Il mondo dei Marvel Legends di Hasbro si arricchisce di una figura davvero inaspettata che farà la gioia dei collezionisti più esigenti e degli appassionati delle curiosità dell'Universo Marvel. Durante l'MCM London Comic Con dello scorso weekend, la casa di giocattoli ha infatti svelato una action figure dedicata a uno dei villain più bizzarri e dimenticati della galleria rogues di Spider-Man: l'Hypno-Hustler. Un personaggio che affonda le radici nell'era disco degli anni '70 e che ora torna prepotentemente alla ribalta grazie a questa release in scala 6 pollici che celebra l'estetica vintage del fumetto originale.
Per chi non lo conoscesse, Hypno-Hustler – vero nome Antoine Delsoin – ha fatto la sua prima apparizione sulle pagine di The Spectacular Spider-Man #24 nel novembre 1978, creato dalla penna di Bill Mantlo e dalle matite di Frank Springer. Il personaggio è il frontman di una band chiamata "The Mercy Killers" e utilizza una tecnologia ipnotica incorporata nella sua chitarra e nelle sue attrezzature per mesmeri What's Acceptable to Call Someone? Size: px Start display at page: Download "What's Acceptable to Call Someone?" Transcription 1 University of Kentucky UKnowledge Social and Behavioral Science Art and Design 2015 What's Acceptable to Call Someone? Steven Stack Wayne State University Ira Wasserman Wayne State University Click here to let us know how access to this document benefits you. Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Repository Citation Stack, Steven and Wasserman, Ira, "What's Acceptable to Call Someone?" (2015). Social and Behavioral Science Lexington, Kentucky This Book Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Art and Design at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Social and Behavioral Science by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact UKnowledge@lsv.uky.edu. 2 What's Acceptable to Call Someone? Notes/Citation Information Published in Art, Controversy, and Conflict, Richard D. Porton, Michael Pileggi, & Pamela J. Mackintosh, Editors. Copyright 2015 CSP. The copyright holders have granted the permission for posting the chapter here. Digital Object Identifier (DOI) This book chapter is available at UKnowledge: 3 What s Acceptable to Call Someone? By Steven Stack and Ira Wasserman Wayne State University Abstract Survey data from a national sample of persons identified as social activists in particular and political liberals in general (n=14,182) were used to assess predictors of tolerance or opposition to two terms and one phrase. Homosexual and Afro American are perceived by these activists as too controversial to use while the phrase illegal alien, especially when applied to Mexicans, is most objectionable. The controversy surrounding the acceptability of using these words and phrase has been highlighted at recent academic conferences as well as in academia in general. They have even spilled over to the mass media including political campaigns. Logistic regression analysis is used to determine independent predictors of labeling these words and phrase as offensive by these activists. These individuals were also asked if any words offended them in the past year but did not go into specifics. Introduction How people are labeled and what they label themselves are classic issues in the symbolic interactionist, labeling, and constructionist literature. Unfortunately, in recent years some of the issues involving labeling, name-calling, and racial or ethnic slurs have been highly politicized; their usage or misusage at best has been controversial and at its worst has had pernicious consequences. Given the nature of these controversies and sometimes serious conflicts, we sought to investigate predictors of opinions on whether the use of certain selected words and phrases under some circumstances would be acceptable or not and could therefore legitimately be used. The names African American, Black, and Negro that have been used to describe those of African descent in America have had a long and controversial history. For instance, in his now classic book, Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?, Beverly Tatum (1997) discusses the term she prefers rather than merely politically correct labels. She is more comfortable with the term Black rather than Negro. While the latter term technically identifies individuals who descended from ancestors who originated from Africa, it is also the case that all people who descended from these progenitors don t necessarily consider themselves as Black. Moreover, they may also identify culturally and linguistically with Caribbean or Latin American ancestry. The term African American is used to accentuate the historical ties to Africa while making it comparable to other ethnic hyphenated identities (e.g., Asian- American, Jewish-American). The hyphenated identity should not be read as reflecting a diminished identification with America. In other words, being perceived as a hyphenated American is a benefit while not being seen as such is in some sense detrimental. We have come a long way from an earlier time when Irish-Americans had to ask if Irish need apply (e.g., Cohen and Soyer, 2006). In the current research, no