The Personification of Prejudice as a Device in Educational Propaganda
Excerpt from Kendall, Patricia and Katherine Wolf, The Personification of Prejudice as a Device in Educational Propaganda: An Experiment in Product Improvement (New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, 1946) (permission of Robert Lazarsfeld)
Excerpted by Roopika Risam
Contributor’s note: Footnotes from the original. I have preserved the style of the original notes. Underlining has been changed to italics throughout.
CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM, THE PEOPLE, AND THE PROCEDURE
There are three ways of studying propaganda documents such as the series of Mr. Biggott cartoons. One type of study investigates simply the audience of the material: how many people actually see, hear, or read the document, and who are these people? A second type of research studies the effects of the document on the attitudes, behavior, or habits of people who are exposed to it.
A third type of study examines the experiences of the subjects as they see or hear the material. It provides a dynamic “X-ray” picture of understanding, reactions, association, association, all in relation to certain predispositions of the subjects.
The present study is of the third type. In it we observed and analyzed how a group of specially selected respondents behaved when they were confronted with three of the Mr. Biggott cartoons. What did they think the cartoons were about? Was it possible to observe how certain factors in the respondents themselves influenced their understanding? What were their reactions to Mr. Biggott? Did these reactions also influence understanding? Finally, what features of the cartoons themselves were related to understanding?
In order to attempt answers to any of these questions we must know, first of all, what it was which the subjects should have understood. We must, therefore, state briefly the message which the cartoons were intended to convey to their readers.
In the second place, if we are going to be able to relate understanding and reaction to predispositions of the respondents, we must have a clear picture of just what sort of people these respondents were.
Finally, we must give a brief description of the interview technique used in the study so that the dynamic character of the “X-ray” picture will be clarified.
The Message of the Mr. Biggott Cartoons
Since the Mr. Biggott cartoons are intended as a series, their general message should be a consistent one. The only major variation should be in the specific situations depicted in each of the cartoons, and in the text which accompanies the drawing.
The Series in General
The purpose of the nine cartoons which we have been able to analyze is to ridicule prejudice as an old-fashioned and unattractive type of behavior. But the ridicule is not always accomplished in the same way. In some cartoons, Mr. Biggott appears as a foolish and stupid individual. In others, he is a vicious person who feels no compunction in offending other people when he asserts his prejudices. And in still other cartoons, his statements are just simply ridiculous.
More consistent than the message in the series is the central character himself. In every cartoon, Mr. Biggott appears as a desiccated and sickly looking man of indeterminate old age. In each cartoon, his name, with its invidious connotations, label him (for those who notice the name and understand the word “bigot”) as an undesirable character. And Mr. Biggott’s unattractiveness and lack of modernity are further accentuated by the cobweb which he trails from his oddly shaped head in each cartoon. In fact, the only feature which could be counted in Mr. Biggott’s favor is the rather elegant clothing which he wears: his well-tailored suit, his clean white shirt, his starched -- if old-fashioned -- collar, and, in two of the nine cartoons, his gloves and cane. Mr. Biggott is quite clearly a city man of at least moderate income.
The Test Cartoons
In planning the present study, we felt that a maximum of three cartoons could be shown to the subjects. If any more were shown we feared that the interview would degenerate as the respondents became tired or bored. If any less were shown, on the other hand, the serial features of the cartoons would have been lost.
It was, therefore, necessary to select three cartoons from the five available to us for testing purposes.1 In consultation with the sponsors of the study we chose the “Honor Roll,” the “Indian” and the “Transfusion” cartoons.2
In the “Honor Roll” Mr. Biggott stands alone against religious and national minorities whose active and positive participation in the war effort is clearly pictured. But in this cartoon, at least, he is not so much ridiculous as blasphemous. He is hurling insults at our national heroes, which, next to actual treason, represents the height of unpatriotic action.
Mr. Biggott’s general sickliness is accentuated in the “Transfusion” cartoon. But he is still not so sick that he forgets his arrogant prejudices. And, unlike the “Honor Roll” in which Mr. Biggott confines the designation of “disgraceful” to three or four minorities, he widens his prejudice in this second cartoon so that he appears to include not only “foreigners” and “Jews,” but also anyone not a Mayflower descendant. Here, again, then, Mr. Biggott stands alone. But this time it is against the majority rather than a minority.
In the final cartoon, Mr. Biggott’s prejudices become all-embracing. By excluding the only 100% American, he excludes everybody. Mr. Biggott’s stupidity is not as humorous as it might appear at first, however, for he is in a position of authority in which he can put into practice his prejudiced ideas. Here he can oppose the groups he dislikes in action as well as in verbal insult.
In none of the test cartoons does Mr. Biggott meet any real antagonists. In the “Transfusion” he is being attended by a doctor. But the expression of this second character is unclear: perhaps he is annoyed by what his patient says, but perhaps he is just surprised at Mr. Biggott’s request or even by the temperature of his patient.
The Indian in the third cartoon appears both meek and humble. There is no indication that he will answer Mr. Biggott, or insist in any way that he is entitled to the job. Instead, it seems probable that, here again, Mr. Biggott is going to be allowed to “get away” with his prejudices.
The Test Public
Since the study was to be limited to approximately 150 cases, it was necessary that the public be a relatively homogenous one in order to permit meaningful statistical comparisons. In consultation with the sponsors, therefore, we selected as our sample a representative group of white, non-Jewish men in the laboring class of New York City.3
Despite the relative homogeneity of our sample, however, there were still important variations in their backgrounds. Our subjects were engaged in a wide variety of occupations, ranging from unskilled work as common-laborers or watchmen to skilled jobs as mechanics or carpenters. The majority of our sample were affiliated with unions, although very few of the respondents had ever held office in any of their organizations.
Our respondents ranged in age from 17 to 75, with the model age-group that between 25 and 44 years of age. In formal educational level, only 53% of the men had ever gone beyond grade school, and 15 of these subjects had had more than high school education. At the lowest end of the scale, one-fifth of the sample had either had no education at all or less than eight years of formal schooling.
More than 55% of the men interviewed were Catholic, and 31% belonged to one or another of the Protestant denominations. Of the remaining respondents, 10% were not affiliated with any religious group and 4% belonged to other churches such as the Greek Orthodox. The large percentage of Catholics in our test public is not the result of defective sampling methods. If one eliminates Negroes and Jews from a laboring class sample in the New York City, Catholics will always be found in the majority.
Finally, slightly more than three-quarters of the sample was American-born, with the remaining 22% having immigrated from virtually every European country. In considering the descent of our sample as a whole, we found that every important minority group was represented by more than 10% of the respondents. Seventeen percent were of Irish background, 18% of German or Austrian descent, 13% were Slavic; 11% Italian; with non-Irish Anglo-Saxons, Scandinavians, Spanish and those of mixed descent making up the balance.
The Interviewing Technique
Finally, we must describe in some detail the procedures which we used. Only when we know the way in which we “photographed” the members of our test public can the results of the “X-ray picture” be appraised.
