69,
797-‐811.

Steele,
C.
M.,
Spencer,
S.
J.,
&
Aronson,
J.
(2002).
Contending
with
group
image;
The

psychology
of
stereotype
and
social
identity
threat.
Advances
in
Experimental

Social
Psychology,
34,
379-‐440.

Stout,
J.
G.
&
Dasgupta,
N.
(2011).
When
he
doesn’t
mean
you:
Gender-‐exclusive

language
as
ostracism.
Personality
and
Social
Psychology
Bulletin,
6,
757-‐769.

65

Stroebe,
K.,
Ellemers,
N.,
Barreto,
M.,
&
Mummendey,
A.
(2009).
For
better
or
for

worse:
The
congruence
of
personal
and
group
outcomes
on
targets’

responses
to
discrimination.
European
Journal
of
Social
Psychology,
39,
576-‐
591.

Tajfel,
H.,
&
Tuner,
J.
C.
(1979).
An
integrative
theory
of
intergroup
conflict.
In

Austin,
W.G.,
Worchel,
S.
(Eds.).
The
Social
Psychology
of
Intergroup
Relations.

Monterey,
CA:
Brooks-‐Cole.

Tajfel,
H.
&
Turner,
J.
C
(1986).
The
social
identity
theory
of
intergroup
behavior.
In

S.
Worchel
&
W.
G.
Austin
(Eds.),
Psychology
of
intergroup
relations.
Chicago:

Nelson-‐Hall.

Taylor,
S.
E.,
&
Brown,
J.
D.
(1988).
Illusion
and
well-‐being:
A
social
psychological

perspective
on
mental
health.
Psychological
Bulletin,
103,
193-‐210.

Tuchman,
G.
(1978).
Symbolic
Annihilation.
In
Tuchman,
G.,
Kapan,
D.,
Benet,
J.

(Eds).
Hearth
and
Home:
Images
of
Women
in
the
Mass
Media.
Oxford

University
Press:
New
York,
NY.
3-‐38.

Turner,
J.
C.
(1987).
A
self-‐categorization
theory.
In
Turner,
J.
C.,
Hogg,
M.
A.,
Oakes,

P.
J.,
Reicher,
S.
D.,
Wetherell,
M.
S.
(Eds.).
Rediscovering
the
Social
Group:
A

Self-‐Categorization
Theory.
Oxford:
Basil
Blackwell.

Turner,
J.
C.
(1996).
Henri
Tajfel:
An
Introduction.
In
W.
P.
Robinson
(Ed.),
Social

Groups
&
Identities;
Developing
the
legacy
of
Henri
Tajfel.
Butterworth

Heinemann:
Cornwall.

66

Turner,
J.
C.,
&
Bourhis,
R.
Y.
(1996).
Social
identity,
interdependence
and
the
social

group:
A
reply
to
Rabbie,
et
al.
In
W.
P.
Robinson
(Ed.),
Social
Groups
&

Identities;
Developing
the
legacy
of
Henri
Tajfel.
Butterworth
Heinemann:

Cornwall.

Tversky,
A.,
&
Kahneman,
D.
(1973).
Availability:
A
heuristic
for
judging
frequency

and
probability.
Cognitive
Psychology,
5,
207-‐232.

Twenge,
J.
M.,
Cantanese,
K.
R.,
Baumeister,
R.
F.
(2002)
Social
Exclusion
Causes
Self-‐

Defeating
Behavior.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
83,
606-‐615.

Williams,
K.
D.,
Govan,
C.
L.,
Croker,
V.,
Tynan,
D.,
Cruickshank,
M,
&
Lam,
A.
(2002).

Investigations
into
differences
between
social-‐
and
cyberostracism.
Group

Dynamics:
Theory,
Research,
and
Practice,
6,
65-‐77.

Williams,
K.
D.,
Sommer,
K.
L.
(1997).
Social
Ostracism
by
Coworkers:
Does
Rejection

Lead
to
Loafing
or
Compensation?.
Personality
and
Social
Psychology
Bulletin,

23,
693-‐714.

67

Appendix
A:
Digital
Heroes
Script

Videos
are
available
at
http://charisselpree.com/iamadigitalhero

TITLE
CARD

DIGITAL
NATIVE:
A
person
born
into
digital
culture,
that
is
familiar
with
digital

technology
like
computers,
the
Internet,
and
video
games.

DIGITAL
HERO:
A
person
who
uses
digital
technologies
as
educational
and
social

tools
to
enhance
and
improve
daily
life.

MONTAGE

I’m
a
Digital
Hero.