such in-depth sociological discussions are pursued and there is no indication that such intricate nuances were observed by our respondents. In most of the earlier research, people who are obviously from Latin America and especially from Mexico (the largest component of this population) 163 4 have often simply and broadly been referred to as Latino (Durand and Massey, 2006) though there are intra-ethnic cultural and linguistic differences that complicate a common identity such as class and race. While the ethnic identity of these groups is complex and itself can be controversial (e.g., Foley, 2008), it is not the purpose of our paper to untangle these historical intricacies. Hence we utilize simplified ethnic characterizations for purposes of comparison. For instance, how do activists perceive those who crossed the Mexican border illegally and come from Mexico as opposed to those who crossed from some other Latin American country but illegally? Are there differences in people s reactions? Moreover, in these cases where people came illegally, referring to them as illegal aliens or calling them undocumented workers as others prefer can of itself be controversial. Although our goal is not to resolve or argue for or against the usage of controversial words, we do hope the findings from our investigation will advance a better understanding of the use or mis-use of words or phrases and whether or not people regard them as controversial, whether they are offended by their use, and the predictors of their response. Theoretically, we see the problematic use of certain words and phrases as a reaction to words that are perceived as potentially defaming or are being mis-used, and likely to cause anger or harm to individuals who appear to be the subject, target, or victim of those words or phrases. Scheff (1988) argued that shame is a master or dominant emotion. He writes, in this conception, the pain of shame is the most painful of feelings (1988, p. 397). Shame is an ubiquitous emotion and is experienced in very large numbers of social situations. Moreover, it is nearly impossible to avoid. We would extend Scheff s reasoning to reactions or hurt feelings about groups of people with whom we identify or identify as well. The sense of shame could be for oneself or for others. But what happens when shame is a by-product of being labeled with a stigmatizing or negatively valenced word and in some significant way you yourself or another s self-identity is directly or indirectly affected by its usage? What happens when words are felt to offend oneself or someone close? What is your emotional response? Hypotheses and General Concerns In general we expect those of us with more exposure or greater contact and familiarity with groups of people (e.g., sexual minorities, racial minorities, ethnic minorities, etc.) will have a more positive view of these individuals as a result of their inter-personal exposure and contact. We further expect that those who are more knowledgeable and have greater familiarity with specific groups will feel a greater sense of identification with them and as well be more accepting and tolerant of them than otherwise. Consequently, they would be more sensitive to words or phrases that they perceive as defaming those with whom they identify or with whom they have regular contact and familiarity (Herek and Capitanio, 1996; Herek and Glunt, 1993). Conversely, those who lack contact with stigmatized groups and are not familiar with them nor identify with them should not be as sensitive to words they would judge defaming to the stigmatized individual or group. For these reasons we expect that those who have less contact, who are less accepting and tolerant of these minorities, would be less sensitive to words or phrases that appear to offend these minorities and their associates. In these cases, familiarity does not breed contempt but it does lead to a greater awareness of words and phrases that may stigmatize, harm, offend, or marginalize others and reduce status. Consequently, it is our hypothesis that greater contact with and knowledge of stigmatized minorities should increase one s sensitivity to words and phrases that members of these groups 164 5 and their intimates perceive as stigmatizing or defaming. Accordingly, we predict that among those of our respondents who indicated knowledge and contact with stigmatized minorities, the greater proportion of them should see certain negative words and phrases as controversial and harmful to others and themselves and thereby offended or intolerant of using such offensive and defaming words and phrases. In what follows we first explore whether these respondents think these words or phrases are controversial and then whether they think that they should not be used. Next we will focus on those respondents who indicated they were offended by something someone said about them in the past year and also upset by what someone wrote online about them during the past year (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.). Not only do we explore the significance of demographic, status inconsistency, and sociological correlates (e.g., social integration, political ideology, etc.) of sensitivity