Focus on Understanding
In studying cartoons -- or any other material -- which deal with racial prejudices, one is always tempted to devote the larger part of the interview to questions concerned specifically with prejudices. Anti-minority attitudes are an important and highly interesting area of investigation, and the research worker who has an opportunity to study problems tangentially related to such attitudes is always somewhat inclined to center his attention on the prejudices themselves.
But a split in the focus of research has more serious drawbacks. The first is the quite obvious one that depth of material is sacrificed. Almost every non-therapeutic interview has definite time limits. One cannot expect a respondent to discuss cartoons, anti-minority attitudes, or the state of the nation for an indefinite length of time. Every study director, therefore, is faced with the necessity for making the best possible use of the time which he can expect a respondent to spend with him. This means that the larger the range of topics to be considered in any one interview, the more superficial will be the coverage of each.
But a second drawback has even more serious implications. It is a well- known fact that by answering questions on any given topic a respondent’s attention becomes directed toward that topic. Supposing, for instance, that we devote a large part of an interview to questions about the possibility of unemployment, to opinions concerning the best ways to handle unemployment, and so on. If we then suddenly ask our respondents what they consider the major social problem facing the country, it is probable that many of them will mention unemployment.
It is important in the present study to prevent any such channeling of attention by the questions we asked. The sponsors of the study were interested primarily in finding out just what the members of our test public thought the cartoons were meant to be about. How many of them saw their connection with the problem of race prejudices? How many of them thought they were meant to be nothing more than jokes? How many related them to problems other than those of racial prejudices
In other words, the respondents’ understanding of and reaction to the cartoons was to be examined in an entirely neutral framework. Because of this, questions which might have influenced comments concerning understanding and reaction were reduced to a minimum. And it was primarily the questions which sought out the respondents’ prejudices and attitudes toward racial minorities which had thus to be sacrificed, for these would have had a direct influence on understanding.
Throughout the study, then, our interest has centered on the degree to which the cartoons were understood and the variety of reactions which they evoked. Only secondarily have we investigated the prejudices of our respondents.
Focus on Process
We made the claim at the beginning of this report that the picture which we obtained, both of understanding and reaction, is a dynamic one. In other words, our interest is in the processes by which the respondents come to understand the cartoons or the processes through which they shut off any understanding. Similarly, our interest is in the dynamic features of the reaction to Mr. Biggott and the cartoons in which he appears.
Understanding was not considered a static phenomenon which could be judged at any one point in the interview. Rather we hoped that it would turn out to be a process in which either improvement or deterioration could be observed. For this reason, the same or similar questions were asked at different stages in the interview.4
The respondents’ reactions to Mr. Biggott were treated in a similar fashion. Although we incorporated all of the interview material into rough overall picture of each respondent’s predominant reaction and predominant attitude to Mr. Biggott, our main interest was in the processual feature of such reaction. For this reason, again, questions, eliciting reactions to the central character in the cartoons were asked at different stages in the interview, and were separately analyzed.
Focus on Specificity
A final feature of the interview guide was the many-sided characterization of Mr. Biggott which it ensured. We felt confident that the respondents’ unelaborated emotional reactions to Mr. Biggott could be determined from their spontaneous comments regarding the cartoons. But, we were not as confident that each respondent would voluntarily describe in detail what sort of a person he thought Mr. Biggott to be. We decided, therefore, not to rely on spontaneous comments concerning Mr. Biggott, but to ask each member of the test public what personal attributes he assumed Mr. Biggott would have, what his political sympathies and affiliations might be, whether or not he was prejudiced, and how representative of a class of people he was.
To summarize: the interview guide used in the present study was, first of all, focused, in the problem of understanding the cartoons rather than on the prejudices or related attitudes of the individuals to whom the cartoons were shown. It was designed, secondly, to make possible an analysis of the processes of understanding and reaction, and therefore contained questions which were repeated at different stages in the interview. Finally, our interview guide enabled the respondents to elaborate their pictures of Mr. Biggott.
CHAPTER II BEWITCHED, BOTHERED, BEWILDERED
The understanding of anything as complex as a series of satirical cartoons is never an all-or-none affair. For in their very complexity is implied a number of elements each of which may be understood or misunderstood. It is instructive, then, to differentiate types of understanding in our preliminary discussion, and to observe the varieties and distortions which are possible.
Types of Understanding
What should our respondents have understood in order to grasp the message correctly? What are the basic elements of the Mr. Biggott series?
In the first place, those who understood must have recognized that the cartoons were concerned with problems of anti-minority prejudice. But secondly, they should also have understood that these prejudices were ridiculed in the cartoons. They must have recognized the element of satire.
We could decide whether or not a respondent saw that the cartoons dealt with problems of prejudice on the basis of his comments regarding the single cartoons and the characteristics which he attributed to Mr. Biggott. If he said that Mr. Biggott objected to “the foreign names” on the honor roll, that he did not want a transfusion of “colored or Jewish blood”, that his discrimination made him a dangerous employer, the respondent understood the first element of the cartoon-message.
But only infrequently did the type of question which indicated the subject’s recognition of the element of prejudices serve simultaneously to test his awareness of the satirical aspects of the cartoons. The question through which we determined the recognition of satire dealt more specifically with the motives of the producers and the intentions of the artist. For it was usually in discussing the purposes of the cartoons that the subject indicated whether or not he saw Mr. Biggott’s peculiarities as an intentional creation of the artist’s. It was most frequently in response to these questions of purpose that the phrases “making fun of”, “ridiculing”, or “showing up” were mentioned.5
The message of the Mr. Biggott cartoons was understood in three different ways:
Type A: Both the elements of prejudice and satire were correctly recognized.
Type B: Neither the element of prejudice nor the element of satire was seen.
Type C: The concern of the cartoons with problems of prejudice was seen, but its element of satire was overlooked.
If we assume that correct understanding requires the recognition of both elements, only one of these – Type A - represents complete comprehension of the message. The other two types imply some sort of distortion of the message: one or both of the necessary ingredients of understanding is missing.6
These various types of understanding have quantitatively different frequencies as well as qualitatively different forms. In addition to noting their distribution in our sample, then, we shall also illustrate each of the three types with excerpts from some of our interviews.
Type A -- 36% understood the message correctly: Even after seeing all three cartoons, only 36% of our sample avoided the pitfalls of understanding and recognized both the elements of prejudice and ridicule correctly.
Some of the subjects merely repeated the message of the cartoons:
#105 The artist is trying to run down discrimination. He meant to set this man up as an example of how not to be.7 (Latent, prejudice, high school, no religion.)
Or again:
#62 (Who do you think might put out such cartoons?) I don’t know of any organization engaged in work like this. (Work like what?) To be against racial intolerance, against such practices. (No evidence of prejudice, high school, Methodist.)
Other respondents, however, injected into their understanding an appreciation of the importance of propaganda against prejudices:
#17 These cartoons might wake up some people. (To what?) To the fact that bigotry is foolish and childish, for example. This gives the idea that bigots are lame-brained as this cob-web and his pin-point head show. (No evidence of prejudice, more than high school, Catholic.)
