ANOTHER EXPLANATION FOR BLACK-WHITE MMPI PHILIP H. WITT AND MALCOLM D. GYNTHER

DIFFERENCES

S1. Louis Utiiversily Auburn Uuiversily

PROBLEM Gyrither(*) has proposcd that differences in corinotative meaning may account

for some of the differences in responses of blacks and whites to the MMPI. Although Dahlstrom‘’) reported that “a student found that the response differences [in the Orange County data] were not caused by vastly different interpretations of cither content or adverbial modifiers,” black-white diffcrenccs in connotative meaning have been reported for ethnic concepts and color names ( O ) .

MMPI items for this study were selected originally from Harrison and Iiass’(3) racially distinctive itcms. Thc 13 itcms that wert. most discriminating in a pilot study wrrc used to invcstigatc possible diffrrcmw in connotative meaning via the Semantic Differential ( 4 ) (SD), which partitions meaning into Evaluativc (E), Potency (P), and Activity (A) dimensions.

METHOD Subjects. Ss were cvenitig college students a t St. Louis University, Utiivcrsity

of Missouri at St. Louis, and Forest Park Community College, and day students a t Harris Teachers College and Yorest Park Community College. Each group was composed of 20 Ss whose mean ages were: white males, 27.6 years; white females, 2S.2 years; black males, 27.9 years; black females, 2S.6 years. There was a widc range of occupations in both the black and white groups, e.y., (every fourth S) white males: printer, factory worker, labor relations, mailman, engineer; white females: supervisor, secretary, apprentice, housewife, secretary ; black nialcs: administrative assistant, production planner, sales representative, student, security technician; black females : head nurse, clerk, credit correspondent, clerk, instructor. Since all Ss were attending college as undergraduates, education levels were assumed to be equivalent.

RIMPI items # 16, 27, 5 S , 59, 79, 93, 157, 319, 364, 376, 437, 458, and 498 were used to construct the Semantic Differcritial instru- ment. Five of these items appeared on Harrison and I i a ~ s ’ ( ~ ) cynicism factor, four on their estrangement factor, two on their religiousness factor, and one each on their self-consciousness and admission of minor faults factors. These 13 items were paired with 13 bipolar scales to ensure independence of judgment for each rating (cf., 6 ) . The Ss were told to rate each of the 169 items from 1 to 7 (7 = high, 4 = neutral, 1 = low).

KESULTS AND DISCUSSION’ The E, l’, and A mean ratings for the four different subgroups suggested that

blacks and males rate these predominantly cynical, alienated items as "better," “ more powerful,” and “more active” than whitcs arid females. Both the most arid the least favorable ratings were given by white females to the itcms “Policemen are usually honest ( # 376)” and “I am sure I get a raw dcal from lifc ( # 16),” rcspectively .

A 2 x 2 X 3 X 13 (SCX X race X Semantic Differential Dimerision RIhlPI items) with repeated measures on the last two variables indicated that racc, thc particular SD dimcnsion, the particular item, and the interaction betwccn thc SD dimensions and the itcms were all significant determinants of the SD ratings of the h4Ml’I items. However, sex was not a significant determinant of the SD ratings.

Instruments and Procedure.

’All t ablcv available on requesl from senior autlior.

70 PHILIP H. WITT AND MALCOLM D. GYNTHER

Before 2 X 2 ANOVAs wcre performed on each MMPI itcm for each SD dimension, the correlations between the E, P, and A dimensions were examined. Since all but 1 of these 39 correlations were significant (median value = .GO) , an indication that common variance between the three SD dimensions may have affected the results, an analysis of covariance program that approximated multi- variate analysis of variance was run: a regular 2 X 2 ANOVA was performed on E, a 2 X 2 ANOVA with E held as covariate was performed on P, and a 2 x 2 AKOVA with both E and P held as covariates was performed on A for each RIl\IPI item.

The results of this analysis of covariance indicated that once the common variance was partitioned out of the P and A dimensions, they lost their differentiating power; hence, only the results of the E dimension are reported. J’or 10 of the 13 l\IRIIPI items, race was a significant determinant of the E rating. These differences were in the expected direction, i.e., items previously endorsed more frequently by blacks than whites, e.y., “I think most people would lie to get ahead (#93),” were viewed more favorably by blacks in the SD format. Sex was a significant determinant for 7 of the 13 items. The interaction between sex and race was sig- nificant for only 1 item. Females generally rated items as less acceptable than males, with the exception of item #376, for which the trend was reversed.

Differences in connotative meaning were examined in terms of Harrison and I(ass’(3) factors. Blacks rated all of the items that appear on the cynicism and estrangement factors more favorably than whites and one of the two items from the religiousness factor more favorably. NO differences were found on items from the self-consciousness or admission of minor faults factors. Men rated cynical and estranged items more favorably than women, but the effects were not as strong.

With the exception of item #376, the items used in this study are endorsed more frequently by blacks than whites ( i e . , higher percentage “True” responses). Other items endorsed equally by whites and blacks and more frequently by whites than blacks also should be used to extend the generality of the effect demonstrated here and to allow more accurate assessment of the degree of relationship between endorsement rates and connotative meaning.

O~good‘~) recommends against the use of his procedure for analysis of sentences because their connotative meaning is too complex. However, our positive results indicate that investigation of the properties of sentences is a fertile area for further research.

SUMMARY Black and white males and females rated 13 MRlPI items on a Semantic

Differential. Blacks perceived 10 of the 13 items more favorably than whites, a result consistent with previously demonstrated racial differences in ‘ ‘True-FaIse” responding to these items. Of these 10 items, 9 are included in Harrison and Kass’ ( 3 )

estrangement and cynicism factors. Males perceived 7 of the 13 items more favorably than females. Of these 7 items, 6 are from the estrangement and cynicism factors.

REFERENCES 1. DAHLSTROM, W. G. Personal communication, 1971. 2. GYNTHER, M. D. White nornis and black MMPIs: A prescription for discrimination? Psychol.

Bull., 1972, 78, 386-402. 3. HARRISON, R. H. and KASS, E. H. Differences between Negro and white pregnant women on the MMPI. J . consult. Psychol., 1967, 31, 454-463.

4. OSOOOD, C. E., SUCI, G. J. and TANNENBAUM, p. H. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957.

5 . OSQOOD, C. E. and SUCI, G. J. Factor analysis of meaning. In Snider, J. G. and Osgood, c. E. (Eds.) Semantic Differential Technaque: A Sourcebook. Chicago: Aldine, 1969, 42-55.

6. WILLIAMS, J. E. Connotations of racial concepts and color names. J. pers. SOC. Psychol., 1966, 3, 531-540.