to these controversial words but whether or not these same correlates are predictive of being offended and thereby opposed to the use of certain controversial words we reviewed. Method Sample The online survey sample was gathered by CINT ( The sample is obtained primarily from Internet surveys that invite participation, usually offering some incentive such as a lottery or a small payment. Although these samples are of necessity selfselecting samples, CINT s professional staff has substantial experience with on-line data collection and is well regarded by social and marketing research scholars. In all, 1,028,816 possible respondents representing U.S. households were invited to participate. Nineteen thousand one hundred and forty-nine were obtained yielding an effective response rate of 1.9%. These respondents were identified by the data collection website as political liberals / activists on various social issues. 1 However, it should be noted that the sample is a convenience sample and thus representativeness is not guaranteed. Analyses are weighted by gender and geographic location to correspond to the 2010 Census within survey provider s designated quality tolerances. In 2012 the Census found that 52.2% of the population was male and our sample was 51.6%. The CINT data was also weighted to 2012 Census Bureau s results for American census divisions in order to conform to the population s geographical distribution. While this will be similar to U.S. proportions from the census, there are likely to be many demographic differences which could not be assessed because respondents were guaranteed anonymity. The survey was administered during the last two weeks of April and first two weeks of May The final data file consisted of a sample of 14,182 respondents after deleting three cases with very incomplete data and 4,964 cases lacking information (including missing values on one or more independent variables but especially the dependent variables). In most analyses several independent variables became statistically insignificant in fully elaborated logistic regression equations and are not included in the findings. Variables and Measures Dependent Variables The main dependent variables are whether or not respondents thought that certain terms were controversial when referring to certain sub-groups in society. The questions follow: 1. Which of these, if any, do you find the following terms controversial and probably should not be used? Select all that apply: (a) African American, (b) Afro American, (c) Homosexual. 165 6 2. Which of these, if any, do you find the following phrases controversial and probably should not be used? Select all that apply: (a) Illegal Mexican Alien, (b) Illegal Latin American Alien. Two additional dependent variables measure whether respondents were offended by someone in the previous year. The questions in the survey follow: 1. In the past year, have you been upset about something said about you / to you (by someone you knew or know)? 2. In the past year, have you been upset about something written online about you (by someone you knew or know)? All of the dependent variables are measured as dichotomous, 0 = No and 1 = Yes. Independent Variables Status Inconsistency Higher Education. This is a continuous measure, ranging from 1 (grade 8) to 17 (advanced doctorate). Occupation. Those employed in a professional occupation (e.g., doctors, lawyers, professors) or in an executive or managerial capacity were coded 1 (=6,131) and all others 0 (=8,051). Household Income. A continuous variable ranging from 1 (less than $10,000 per year) through 10 ($150,000 or more per year). Socio-Economic Status Index. An index created by averaging the household income (see above) and the higher education (see above). Three values of status inconsistency were created to determine if there is an internal conflict when an individual s level of educational attainment is either above or below his or her household income. HigherEducHouseInc = Higher Education SES Index HigherEducOccupRec = Occupation SES Index HouseIncOccupRec = Household Income SES Index Social Integration These measures are based on Durkheim s (1897/1951) status integration and egoistic integration concepts. The questions used to create these variables can be found in Table 2 below (see also Wasserman et al. 2005). Frequency attend religious services. Responses range from 1 (never), 2 (once or twice a year), 3 (once or twice a month), 4 (monthly), 5 (more than once a week), and 6 (weekly). Frequency use the Internet to read the news. A continuous variable ranging from 1 (once a month or less) to 6 (more than once a day). Attitude and Value Orientations Close to LGBT. Respondents were asked if they had any gay or lesbian friends or relatives. This is coded 1 (yes) and 0 (no). Illegal immigrants threatening. The question was, Some people think that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans and threatening our culture and values. Do you strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat agree, or strongly agree? This was coded 1-5 respectively. 