But the large majority of our respondents, 64%, fall on the other side of the understanding “line”. Their understanding was of a type in which some distortion of the message occurred.
Misunderstanding Types
Type B -- 31% lost the message completely: In the first type of misunderstanding, neither the relation of the cartoons to problems of prejudice nor their element of satire was understood. Even after seeing all three cartoons, fully 31% of our sample showed complete misunderstanding of the message.
A large number of respondents, for example, saw no difference between the cartoons in the Mr. Biggott series and those they read in their daily newspapers or weekly magazines. They thought the cartoons were “witty” jokes, rather than satirical criticisms. We obtained the following type of answer to the question, “Who do you think might put out such cartoons?”:
#148 I couldn’t tell you about that. I don’t follow cartoons. I wouldn’t know about it at all. (Do you think any special organization or newspaper might use them?) Well, the “News” and the “Mirror” might, I guess. They run stuff like that. The “Times” and the “Sun” don’t bother with it. I don’t know of any organizations. (Do you think the unions might use them?) I don’t know about that. (Open prejudice, grade school, Catholic.)
#35 Syndicates might put them out. We have misfortunes: deaths, hard luck and so forth and the comics are for people. Some people are more mirthful than others. I’m mirthful myself. Those that are very mirthful read a lot of comics. Some have a lot of mirthfulness, some medium, and some are lacking in it. (Open prejudice, some grade school, Catholic.)
#43 Some magazine, I guess. (For what purpose) Why, like they always have cartoons. (No evidence of prejudice, some high school, Protestant.)
For these respondents then a cartoon is a cartoon, and if “Colliers” publishes any cartoons, they should also be interested in publishing the Mr. Biggott series. There is no recognition that the cartoons have any meaning or that they have any purpose beyond that of simple entertainment.
As is usual in a study of this sort, we found a liberal sprinkling of sometimes bizarre, and almost always humorous, misunderstanding of the cartoons. Not all of these can be quoted, but a few will indicate the extremes of misunderstanding achieved by some of our test public. For example:
#27 (Who do you think might put out such cartoons?) Maybe the Department of Health. (Why do you think the Department of Health would put them out?) Because they are trying to find out how many people are clean and healthy. (How do you think they will be able to find out from these cartoons?) They are trying to find out what people are thinking. (Thinking about what?) If the people who make the investigation -- if it is worthwhile -- they will find out because people are telling something. (Open prejudice, some grade school, Catholic, born in Puerto Rico.)
Or, again:
#19 (Who do you think might put out such cartoons?) I have no idea. (What do you think their purpose is?) To show that we shouldn’t ask for more than we’re really entitled to. (Latent prejudice, some grade school, no religion, born in Hungary.)
Type C -- The message “boomeranged” for 33%: Possibly the more serious type of misunderstanding occurred when the respondents understood the concern of the cartoons with prejudice, but failed to see their satirical elements. As a result of that failure, 33% of our subjects misinterpreted the motives of the producers completely. They believed that the cartoons were designed to create racial disturbances and to intensify existing prejudices!
Some of the respondents could not think of any specific groups interested in disseminating the type of inflammatory material which they understood the Mr. Biggott cartoons to be. They said simply that the producers were “prejudiced”:
#141 (Who do you think might put out such cartoons?) That’s what I’d like to know. They’re silly; they’re no joke. This guy thinks other blood’s not good enough for him. (What do you suppose is the purpose in putting out these cartoons?) To get people prejudiced against religion or union: maybe they want a change in the immigration laws. (Open prejudice, some high school, Lutheran, born in Germany.)
Other respondents with “boomerang” understanding considered the Mr. Biggott cartoons the work of Communists or foreign agents:
#51 (Who do you might put out such cartoons?) That’s what you would call propaganda, to bring discrimination against a nationality. (Who do you think would do that?) The Communists would be one. (Any others?) It could be a lot of different organizations which didn’t agree with the Jewish race and didn’t agree with the Irish. (Open prejudice, grade school, Catholic, born in Ireland.)
Or, again:
#16 (Who do you think might put out such cartoons?) Well, I don’t know exactly who unless it could be a Communist or something -- a foreign agent maybe. I think they would want to disrupt the morale of the people. (No evidence of prejudice, grade school, Methodist.)
Still others attributed the cartoons to illegal organizations:
#149 (Who do you think might put out such cartoons?) Oh, some people trying to start trouble –- some group trying to organize. (Do you think the unions would use these?) The unions? No, all they’re after is the dues. They don’t care. (Well, can you think of any special group or paper that might use these?) Well, a paper can’t print these; it’s against the law now. (Really?) Yes, the new law -- the FEPC. New York just passed it. Stuff like this is out. (Open prejudice, high school, Protestant.)
In more than one case, Jews were identified as the unpatriotic individuals who might publish such cartoons:
#143 (What do you think about cartoons like this in general?) They’re not funny; they’re critical. (What is their purpose?) To criticize races and to spread prejudice. They are not a good idea. Those who spread prejudices are not good citizens. (Who do you think might put them out?) The Jews might put them out. (Open prejudice, high school, Catholic.)
Some of the members of our sample who had this type of “boomerang” understanding seem to have been reminded of other cartoons or leaflets which they had read. They seem to speak from personal experience when they say that such material is distributed by individuals or organizations whose intentions are not of the best:
#84 (Who do you think might put out such cartoons?) I think it’s a sort of “Creed Card” -- to set disturbances between different creeds. (Open prejudice, grade school, Episcopalian.)
This respondent even recognizes a name for the type of propaganda which he believes the Mr. Biggott series to represent.
The reader must not assume, however, that all of the respondents with “boomerang” understanding disapproved of the motives they attributed to the producers. Not all of them were irate at being shown what they believed to be inflammatory propaganda. For instance, one respondent said:
#69 (Who do you think might put out such cartoons?) Evidently people who don’t like the Jews -- if it’s against the Jews. Maybe it’s against the Italians. No, I guess it’s against the Jews -- you hear more against the Jews. (What purpose would they have in putting out these cartoons?) To show that there are some people against the Jews, and to let other people feel freer to say they’re against ‘em too, I guess. (Open prejudice, some high school, Protestant.)
In other words, the cartoons are intended to give the reader the courage of his anti-Semitic convictions.
There are thus all shades and variations in understanding.8 The distribution of these different understanding types, classified after the presentation of all three cartoons, is summarized in Chart I.
In looking at this chart we are again struck by the large amount of misunderstanding. Only one-third of the sample arrived at a correct interpretation of the cartoon message.
But another striking feature is the great number of “boomerang” understanding. Not only does this type account for more than half of all misunderstanding, but virtually as many people reverse the direction of the message as see it in its correct form. In Chapter VI we shall see that one explanation for the high frequency of “boomerang” understanding is the extreme subtlety with which the elements of satire was presented.