[The
following
lines
are
delivered
in
quick
succession
by
different
actors]

Digital
Heroes
don't
just
read
the
paper;
we
rate,
comment,
and
contribute
to
the

news.

We
don't
just
tell
stories,
we
share
experiences
by
sampling
and
remixing
pictures

and
video.

Media
is
an
educational
and
social
tool,
and
we
use
it
to
enhance
our
lives.

Digital
Heroes
get
information
in
seconds,
and
share
our
ideas
with
the
world.

We
read
over
150
webpages
a
month...

that's
almost
a
dozen
books
a
year!

That's
a
lot
of
reading!

And
we
do
it
all
while
avoiding
distractions,
like
banner
ads,
and
pop-‐ups.

Digital
Heroes
don't
learn
from
a
single
teacher
or
textbook,
we
navigate
hundreds

of
websites
to
find
what
we
need.

And
we
judge
content
to
make
sure
it's
legit!

68

For
Digital
Heroes,
the
world
is
a
virtual
playground,
and
we
take
it
everywhere
we

go.

Sharing
our
voices,
opinions,
artwork,
and
knowledge,
with
an
audience
of
millions.

We
are
no
longer
media
consumers,
we
are
media
users.

In
the
new
millennium,
we
define
information.
We
are
Digital
Heroes.

TITLE
CARD

[theheroesarerestless.org]

69

Appendix
B:
List
of
Measures
and
Reliability
Scores
for
Studies
2
and
3

Table
5:
List
of
Measures
and
Reliability
Scores

Variable
Gender
Race

N
α

Mean

(SD)

N
α

Mean

(SD)

Video

Rating

243
N/A

5.52

(2.420)

205
N/A

5.58

(2.192)

Internet

Activity

243
.787

3.154

(.945)

214
.768

3.223

(.909)

General

Inclusion

237
.640

3.563

(.792)

197
.876

3.586

(.774)

Positive

Affect

236
.760

3.333

(.734)

201
.731

3.370

(.689)

Negative

Affect

236
.799

.248

(.166)

199
.782

.230

(.169)

Threats
to

Needs

236
.719

1.3815

(.245)

197
.756

1.378

(.241)

DHCSE
–

Worth

235
.799

3.368

(.804)

193
.781

3.356

(.752)

DHCSE
–

Importance

234
.786

2.563

(.875)

196
.833

2.512

(.901)

70

DHCSE
–

Public

Assessment

236
.706

3.342

(.630)

196
.643

3.385

(.550)

DHCSE
–

Private

Assessment

235
.804

3.483

(.786)

193
.828

3.469

(.730)

Racial

Identity

182
.673

3.322

(.870)

157
.644

3.287

(.785)

Gender

Identity

183
.165

3.404

(.829)

157
.293

3.433

(.830)

DH

Credibility

216
.831

2.2911

(.168)

119
.870

2.271

(.182)

Self-‐Report

Attention

173
.580

3.037

(.708)

142
.581

3.078

(.718)

71

Appendix
C:
Demographic
Measures

Are
you
a
Male
or
Female?

• Male

• Female

What
is
your
age?

Where
were
you
born?

• United
States

• Other
(Please
specify)

What
is
your
primary
language?

• English

• Spanish

• Other
(Please
specify)

What
is
your
race
or
ethnicity?
Please
select
1
of
the
following
categories.

• African-‐American/Black

• Asian/Pacific
Islander

• Caucasian/White

• Hispanic/Latino

• South
Asian/Middle
Eastern

• Multi-‐Racial/Mixed

• Other
(please
specify)

What
is
your
self-‐identified
ethnicity?
Please
describe
your
own
race
or
ethnicity
in
the

field
below.

72

Appendix
D:
Rosenberg
Self-‐Esteem

Below
is
a
list
of
statements
dealing
with
your
general
feelings
about
yourself.
Please

indicate
if
you
Strongly
Disagree
(1),
Disagree
(2),
Agree
(3),
or
Strongly
Agree
(4)

with
the
following:

1. On
the
whole,
I
am
satisfied
with
myself.

2. I
feel
that
I
have
a
number
of
good
qualities.

3. I
feel
I
do
not
have
much
to
be
proud
of.

4. I
certainly
feel
useless
at
times.

5. All
in
all,
I
am
inclined
to
feel
that
I
am
a
failure.

6. I
am
able
to
do
things
as
well
as
most
other
people.

7. I
take
a
positive
attitude
toward
myself.

8. At
times,
I
think
I
am
no
good
at
all.

9. I
feel
that
I
am
a
person
of
worth,
at
least
on
an
equal
plane
with
others.

10. I
wish
I
could
have
more
respect
for
myself

73

Appendix
E:
12-‐item
Affect,
Needs,
and
Inclusion
(ANI)

1
=
Strongly
Disagree,
2
=
Disagree,
3
=
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree,
4
=
Agree,
5
=

Strongly
Agree

Please
consider
how
you
feel
right
now
and
rate
your
agreement
(or
disagreement)

with
the
following
statements...