166 7 Same sex marriage legal and recognized. The question was, Do you think that marriage between two people of the same sex should be legal and recognized by the government? Choices were, 0, (no, it should not be legal), 1 (no, I have concerns), 2 (yes, but I have concerns) and 3 (yes, it should be legal). Prefer more government involvement. The question was: Do you prefer greater government involvement in your daily life or less? Possible answers were 0 (less government involvement), 1 (I don t care), and 2 (more government involvement). Demography Age. A continuous variable ranging from 17 to 97. Gender. Coded 1 for females and 0 for males. Race. Coded 1 if non-white and 0 if white. Highest parental education. A continuous variable representing the highest level of either parental education, ranging from 0 (grade 8 or less) to 8 (advanced or professional degree). Results In the analysis that follows, we begin with a very brief and limited descriptive analysis of the respondent s socio-demographic status such as age, race, gender, educational attainment, SES status, whether they identify as Liberal or Conservative, and indicate if they consider themselves as an activist for social change (see Table 1). In addition to self-identifying as a Liberal or Conservative, respondents were also asked to indicate whether they considered themselves a social activist. A basic description of the data is presented in Table 1. Next, following Durkheim s theoretical lead regarding social integration (1897/1951), we examine the extent to which respondents indicate their involvement in organized religion and various forms of Internet activity (see Table 2). Turning to logistic regression analyses that pertain to perceived controversies related to words and phrases used to describe various individuals or social groups, we examine firstly whether respondents think a series of words are controversial and then whether they think some phrases are controversial. In the next bivariate and multivariate analyses we explore the relationship between the independent variables already mentioned above and the dependent variable measuring whether or not the respondents have been offended by what has been said about them or what has been written about them online (e.g., Facebook, twitter, and other such media). Table 1. Basic Demographic Description of the Sample Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max. Count Age Gender (coded Female=1) Race (coded Non-White=1) Higher Education Highest Parental Education Household Income SES Index Identifies as Liberal 8 Identifies as Conservative Activist for Social Change , Note: SES Index constructed by averaging standardized Household Income and Higher Education Scales. Table 2. Respondents Activity on the Internet and Attendance at Religious Services Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max. Count Freq. Attend Religious Services Freq. Use Internet to access news Freq. Use social networking (e.g., Facebook) Freq. Use Internet to read or discuss politics Freq. Use Internet to find entertainment and pop culture Freq. Use Internet for shopping Freq. Use Internet for pornography Only about one-quarter of the respondents indicate they are Non-White. 2 The mean age was 45. The data were weighted to assure an equal representation of males and females, thus resulting in a sample of approximately 49% females. They are on the whole very well educated (mean of 3, which corresponds to some college but not graduating), and reasonably well off financially (mean household income of 5, which is approximately $50,000 to 74,999 per year). Almost 44% of the sample identifies as Conservative or Very Conservative with only about 4% identifying as Very Conservative, thus, the majority is either Liberal or Moderate in their political views though we see that only 21% report that they are activists for social change. As shown in Table 2, the mean score in the six-point scale for frequency of attending religious services is 2.6 (between once or twice a year and once or twice a month). These respondents appear to use their Internet access for checking the news on a daily basis (mean of 4.7). They use social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, Google, Twitter) just slightly less frequently (mean of 4.4) (more than once a week but less than once a day). With less frequency (4.2) do they read about politics or discuss politics, and the same is true of finding entertainment and pop culture information (4.2). They shop online less frequently (a mean of 3.9, somewhat more than every few days). On average they use the Internet for pornography less than once a month (2.3). Do Liberals and Conservatives view certain words as controversial? Before proceeding to more complex multivariate analyses we first dichotomized the political ideology distribution to assess whether Liberals in general perceive certain controversial words or phrases as more objectionable than Conservatives. A chi-square was calculated for this analysis. In Table 3 below the findings suggest that: First, whether or not a person identifies as a Liberal or a Conservative there is not even a weak tendency for them to label the term African American as controversial. These results are not reported in detail. Second, among Liberals, 19.4 percent perceive