It might have happened, of course, that our respondents showed definite improvements in understanding during the interview. With this possibility in mind, understanding types were classified at three different times.9 The only definite tendency which emerged, however, was one which indicated the stability of understanding. There was no clear trend, either in the direction of improvement or deterioration. In fact, approximately three-quarters of our subjects showed no change at all in their understanding level: those who started out by misunderstanding retained their miscomprehension to the end of the interview; those who originally understood generally did so throughout the interview.10
A Note on the Classification of Understanding
A few of our respondents, although they gave no definite indications of having seen either Mr. Biggott’s prejudice or the artist’s satirical treatment of him, seemed to glimpse vaguely that the cartoons had some meaning. They said, for example:
#73 [The cartoons might be put out by] A fellow that’s a pretty good American at heart and has an idea that he wants to put over. (What idea is that?) Well, it’s an ideal that he’s trying to put over. . . (What do you think of cartoons like this in general?) It’s a good idea to put over an ideal. (In what way?) You see, when a man draws a cartoon it’s because he has an idea in his head that he can’t express in words but that he wants to put over. So he makes it into a cartoon. That’s how he expresses his ideals. (Open prejudice, grade school, Protestant, born in Norway.)
Because this respondent never indicated clearly that he saw Mr. Biggott as a prejudiced individual or that he recognized the artist’s satirical treatment of him, we had no choice but to classify his understanding as Type B. But, even though he did not clarify what “ideals” he had in mind, we have the feeling that he may have understood, and that his apparent lack of understanding is the result of inarticulateness. Perhaps if the interviewer had probed more pointedly and more persistently the respondent might have been led to talk of concrete problems rather than general “ideals”. Perhaps further questioning might have revealed more definitely whether or not this subject, and the few others like him, were properly classified in understanding.
What we seem to say, then, is that in some cases a manifest lack of understanding may result from “inadequate” interviewing, and that we penalized a few subjects for defects in our technique.
But is an interview which does not probe extensively on questions of understanding actually “inadequate”? Are we naive to accept at face value comments which might have been clarified had the interviewer persisted in questioning them? There are at least two reasons why we do not consider our technique defective nor our acceptance of manifest content naive.
First of all, even the most inarticulate worker has a vocabulary adequate to discussing the message of the Mr. Biggott cartoons. Had we insisted that our subjects use the exact phrases “prejudice”, “racial discrimination”, or “satire” there might then be some basis for considering understanding a function of articulateness. But a comment that “He doesn't like Jews or Negros” was treated as equivalent to the statement “He discriminates against (or is prejudiced toward) racial minorities”. Similarly, phrases such as “making fun of”, “showing up”, “pointing out as a bad example” were as readily accepted as were the words “satire” or “ridicule”. Correct understanding could therefore be expressed in as simple terms as the statement, “The artist is trying to show that it’s wrong to hate Jews and Negroes the way this man does”. It seems improbable that a subject who understood the message correctly would have to be interviewed extensively before he could find words in which to express his interpretation of the message.
More importantly, however, persistent probing of understanding might have had an influence on our findings. It is well known that test subjects often respond to the techniques of investigations as well as to the material on which they are being tested. Experimentalists have found that when they pre-test their subjects prior to exposing them to the experimental stimulus the pre-test itself creates a sensitivity to the stimulus. The subjects have their attention focused on the problems of the experiment.11
We encountered a somewhat similar situation in pre-testing our interview guide. We had hoped to pre-classify the prejudices of each member of our test public before showing him the cartoons. For this purpose two questions concerned with prejudices, along with four “irrelevant” questions, were asked prior to the interview proper. In the earlier pre-tests, only a small percentage of interviewees had understood the cartoons correctly, yet when these initial questions were asked the understanding rate rose to over 75%! A careful check of the different pre-test groups revealed that this tremendous discrepancy could be attributed only to the orienting influence of the questions asked before the test started. This was confirmed in later pre-tests when, after the six questions were eliminated, understanding dropped to its original low level. The questions thus seem to have operated as guide-lines to understanding: they suggested the problems dealt with by the cartoons.
The same cues to understanding might have been provided had the interviewer persisted in probing every unclear statement of the message. First of all, by the very act of questioning a statement, the interviewer might indicate to the respondent that his original comment was not “correct” and might lead him to reconsider his original interpretation of the cartoon message. But in addition, it is almost inevitable that the interviewer will introduce into his probe-questions certain terms or phrases which clarify the meaning of the cartoons for someone who had not understood.
Under “real life” conditions, readers of the Mr. Biggott cartoons would be given none of these cues to understanding. In order to have our research findings approximate the understanding-rate of the potential audience, then, we reduced the possible biases of our techniques to a minimum. This meant that comments revealing “borderline” understanding were not probed beyond a certain limit.
The close correspondence between the proportion of understanding found by qualitative technique in New York and that found by mass statistical techniques in Decatur, where there were even fewer interviewing biases, given us added confidence in the accuracy of our findings.12
APPENDIX A
Part I: A Note on the Selection of our Sample:
In consultation with the sponsors of this study we decided to select our respondents from among white, non-Jewish men in the laboring class of New York City. There were several reasons why this specific group, rather than any other, was chosen.
Why No Jews or Negroes in our Sample?: Propaganda can have one of three effects on any individual. If he already agrees with the message of the document or campaign, it will reinforce his attitudes. It will reassure him of the “correctness” of his position and perhaps give him confidence to express his ideas more openly.
If, on the other hand, the individual has no definite attitude toward the issue presented in the propaganda, exposure to it may crystallize those amorphous and unformulated attitudes in the direction desired by the propagandist.
Finally, if the individual initially disagrees with the stand taken by the propagandist, he may be converted.
In the present study we wanted to observe the reactions of people who could potentially be affected by the Mr. Biggott cartoons in each of these ways. We wanted to see how those whose attitudes could be reinforced by the cartoons reacted to them; therefore we wanted to have unprejudiced respondents in our sample. We wanted to study the response of those whose attitudes could be crystallized by the cartoons; therefore we wanted to interview individuals whose attitudes were neither in complete agreement nor in definite disagreement with those of the propagandist. Finally, we were particularly interested in studying the reactions of those who might have been converted by the cartoons; we therefore wanted to include prejudiced individuals in our sample.
We felt that, by excluding Jews and Negroes from our sample, we could more easily obtain a relatively even distribution of these three types of people. After all, Jews and Negroes are almost certain to agree with propaganda which criticizes anti-Semitic and anti-Negro attitudes. The most likely effect of the cartoons on them, then, is that of reinforcement. Thus, in order to avoid overloading our sample with individuals who could be affected in this one way alone, we interviewed white, non-Jewish respondents.
Why No Women in Our Sample?: At the same time that the present case studies were being collected in New York City, 700 housewives in Decatur, Illinois, filled out a check-list questionnaire concerning the same Mr. Biggott cartoons.
One of our primary concerns in selecting the sample was how to keep the group homogenous enough to make a statistical analysis of 150 interviews meaningful. We therefore limited our respondents to men, and relied on a comparison of our interviews with the Decatur material to indicate sex differences in understanding.