1. I
am
happy.

2. I
am
excited.

3. I
am
sad.

4. I
am
ashamed.

5. I
am
angry.

6. I
am
proud.

7. I
feel
included.

8. I
feel
excluded.

9. I
think
that
life
is
meaningless.

10. I
feel
that
I
am
in
control
of
my
own
life.

11. I
feel
badly
about
myself.

12. I
do
not
feel
like
I
belong.

74

Appendix
F1:
25-‐item
Group-‐Related
Behaviors
(i.e.,
Online
Activities)

When
online,
how
frequently
do
you...

1
=
Never,
2
=
Rarely,
3
=
Sometimes,
4
=
Often

1. Check
multiple
sites
when
researching
specific
topics?

2. Rate
content
on
other
sites?
(e.g.,
thumbs
up
or
down)

3. Participate
on
social
networking
sites?
(i.e.,
Facebook,
Myspace,
Twitter)

4. Maintain
your
own
personal
blog?

5. Contribute
to
a
community
blog
or
wiki?

6. Collaborate
on
creative
or
academic
projects
with
others
online?

7. Post
videos
that
you
have
created?

8. Post
music
that
you
have
created?

9. Listen
to
new
musical
artists?

10. Watch
new
video
artists?

11. Read
blogs
and
articles
from
people
who
are
NOT
celebrities?

12. Watch
videos
from
people
who
are
NOT
celebrities?

13. Listen
to
music
from
people
who
are
NOT
celebrities?

14. Surf
the
Internet?
(i.e.,
casually
cruise
between
sites
depending
on
content)

15. Read
news
sites?

16. Comment
on
news
sites?

17. Contribute
your
own
stories
and
pictures
to
news
sites?

18. Post
pictures
of
your
own
activities?

75

19. Sample
pictures
from
other
sites
(e.g.,
Google
Images)
for
your
own
projects,

including
videos
and
PowerPoint
presentations?

20. Meet
and
engage
with
others
that
you
know
ONLY
from
online
interactions?

(i.e.,
people
that
you
have
never
met
offline)

21. Meet
and
engage
with
others
that
you
have
met
offline?
(e.g.,
family,
friends,

coworkers,
classmates)

22. Watch
mainstream
programming?
(i.e.,
programs
that
are
originally

broadcast
on
television,
including
network,
cable,
and
premium
channels)

23. Play
single-‐player
video
games?
(i.e.,
NOT
with
others
online)

24. Play
multi-‐player
video
games?
(i.e.,
with
others
online)

25. Write,
edit,
or
contribute
to
fan
fiction?

76

Appendix
F2:
10-‐item
Group-‐Related
Behaviors
(i.e.,
Online
Activities)

1
=
Never,
2
=
Very
Rarely,
3
=
Rarely,
4
=
Occasionally,
5
=
Frequently,
6
=
Very

Frequently

When
online,
how
frequently
do
you…

1. Maintain
your
own
online
presence
(or
blog)
by
posting
original
content

including
text,
pictures,
music
and
video?

2. Comment
on
or
contribute
to
community
pages
or
news
sites?

3. Seek
out
new
work
from
artists
(e.g.,
videos,
music,
images)?

4. Meet
and
engage
with
others
that
you
know
ONLY
from
online
interactions?

(i.e.,
people
that
you
have
never
met
offline)?

5. Seek
out
new
information
about
local,
national,
or
international
events
from

NEWS
sites?

6. Read
blogs
and
articles
from
NON-‐news
and
NON-‐celebrity
sites?

7. Participate
on
social
networking
sites?
(i.e.,
Facebook,
Myspace,
Twitter)

8. Sample
content
(e.g.,
pictures,
music,
video)
from
other
sites
for
your
own

projects?

9. Play
single-‐player
video
games?
(i.e.,
NOT
with
others
online)

10. Play
multi-‐player
video
games?
(i.e.,
with
others
online)

77

Appendix
G:
Collective
Self-‐Esteem
with
Digital
Heroes

1
=
Strongly
Disagree,
2
=
Disagree,
3
=
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree,
4
=
Agree,
5
=

Strongly
Agree

Please
consider
the
possibility
of
being
a
Digital
Hero
and
respond
to
the
following

statements
on
the
basis
of
how
you
feel
about
this
group
and
your
potential

membership
within
it.
There
are
no
right
or
wrong
answers
to
any
of
these

statements;
we
are
interested
in
your
honest
reactions
and
opinions.
Please
read

each
statement
carefully
and
rate
your
agreement
or
disagreement.