the term Afro American as objectionable 168 9 though the vast majority (80.1 percent) do not. However, among Conservatives a significantly lesser proportion (12.6 percent) object to its use. Nevertheless the majority of Conservatives also are not offended by its use or perceive it as controversial (x 2 =102.6; df=1; p=<.001). Third, Liberals (42.6%) are somewhat more likely than Conservatives (29.3%) to object to the use of the term Homosexual as a term of reference. Thus a substantial majority in both categories apparently do not perceive the word as objectionable or controversial (x 2 =211.1; df=1; p=<.001). With regard to the controversy surrounding the use of phrases, we can report the findings in Table 3 below indicating that 45.6 percent of those identifying as Liberals felt it was controversial (thereby objectionable) to use the phrase illegal Mexican alien as opposed to only 29.3 percent of those identifying as Conservatives. Nevertheless, sizeable majorities of both categories were not offended by its use (x 2 = 311.9; df=1; p=<.001). For the phrase illegal Latin American alien, 42.1 percent of Liberals found it controversial and unacceptable as opposed to only 26.8 percent of Conservatives. In this case a majority of both Liberals and Conservatives did not object to its use (x 2 =283.4; df=1; p=<.001). These results confirm what is well known already, namely, that Liberals more than Conservatives are more likely to perceive certain words and phrases as controversial and thereby find their use objectionable and harmful. Conversely, Conservatives are more tolerant of using such terms and phrases as they appear to perceive them as less controversial. Or at least they are less sensitive to their use, unlike those who identify as Liberal. Nevertheless, those of us familiar with American politics know that there is much heterogeneity in people who identify as Liberal and those who identify as Conservative. For that reason, we use multivariate analysis to further isolate a few factors related to seeing these specific words and phrases as controversial. Table 3. Crosstabs between Political Ideology (Liberal or Conservative) and Perceived Controversial Words and Phrases % Who said Controversial Liberals Conservatives Chi Square df p value n=7,956 n=6,226 (two-tailed) Word: Afro American % % <.001 Word: Homosexual % % < <.001 Phrase: Illegal Mexican % % < <.001 Alien Phrase: Illegal Latin % % < <.001 American Alien Logistic Regressions for Words and Phrases Perceived as Controversial Since each of the dependent variables are dichotomous, logistic regressions are appropriate (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2013). For the ease of understanding the relative significance of each independent variable in the multivariable models we use fully elaborated logistic regression models. Thus for each logistic model we include a full complement of the independent variables irrespective of whether they are statistically significant. The advantage of proceeding in this manner is that by maintaining a full set of independent variables across the 169 10 models we can readily compare the predictors of different dependent variables (Long, 1997). The findings are reported in Tables 4 and 5 below. With respect to the question of whether respondents considered the word African American to be controversial, the few predictors, although nominally significant, were not substantively important since virtually no one reported it was controversial and only a small handful said they would not use that word. Accordingly we reported no detailed findings for it. Logistic Regression Analysis on Afro American (Table 4). First, some predictors associated with whether or not a person believed that Afro American was controversial were socio-demographic variables such as age and race. Older individuals more than younger tended to see the term as controversial and thereby objectionable while non-whites were more likely than whites to see the term as objectionable. In some sense these two variables were proxies for exposure to stigma and being targets of racial prejudice in American culture. It is no accident that those who have been exposed to more opportunities to be a target of prejudice and discrimination more readily recognize language that they perceive to be controversial. Three items reflecting status inconsistency on the SES Index were examined namely, Higher Education, Occupation, Household Income. Three measures of inconsistency between these items were introduced as independent variables but all proved to be statistically insignificant and are thus not reported. There is one variable that measures social integration namely the frequency of attending religious services. The findings suggest that the greater frequency one attends religious services the greater likelihood they would not perceive the word Afro American as controversial and thereby be less opposed to using the term in comparison to those who attend less frequently. This may reflect an opportunity for social interaction especially with blacks. However it is also possible that attending religious services is a proxy for being conservative and valuing the old order and thereby