Why Only Laboring Class Individuals in Our Sample?: We learned from the producers that the Mr. Biggott series is to be distributed mainly through union newspaper and shop bulletin-boards. Thus, by interviewing only persons from the laboring class we not only were able to increase the homogeneity of our sample but could also study the reaction of individuals who represented the potential real-life audience.
Part II: A Note on a Fourth Possible Type of Understanding:
We found in analyzing our interviews that the message of the cartoons could be understood in three ways. In summary fashion these were:
Type A: Correct understanding, with both the elements of satire and Mr. Biggott’s prejudices seen.
Type B: Complete misunderstanding, with neither the element of satire nor the element of prejudices recognized.
Type C: “Boomerang” understanding, with the concern of the cartoons with prejudices correctly understood, but the element of satire overlooked.
Actually we should expect to find a fourth type of understanding. With comprehension based on two elements, four distinct types of understanding can be differentiated. These are represented by the cells of the four-fold table:
None of our respondents, however, showed the type of comprehension represented by the cell marked (*): none of them saw the satire without seeing that the cartoons dealt with racial prejudice. The absence of cases in this one cell means that understanding of the Mr. Biggott cartoons actually forms a scale, with the satirical aspects of the cartoons the “more difficult” element to understand. It means that recognition of the element of prejudices is more easily achieved than recognition of the satire.
The distribution of understanding given in this report is actually the result of a second coding of the interviews. There were a few respondents who seemed to understand the satire of the cartoons, but not their concern with prejudices. They said, for example, that the cartoons were produced
“By the Labor party to show the difference between us and the aristocrats. They’d be saying that the workers ain’t the type as this man lying here.”
In our preliminary classification, therefore, we placed these few respondents in the cell marked (*) and characterized their understanding as a “blurring” or “disfiguring” of the message.
We were somewhat surprised to find this type of understanding, however. Other material in our interviews had indicated that the satire of the cartoons was less obvious than their concern with prejudices. Because of the greater difficulty of recognizing this element, then, we assumed that a respondent who saw the satire would also have seen the prejudice.
We believed that a stricter application of our criteria would show that the understanding of those who presumably “blurred” the message was, in reality, either of Type A or of Type B. This actually was the case. By examining their interviews again we found that some of these subjects really did not see that the artist was critical of Mr. Biggott; in other words, their recognition of the satire was more apparent than real. They were therefore reclassified as having understanding of Type B, as seeing neither the satire nor the concern of the cartoons with prejudice. A second group of those who seemed to ”blur” the message were actually aware of Mr. Biggott’s prejudices in other of their comments, so that they were reclassified as having understanding of Type A. The respondent who thought that the cartoon were published by the Labor Party as a criticism of “aristocrats”, for example, had previously said that in the Transfusion cartoon Mr. Biggott was “discriminating against other races”. Although not well articulated, then, his understanding was correct: both the elements of satire and of Mr. Biggott’s racial discrimination were recognized. [...]
APPENDIX B
CRITERIA OF UNDERSTANDING AND IDENTIFICATION
Part I: The Criteria by Which Understanding of the Message Was Coded:
In part I of this appendix we shall explain just how we determined whether or not a respondent understood the message of the Mr. Biggott cartoons. Definite criteria were established in order to reduce the subjectivity with which an analyst could have approached the qualitative data of our interviews.
In order to understand the cartoons, the two elements which had to be recognized were (a) Mr. Biggott’s prejudices and (b) the fact that these prejudices were ridiculed. Although the two elements are related in the cartoons, we found that, to a considerable extent, a respondent’s understanding of each could be gauged independently. The reason for this was that a recognition of Mr. Biggott’s prejudices was generally revealed in answers to questions concerning the central character himself, while understanding of the element of satire more usually revealed itself in comments concerning the purpose of the cartoons and the intentions of the producer.
But, specifically, which of the many questions in our guide were most useful in determining whether or not a respondent had recognized one or the other element of the message?
A. Questions revealing a recognition of Mr. Biggott’s prejudices:
Actually, almost every question in the interview guide could elicit comments indicating a recognition of Mr. Biggott’s prejudices. The problem of determining whether or not respondents understand this element was therefore relatively simple.
Several questions, however, were particularly useful as “yard-sticks” for understanding of the cartoons’ concerned with prejudices. These questions, along with typical responses which indicated correct understanding of this single element, are the following:
1) Question #4: “What do you think he finds so disgraceful (on the honor roll)? Which names does he object to?”
There were two principal ways in which a recognition of Mr. Biggott’s prejudices could be revealed by this question. First of all, the respondent could answer that Mr. Biggott objected to the mixture of foreigners – Jews, Italians, Poles, Irish, and so on – with “Americans”. For example, as one respondent put it:
“He finds the different nationalities disgraceful. I guess he thinks they should all be one. He thinks they should be American.”
A second variation of correct understanding was a comment in which the respondent stated that Mr. Biggott disliked Jews, foreigners, all “people not named Davis” and so on. For example:
“He’s objecting to the fact that there aren’t more Americanized names . . . like Smith, Jones, Davis, that kind. He doesn’t like the people with foreign-sounding names.”
2) Question #6: “What do you think he means when he says that he doesn’t want anything but blue, sixth generation American Blood? What kind of blood do you think he doesn’t want?”
If the respondents stated that Mr. Biggott wanted “white”, “old family” or “pure American blood” they were considered to have understood his prejudices. Similarly, they were assumed to have recognized this element correctly when they said that Mr. Biggott did not want a transfusion of blood from foreigners, Jews or Negroes. Comments of the following sort revealed understanding:
“He wants true American blood . . . Berkowitz of Ginsberg wouldn’t do. He wouldn’t want colored or Italian blood either.”
“He doesn’t want my foreign blood. He’s one of those who’re against all foreigners.”
3) Question #10: “What do you think he means (when he tells the Indian the company policy is to hire only 100% Americans)?”
Those who answered this question by saying that Mr. Biggott didn’t like foreigners, had racial prejudices, or would hire only white men were classified as having understood. Few respondents recognized Mr. Biggott’s prejudices in the Indian cartoon as well as the one who said that:
“He means that you should hire only white people brought up like real Americans. Not Indians, or colored people, or people who speak with accents.”
Contract with this type of comment which simply called Mr. Biggott stupid for not knowing a 100% American when he saw one. Those who said only that “It seems to me he would take an Indian if he wanted only 100% Americans” were not coded as having seen Mr. Biggott’s prejudices unless such recognition was revealed in answer to other questions.
4) Question #18: “Do you think his ideas are dangerous?”
Mr. Biggott’s prejudices were understood when respondents said that his ideas were dangerous because (a) they create racial prejudice or (b) intensify existing hatreds and lead to race riots. One respondent said, for example:
“His ideas are very dangerous. The very things we’re trying to eliminate, he’s for. Discrimination’s the easiest thing in the world to spread. . . ”
5) Question #21: “Which country do you think he would prefer to have rule Europe -- Russia or Germany?”