78

1. I
would
be
a
worthy
Digital
Hero.

2. I
feel
that
I
don’t
have
much
to
offer
as
a
Digital
Hero.

3. I
would
be
a
cooperative
participant
in
the
activities
of
Digital
Heroes.

4. I
would
feel
useless
as
a
Digital
Hero.

5. I
would
regret
being
a
Digital
Hero.

6. In
general,
I
would
be
glad
to
be
a
Digital
Hero.

7. Overall,
I
feel
that
Digital
Heroes
are
not
worthwhile.

8. I
would
feel
good
about
being
a
Digital
Hero.

9. Overall,
Digital
Heroes
are
considered
good
by
others.

10. Most
people
consider
Digital
Heroes,
on
the
average,
to
be
ineffective.

11. In
general,
others
respect
Digital
Heroes.

12. In
general,
others
think
that
Digital
Heroes
are
unworthy.

13. Overall,
being
a
Digital
Hero
has
very
little
to
do
with
how
I
feel
about

myself.

14. Being
a
Digital
Hero
would
be
an
important
reflection
of
who
I
am.

15. Being
a
Digital
Hero
would
be
unimportant
to
my
personal
identity.

16. In
general,
being
a
Digital
Hero
would
be
an
important
part
of
my
self-‐
image.

79

Appendix
H:
Attention,
Credibility,
and
Attitudes

1
=
Strongly
Disagree,
2
=
Disagree,
3
=
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree,
4
=
Agree,
5
=

Strongly
Agree

Attention

1. I
was
interested
in
the
messages
from
Digital
Heroes.

2. I
paid
careful
attention
to
the
video
from
Digital
Heroes.

3. I
thought
deeply
about
the
messages
from
Digital
Heroes.

Credibility
of
Digital
Heroes

1. I
trust
Digital
Heroes.

2. Digital
Heroes
are
experts
in
new
media.

3. Digital
Heroes
know
what
they
are
talking
about.

4. Digital
Heroes
are
attractive.

5. I
believe
the
messages
from
Digital
Heroes.

6. Digital
Heroes
present
strong
arguments.

7. Digital
Heroes
are
awesome.

Attitudes
Towards
Digital
Heroes
(11-‐point
bipolar
scale)

To
what
extent
do
you
feel
positively
towards
Digital
Heroes?

1. Not
at
all
–
Very
Positive

I
think
that
being
a
Digital
Hero
would
be...

1. Good
–
Bad

2. Beneficial
–
Harmful

3. Wise
–
Foolish

4. Favorable
–
Unfavorable

80

Appendix
I:
Racial
and
Gender
Identity

Please
consider
the
different
components
of
your
identity
and
rate
your
agreement

or
disagreement
with
the
following
statements.

1
=
Strongly
Disagree,
2
=
Disagree,
3
=
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree,
4
=
Agree,
5
=

Strongly
Agree

1. I
feel
close
to
other
[selected
racial
group]
people.

2. I
have
a
strong
sense
of
belonging
to
other
[selected
racial
group]
people.

3. If
I
were
to
describe
myself
to
someone,
one
of
the
first
things
that
I
would

say
is
that
I’m
[selected
racial
group].

4. I
feel
close
to
other
[selected
gender]s.

5. I
have
a
strong
sense
of
belonging
to
the
[selected
gender]
community.

6. If
I
were
to
describe
myself
to
someone,
one
of
the
first
things
that
I
would

say
is
that
I’m
[selected
gender].

Asset Metadata

Creator Corsbie-Massay, Charisse L'Pree (author)

Core Title Racial and gender exclusion affect novel group identity

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 07/25/2012

Defense Date 03/28/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Discrimination,gender,media,OAI-PMH Harvest,ostracism,Race,social identity

Language English

Advisor Read, Stephen J. (committee chair), Huey, Stanley J., Jr.. (committee member), Jenkins, Henry (committee member), Wood, Wendy (committee member)

Creator Email charisselpree@alumni.usc.edu,corsbiem@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-65645

Unique identifier UC11289385

Identifier usctheses-c3-65645 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CorsbieMas-999.pdf

Dmrecord 65645

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Corsbie-Massay, Charisse L'Pree

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Groups are an important component of self-concepts and essential to survival