respecting established labels and seeing terms such as Afro American as perfectly acceptable. Next, four variables reflect attitude and value orientations. With respect to being close to LGBT individuals, whether one is close to LGBT individuals or not does not affect one s opinion on the use of Afro American. On the other hand viewing illegal immigrants as threatening, while statistically significant, has only trivial substantive importance and thus is not reported in detail. The attitude toward gay marriage, whether it should be legal and recognized or not, also was trivial and not reported in detail. Similarly, one s preference for less or more government intervention in their life was not a significant predictor of their perception of the word Afro American. The Nagelkerke Pseudo-R 2 for this model and all further logistic models are quite modest with values ranging between about.02 and.07, suggesting that our modeling approach is satisfactory though we leave much variance unexplained. Logistic Regression Analysis on Homosexual (Table 4). Age is a predictor but its influence is rather trivial in this case. Whites are significantly less likely to consider the word Homosexual as objectionable than non-whites. Whites, in comparison to non-whites, regardless of the fact they identify as Liberal, rarely face discrimination and stigmatization because of race and religion, and thus are less sensitive to perceiving what might be objectionable when labeling others. Those employed in professional and executive occupations are more likely to identify the word Homosexual as controversial. Having achieved the pinnacle of American class status, they have greater familiarity with other kinds of diversity. With increasing household income comes an increased likelihood of perceiving the word Homosexual as controversial. Regarding 170 11 status inconsistency on SES Index, three variables were introduced as independent variables but all proved to be insignificant and as such are not reported. There is only one indicator of social integration and it is the frequency of attending religious services. The findings show that attending religious services more frequently makes one less likely to perceive the word Homosexual as controversial (though its significance is very weak). We know from prior research that those who attend religious services more frequently are more likely to have homophobic attitudes and oppose gay rights (Herek, 1987; Stack and Kposowa, 2011, Stack and Adamczyk, 2014). Thus, they would be less sensitive to what many regard as a negatively valanced word regarding gays. The first two attitude and value orientation items are highly significant in this model, as those who are closer to LGBT individuals, and those who are more supportive of gay marriage being legalized perceive the word Homosexual as controversial. Both of these characteristics connote a greater exposure and familiarity with LGBT individuals in comparison to those opposed to legalizing gay marriage who likely have had less exposure to gays and may have a little more negative feelings toward them or are less accepting of same sex sexuality. Those who prefer more government involvement in their lives are significantly more likely to find the term Homosexual controversial and thus objectionable. Finally, both those who self-identify as Liberal or as a Social Activist are more likely to find the term Homosexual controversial and objectionable, while those who identify as Conservatives will be less likely to perceive the term Homosexual as controversial and objectionable. Logistic Regression on Illegal Mexican Alien (Table 5). While gender was not a significant predictor in most of the other models, in this model females were more likely than males to perceive the phrase to be objectionable. Age, race (non-white), higher education, and household income are all positively related to finding this phrase controversial and less acceptable. Those with a professional occupation or in executive positions are not more likely to find this phrase objectionable. Status inconsistency had no effect. The one measure of social integration, frequency of attending religious service, was statistically insignificant. Among the attitude and value orientations variables, being close to LGBT persons has no significant effect. Conversely, those who viewed illegal immigrants as threatening are less likely to find the phrase illegal Mexican alien unacceptable. Similarly those who favored legalizing same sex marriage were more likely to find the phrase objectionable and controversial, while those who prefer more government involvement in their lives are more likely to perceive the phrase to be controversial and objectionable. Again we see those identifying as Liberal or as a Social Activist for change are more likely to find the phrase Illegal Mexican Alien objectionable, while those who identify as Conservative are less likely to view the phrase Illegal Mexican Alien as objectionable. 