The unelaborated response, “Germany”, was not accepted as evidence that Mr. Biggott’s prejudices were seen. We found that some of our respondents thought Mr. Biggott would choose Germany because he was “anti-Communist”, because “the Germans are such clean people”, or for a similar reason.
Only when the respondents said that Mr. Biggott would prefer Germany because he shared the Germans’ “master race” ideas or because he had the same racial hatreds as did the Nazis was the response, “Germany”, considered evidence of a correct understanding of Mr. Biggott’s attitudes. The following was considered a “correct” response:
“He’d prefer Germany all the way. They would agree with him in hating the Jews.”
6) Question #24: “Do you know, or know of, anyone like that? Who? In what way are they like him?”
We found that in describing people they knew who resembled Mr. Biggott, respondents often revealed their recognition of his prejudices. They said, for example:
“I did know someone like that years ago. He worked with me. He didn’t care for colored fellows, or Jewish fellows.”
“A few senators are like him. . . Bilbo is one. He is filibustered the FEPC.”
These were the six questions that most often enabled us to determine whether or not a respondent recognized Mr. Biggott’s prejudices. In most cases, respondents who saw the prejudices indicated this in answers to several of these questions. [...]
B. Questions revealing a recognition of satire in the cartoons:
It was more difficult to determine whether or not the element of satire was understood. First of all, there were fewer questions in the interview-guide which elicited answers showing a recognition of this element; and secondly, respondents tended to give such answers to only one or two of these questions. [...]
The majority of our subjects who saw the satire at all showed this in only one or two comments.
The ambiguous phrases which were occasionally used in answer to these questions created another difficultly in our coding of satire-understanding. Some respondents, for example, said that they thought the cartoons were a good idea because they were “educational”, or that the artist was trying to “teach people”. Such phrases were never taken as a prime facie evidence that the satire had been recognized, because, clearly, readers can believe that a cartoon series is intended to “teach” people to be anti-Semitic. When such unspecific comments were made it was necessary to refer to the answers to other questions before deciding whether or not the satire had been recognized.
What types of comments, elicited by these questions, indicated correct comprehension of the element of satire?
1) Question #8: “Who do you think might put out such cartoons? For what purpose?
When the respondent said that the cartoons would be published by a group, organization, or type of publication presumably interested in combatting a Mr. Biggott, we considered that he understood the satire of the cartoons. Most frequently the respondents mentioned:
a) Specific minority groups, such as Jews, Negroes, or foreigners; b) Unspecified “liberals” or “Public-minded” people; c) Liberal organizations, such as the Labor Party, or labor unions; or d) Liberal or leftist newspapers, such as the “Post”, “PM”, or the “Daily Mirror”.
When asked what interest these groups would have in publishing the cartoons, those who answered “to make Mr. Biggott seem ridiculous” or “to combat racial discrimination” were considered to have recognized the satire. Comments which indicated correct understanding of this element resembled the following:
“They’d be published by the ‘Post’, ‘PM’, the ‘Worker’ -- any crusading paper. The NAACP and organizations like that. And the CIO unions, or maybe nearly any union.”
“Why they’d be published by some friends of democracy who are trying to spread liberal and free ideas.”
2) Question #14: “What do you think about cartoons like this in general? Do you think they are a good idea?”
When the unelaborated “Like” and “Dislike” responses to this question were probed, we sometimes found evidence of whether or not the respondent had recognized satire in the cartoons. Respondents who said that the cartoons were a good idea because “show how silly a person like Mr. Biggott is” or because they “might make people like Mr. Biggott stop thinking that way” understood the satire of the cartoons. For example:
“They’re a good idea. They can teach people not to be so blooming narrow-minded as this fellow is and not to think as he thinks. They would knock bigotry in the head -- arouse people -- show good people that there are people like that in the United States.”
In this, as well as in other questions designed to reveal recognition of the satire, we often found evidence that this element had not been recognized. In other words, the question provided definite evidence, not only of correct understanding, but also of incorrect understanding. When, for example, respondents said that they disliked the cartoons “because they would stir up racial hatred”, we could all tell definitely that they had overlooked the element of satire in the cartoons.
3) Question #19: “Would you like to see more of these cartoons?”
Here again, an elaboration of affirmative responses occasionally yielded evidence that the satire of the cartoons had been understood. Correct understanding of this element was revealed in the following type of comment:
“I’d like to see more of them. They’ll teach people to be more friendly –- more brotherlike. They’ll teach to abolish discrimination.”
4) Question #26: “Are there any people you know whom you would like to show these cartoons too?”
Additional evidence for a respondent’s recognition of the satire was gleaned from the reasons why he would, or would not, like to show the cartoons to friends or relatives. The classic comment elicited by this question was that of a young boy who said:
“I would like to show them to my mother and father. (Why?) To try to make them think about people in this country who believe the way Mr. Biggott does. For benefit –- to make them know that ‘Maybe I’m a Mr. Biggott myself’. That this war should have changed beliefs, and that we should get rid of this.”
In addition, this question also yielded positive evidence that the satire had not been seen:
“No I wouldn’t like to show these to anyone. But there might be some who would. (Who?) Oh, agitators who were trying to split up different nationalities and the like.”
5) Question #29: “What do you think the artist is trying to do?”
This question, more frequently than any other, elicited responses from which we could determine whether or not the respondent saw the satire of the cartoons. The reason for this is clear: in answering this question the respondent was virtually forced to say whether he believed that the artist agreed with Mr. Biggott or whether he made fun of him. Comments of the following type indicated a recognition of the satire:
“He’s trying to show this guy up as an example of how not to be.”
“He’s trying to eliminate bigotry.”
There is an interesting difference between the two comments just quoted. In the second one, the respondent actually stated the message of the cartoons completely: his brief comment indicates that he recognized both Mr. Biggott’s prejudices and the producers’ intentions to ridicule those prejudices. For he would not use the word “bigotry” unless he recognized the concern with prejudices, and he would not say that the artist intended “to eliminate” bigotry unless he saw that the cartoons criticized Mr. Biggott. Thus this short sentence shows that the respondent understood the message correctly; we need examine none of his other comments.
This is not the case in the first quotation, however. It is true that in his comment the respondent indicates that he saw the satire of the cartoons, for his phrase “show this guy up. . .” is an inelegant equivalent of “ridiculing” or “treating satirically”. But we cannot tell from this single comment whether or not the respondent saw Mr. Biggott’s prejudices, for he gives no indication of what attributes he believed “this guy” to have. It could have happened, although it never did, that some respondents thought the artist was ridiculing Mr. Biggott as an example of an unpleasant “conservative” or a distasteful capitalist”. In other words, the concern of the cartoons with prejudice might have been overlooked even though their satirical aspects were recognized.
