Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Racial and gender exclusion affect novel group identity
(USC Thesis Other)
Racial and gender exclusion affect novel group identity
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
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].
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Groups are an important component of self-concepts and essential to survival
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Effects of racial exclusion from media
PDF
Justification of selfishness: projection as a mechanism of justification
PDF
Culture, causal attribution, and social support-seeking in Asian college students
PDF
Direct and indirect predictors of traumatic stress and distress in orphaned survivors of the 1994 Rwandan Tutsi genocide
PDF
Teacher bias in school discipline disparities: the roles of race and gender
PDF
Revision of the multisystemic therapy (MST) adherence coding protocol: assessing the reliability and predictive validity of adherence to the nine MST principles
PDF
Differential associations between same- and cross-ethnicity negative peer attitudes and adjustment outcomes among Vietnamese and Mexican American adolescents
PDF
Facebook habits: rewards, cues, and automaticity
PDF
Psychophysiological assessment of cognitive and affective responses for prediction of performance in arousal inducing virtual environments
PDF
Assessing the psychological correlates of belief strength: contributing factors and role in behavior
PDF
How parental psychological control is related to adolescent anger and aggression
PDF
Black sheep or devil protection?: the effects of cooperative and competitive intergroup goal structures on group members reactions to an offensive act when committed by an ingroup or an outgroup ...
PDF
The motivated affective behavior system: a dynamic account of the attachment behavioral system
PDF
Prison of Peace in a jail setting: a randomized trial of a conflict resolution program for incarcerated women
PDF
Affirmation and majority students: Can affirmation impair math performance?
PDF
Identity is the lens through which moral values predict action
PDF
Trajectories of internalizing problems among maltreated girls and boys: differences by maltreatment type and developmental timing
PDF
Habits as friend and foe to self-control: the dual roles of routinized behavior
PDF
Negative peer relationships and academic failures as predictors of depressive symptoms in early adolescence
PDF
Perspective taking behavior and social outcomes in late adolescence
Asset Metadata
Creator
Corsbie-Massay, Charisse L'Pree
(author)
Core Title
Racial and gender exclusion affect novel group identity
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
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
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
Tags
gender
media
ostracism
social identity