171 12 Table 4 Logistic Regressions: Words Perceived as Controversial and Shouldn t be Used (Unstandardized and Standardized Coefficients are listed respectively; Standard Errors appear in parentheses) Afro American Homosexual Independent Variables [.044]*** [.092]*** Status Inconsistency Higher Education (.021) (.020) [.044]** [-.035] Professional and -.086(ns) -.051(ns) Executive (.053) (.048) [.051]*** [.093]*** Household Income (.013) (.012) HigherEducHouseInc Omitted (not significant) HigherEducOccupRec Omitted (not significant) HouseIncOccupRec Omitted (not significant) Social Integration [-.025]*** [-.017]** Freq. Attend Religious (.007) (.006) Services Freq. Use Internet to read Omitted (not significant) or discuss politics Attitude & Value Orientation Close to LGBT (no or yes) [.062]*** (.026) Illegal Immigration [.041]*** [-.017]** Threatening (.005) (.005) Same Sex Marriage Legal [.075]*** (.011) More Government [.022]*** (.010) Involvement Demography Age [.029]*** [-.023]*** (.002) (.001) Gender (Female=1) Omitted (not significant) Race (Non-White=1) [.046]*** [-.060]*** (.046) (.043) Higher Parental Education (ns) (ns) Political Ideology Liberal (0 or 1) [.071]*** (.029) Conservative (0 or 1) [-.060]*** (.032) Activist for Social Change [.057]*** (0 or 1) (.027) N= 14,182 Chi-Sq N/A Model Sig. Model Sig. Nagelkerke R 2.02 N/A.07 N/A = not significant. ** p<.01 *** p < 13 Table 5 Logistic Regressions: Phrases Perceived as Controversial and Shouldn t be Used (Unstandardized and Standardized Coefficients are listed respectively; Standard Errors appear in parentheses) Illegal Mexican Illegal Latin American Alien Alien Independent Variables [.063]*** [.056]*** Status Inconsistency Higher Education (.020) (.020) [-.003] [-.001] Professional and Executive (.048) (.048) [.082]*** [.081]*** Household Income (.012) (.012) HigherEducHouseInc Omitted (not significant) HigherEducOccupRec Omitted (not significant) HouseIncOccupRec Omitted (not significant) Social Integration Freq. Attend Religious Services Omitted (not significant) Freq. Use Internet to read or Omitted (not significant) discuss politics Attitude & Value Orientation Close to LGBT (no or yes) Omitted (not significant) Illegal Immigration [-.087]*** [-.085]*** Threatening (.005) (.005) Same Sex Marriage Legal [.058]*** [.064]*** (.010) (.010) More Government [.033]*** [.032]*** Involvement (.010) (.010) Demography Age [.018]*** [.022]*** (.001) (.001) Gender (Female=1) [.024]*** [.017]** (.023) (.023) Race (Non-White=1) [.042]*** [.038]*** (.043) (.043) Higher Parental Education (ns) (ns) Political Ideology Liberal (0 or 1) [.093]*** [.097]*** (.028) (.029) Conservative (0 or 1) [-.127]*** [-.121]*** (.032) (.032) Activist for Social Change [.073]*** [.070]*** (0 or 1) (.027) (.027) N= 14,182 Chi-Sq Model Sig. Model Sig. Nagelkerke R (ns) = not significant. ** p<.01 *** p < 14 Logistic Regression on Illegal Latin American Alien (Table 5). The predictors of finding this phrase objectionable and thus controversial are similar to the predictors of Illegal Mexican Alien. There are only four exceptions. First, with regard to gender, a predictor that was not significant for finding the word Afro American or Homosexual objectionable and controversial, we can observe that females are more likely to find this phrase objectionable and controversial. Second, a person of higher education is more likely to find the phrase objectionable. Third, occupational status has no effect. Finally, being close to LGBT persons also has no effect. In summary, as shown in Table 5 which reports the results from two logistic regressions, we see that self-identifying as either Liberal or as an Activist for Social Change is associated with finding the phrases Illegal Mexican Alien and Illegal Latin American Alien as controversial and objectionable and therefore they should not be used. Among the attitude and value orientation variables, if one views illegal immigration as threatening they are less likely to find either of these phrases objectionable, conversely, those who favor gay marriage and also favor a greater role for government involvement are more likely to find both of these phrases controversial and objectionable and likely would prefer to use the term undocumented workers instead. The findings from our analyses of controversial words and phrases reveal that age and race are consistent demographic predictors but gender is significant only in the analyses of phrases (see Table 5 above). Similarly, social integration represented by frequency of attending religious services (which is a proxy for being conventional and holding traditional values) plays a role only in the analyses of words (see Table 4) but not in the analyses of phrases (see Table 5). In neither analysis did the frequency of using the Internet to read or discuss politics have any consistent effect in the models we tested. Finally, those respondents who indicated they were closer to LGBT persons were significantly more likely to view the word Homosexual as objectionable and likely to be somewhat more politically correct in their language use. Nevertheless, being close to LGBT persons did not predict objecting to the use of the phrase Illegal Mexican Alien or Illegal Latin American Alien (see Table 5). Respondents Indicate They Were Upset by Something Someone Said or Wrote Online about
Iscriviti al nostro canale Telegram e rimani aggiornato!