Because respondents could recognize each element independently, and because they could talk about their understanding of one element without revealing their comprehension of the second, the classification of understanding generally proceeded in two steps. We first looked to see whether the respondent had recognized Mr. Biggott’s prejudices, by examining his comments to the questions previously discussed. When we had satisfied ourselves that he either did or did not understand this element correctly, we turned to his comments in the questions designed to reveal his understanding of the satire. In other words, our appraisal of a respondent’s understanding was more often than not based on an examination of answers to a variety of questions.
Part II: The Criteria by Which Identification With Mr. Biggott or the Victim Was Coded:
The term “identification” in our study has signified that mental process through which a subject assumes the role of another person to such an extent that actions – either verbal or behavioral – directed toward the object of identification are experienced as directed towards the identifying person. The Mr. Biggott cartoons contain two possible identification objects – Mr. Biggott or his victims, best represented by the Indian.
Just as we established clearcut criteria for understanding, so that the subjectivity of the analyst would be reduced to a minimum, so we set up criteria for identification. These were:
A. An actual statement of the identification
Identification was most easily recognized, of course, when the subject actually verbalized it, when he referred to Mr. Biggott (or his victim) as “I” or “we”, rather than as “he”.
One respondent said, for example:
“My grandfather was a KKK man. Maybe I’ve got a little bit of that blood in me. . .My grandpappy was born in the U.S. – my grandmother too – maybe I’m a bigot. . .There is only one word that should be changed on that Indian cartoon – 100%. Employ Americans first. That’s what they do in California – employ the foreigners after every native American has gone to work.”
In the phrase “Maybe I’m a bigot”, the respondent actually tells us that he has identified with Mr. Biggott. He makes it clear in that comment, as well as in those which follow, that he looks at the cartons through Mr. Biggott’s eyes.
A second respondent was similarly direct in the statement of his identification with Mr. Biggott. When asked what Mr. Biggott meant in his Indian cartoon, he answered:
“He means that we wouldn’t want any Communists here.” This subject also aligns himself with Mr. Biggott explicitly: he also converts the third person into the first person.
Identification with the victims was determined according to the same orientation in some cases. One of the subjects, answering the same question which elicited evidence of identification with Mr. Biggott in the previous case, said:
“He means that he wouldn’t hire us – people who’re not really Americans, people who’ve migrated to this country or whose ancestors have.”
This respondent also tells us explicitly that he has assumed the role of one of the figures in the cartoons, only this time it is the victim, rather than the aggressor, who is the identification object.
Not all of those who identified with one of the objects in the cartoons expressed their identification so directly, however. Therefore further criteria – growing out of our definition – were established.
B. Open sympathy with either Mr. Biggott or his victim
If one assumes the role of another person one sympathizes with him. If the identification object expresses a desire for something, the identifying subject justifies his wish. If the identification object is threatened in any way, the identifying subject expresses his concern.
An openly sympathetic attitude toward either Mr. Biggott or his victim was therefore taken as evidence of identification with one of the two objects.
One respondent, for instance, justified Mr. Biggott’s request for a transfusion of “blue, sixth-generation American blood” in the following terms:
“He means that he wouldn’t want foreign people to donate blood. (How do you feel about that?) Well, I should think somebody that’s been in this country several generations would not take just anybody’s blood unless they give him a reference.
This statement not only agrees with Mr. Biggott’s request, but he also goes to lengths to justify it.
More frequently this criterion was evidence of identification with the victim. Mr. Biggott is not a type of person to call forth an open expression of sympathy even from those who indicated in other ways that they had identified with him. The victims, however, are objects for pity and concern:
“Take the one with the Indian. You can’t help feelin’ sorry for the Indian. He’s so humble the way he’ standing there, and this guy talks like he was God or something.”
C. A threat to the identification object is considered a threat to the identifying subject
But in addition to calling forth expression of sympathy, a threat to one’s object of identification is actually experienced as a threat to oneself.
Comments which revealed that the respondents experienced attacks on either Mr. Biggott or his victim as attacks on themselves were therefore taken as evidence of identification.
For example, when he was asked whether he thought Mr. Biggott would hire a Jew or a Negro, one foreign-born respondent in our sample answered:
“If he turned down the Indian, I don’t think a Jew or a Negro he would consider, much less a foreign-born.”
Mr. Biggott’s refusal to hire the Indian thus creates a threat for the respondent himself, evidence of this identification with the victim.
Or, again, a respondent of French and Italian descent looking at the Transfusion cartoon remarked:
“He doesn’t want to get any blood that’s from Europe. (What kind doesn’t he want?) I don’t know. Could be French or Italian or Jewish.”
The subject feels, in other words, that in his attack on persons who do not have “blue, sixth-generation American blood” Mr. Biggott threatens him as well. This, again, was taken as evidence of identification with the victim.
In all of the cartoons Mr. Biggott has the “upper hand” – there was no one who threatened him with harm of any sort. The only source of harm to Mr. Biggott was the artist of the cartoons. He implied a criticism by drawing a cobweb on his head. The subject who identified with Mr. Biggott, then, could experience this as a criticism of himself also.
In a few cases this seems actually to have happened: the subject was very resentful of the cobweb because it cast aspersions on himself. Of course one could resent the cobweb for aesthetic or artistic reasons as well as for the personal criticism which it implied. But some subjects became highly emotional about it – their antagonism assumed proportions which we would not expect to find in someone who objected to it merely because he felt it inartistic. When objections to the cobweb were constantly made, and when they were phrased in emotional terms (“What does he put that there for? Why does he do it in all of the cartoons? Who drew these cartoons anyway? What does he mean by that?”), we considered this evidence of identification with Mr. Biggott.
D. The identifying subject described the thoughts and feelings of the identification object by introspecting to his own
If an individual assumes the role of another person, if the “I” and the “he” become interchangeable, then he can determine the thoughts and feelings of his identification object by referring to his own thoughts and feelings.
According to our final criterion, subjects identified either with Mr. Biggott or his victims when they described the action and meaning of the cartoons by thinking of how they would act or what they would mean in the same situations.
One of our respondents said, for example, that Mr. Biggott found the Honor Roll “disgraceful” because of the fact that:
“All of them boys are dead. Wars cost a loss of all of them boys, and that’s what he thinks is disgraceful. Everywhere you go you’ll see the same thing – the honor roll – everybody’s lost boys. It’s bad that they have gone. Why did it have to happen? He thinks it’s disgraceful that all those boys should have to die.”
It is difficult to tell from this comment just where the subject’s own feelings stop and those he attributes to Mr. Biggott begin. The whole remark reveals the extent to which the subject must depend on his own opinions to determine what it is that Mr. Biggott finds disgraceful.
This criterion was useful only for determining identification with Mr. Biggott, however. There were no questions in the guide which asked for the thoughts or feelings of the victims, so that respondents were never given an opportunity to express their identification with the victim by answering such questions through introspection.
These, then, are the criteria by which identification with either Mr. Biggott or his victim was determined. Generally a respondent who expressed his identification in one way would also do so in another: if he revealed that he was sympathetic to the Indian he also indicated that the harm done to the Indian was experienced as harm done to himself; if he actually stated his identification with Mr. Biggott, he also revealed that he could arrive at Mr. Biggott’s thoughts and feelings only by introspecting to his own.
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW GUIDE
In order to make certain that we would obtain comparable information from all of our respondents, we furnished the interviewers with a guide which outlined the major areas of response to be covered in each interview. Briefly these areas were:
- The respondents understanding of the cartoon;
- His reaction to Mr. Biggott;
- His characterization of Mr. Biggott;
- His own prejudices and attitudes toward prejudice;
- His own awareness of political and social problems;
- Background characteristics.
The guide was never used as a fixed questionnaire, however. In a detailed interview, the interviewer allows himself to be led from one topic to another by the respondent. Therefore, there was no fixed order for any but a few of the questions dealing specifically with understanding. Rather, the interviewers were instructed to ask questions logically suggested by the respondents’ comments, whether or not these questions were in order indicated in the guide.
Furthermore, the questions contained in the guide were usually just the starting point for the discussion of any topic. Generally, they did no more than start the respondents talking about his reactions to Mr. Biggott, his understanding of the cartoons, or some other topic. In order to make the comment as complete and as detailed as possible, then, the interviewers followed up these initial questions with appropriate probes. None of these are included in the guide, of course.
Finally, the interviewers were free to change the wording of any question when they felt there was a need to do so. The questions contained in the guide were those which a series of pretests had shown to be most successful, but an occasional rephrasing of them helped to elicit material not obtained originally. This freedom in the wording of questions had the additional advantage of making interviewers less dependent on the guide, therefore decreasing the probability that they would use it as a questionnaire rather than as a skeleton outline.
INTERVIEW GUIDE
- What is your favorite cartoon? What is your favorite comic book? What is your favorite comic strip?
(Honor Roll)
Do you think this is a typical honor roll?
What do you think of this?
What do you think he finds so disgraceful? Which names do you think he objects to? How do you feel about it?
(Transfusion)
What do you think of this?
What do you think he means when he says he doesn’t want anything but blue, sixth generation American blood? What kind of blood do you think he doesn’t want?
What do you suppose the doctor is thinking? What is it about him that makes you feel he is thinking that? What do you think the doctor will answer? What would you say to this man?
Who do you think might put out such cartoons? For what purpose?
(Indian)
What do you think of this?
What do you think he means?
What is your idea of 100% American? Are there any groups not making their share of sacrifices in the war?
Suppose this man (Indian) were a Negro or a Jew, instead of an Indian, do you think he should be hired? (If respondent seems to resist expressing prejudices, ask a “loaded” question, e.g., “If there were bad unemployment and a lot of Americans were out of work, do you think a Negro or Jew should be hired?”) How could he tell whether a person is Jewish? How? Are you always right?
Are you a Jew?
What do you think about cartoons like this in general? Do you think they are a good idea? (Probe)
What kind of man do you think this is? (Probe for occupation, rich or poor, married or single, religion, children, successful, unsuccessful.) Would he like you? What kinds of friends do you think he has? Would you like him?
A. Spontaneous answer
B. Check list (Go through list with respondent and check all that apply)
Comical Dishonest Sincere Nazi-like A crackpot Old fashioned Good American Stupid Mean Snobbish Good natured Other (Specify)
- Do you think he would be for or against the following things?
The rich The Nazis Ku Klux Klan The Black Market Religion Unions The Negroes Children The poor Foreigners The Jews United Nations Dancing Other (Specify)
What do you think that is? (Point to cobweb) What is it for?
Do you think his ideas are dangerous? (Probe) Do you think he is a dangerous person?
Would you like to see more of these cartoons? Have you ever heard any stories that could be used for these cartoons?
Would you like to see someone in the pictures who talks back to this man? What kind of person? How should he look? What would you have him say?
Which country do you think he would prefer to have rule Europe -- Russia or Germany?
Which country would he rather have rule Europe_____________________ (Insert Russia or Germany, whichever mentioned) or England? Churchill’s England? Socialist-Labor Party England?
Do you think most people whose families have been in this country for a long time have ideas like his?
Is he your idea of a bigot? What would be your idea of a bigot?
Do you know or know of anyone like that? Who? In what way are they like him?
Do you think there are more people like this in other countries than in the U.S.? What countries? Do you know the reason for it? Do you think there are any more here now than used to be? (Ask specifically for Germany, England, Russia.)
Are there any people you know whom you would like to show these cartoons to? Whom? (Probe)
What would you call yourself -- a conservative, a Democrat, a Republican, a Communist, a liberal, a socialist, or something else?
Do you think his opinions are like those of any of the following people?
Senator Reynolds Henry Wallace President Truman Mr. McCormack (Publisher of Chicago Tribune) Gerald L. K. Smith Hitler Henry Morgenthau, Jr. Father Coughlin Other (Specify)
- What do you think the artist is trying to do?
A. Spontaneous answer
B. Check list (Check all that apply)
Make you laugh Spread un-American ideas Make you democratic and tolerant Make you realize how dangerous people like Mr. Biggott are Other (Specify)
How did you vote in the 1944 elections?
Age
Marital status
No. of children
Education
Income level
Church affiliation
Nationality
Descent
Occupation - Self: Wife:
Union affiliation: How often attend meetings?
Hold office now?
Formerly?
What?
In addition to these questions which probed specifically for an understanding of the cartoons, the interview guide contained questions which indirectly tested the respondents’ understanding. The interview guide used in our study is found in Appendix C.
The other four which were later shown us had not yet been published when our study began. ↩
We eliminated the “Graveyard” and “Pullman reservations” cartoons. The first was rejected because it repeated quite faithfully the theme of the “Honor Roll” cartoon, and because it was felt that the Star of David symbol would not be widely recognized. The “Pullman reservations” cartoons was eliminated because, while dealing with much the same theme as the “Transfusion” cartoon, the situation it depicted was neither as plausible nor as much a matter of public interest and discussion. A further consideration in selecting the “Transfusion” rather than the “Pullman reservations” cartoons was that, in the former, Mr. Biggott is at the mercy of a second character. We were interested in studying how this variation might affect reactions to the cartoon. ↩
The considerations which led us to select this group, rather than any other, are discussed in Appendix A, part I. ↩
The question in the interview guide pertaining to the understanding of the material are reproduced below, along with an indication of where in the they were asked: #8 - Who do you think might put out such cartoons? For what purpose? (Asked after respondents had seen two cartoons); #14 - What do you think about cartoons like this in general? Do you think they are a good idea? Probe for purpose (Asked after respondennts had seen all three cartoons, but before any general discussion); #19 - Would you like to see more of these cartoons? Have you ever heard any stories that could be used for these cartoons? Probe for purpose (Asked after respondents had been asked to characterize Mr. Biggott, and after he had answered two checklist questions); #29 - What do you think the artist is trying to do? (Asked as last question in the interview). ↩
The types of questions which enabled us to determine whether or not a subject had understood one or both of the elements of understanding are analyzed in Appendix B, part I. ↩
See Appendix A, part II, for a footnote concerning a fourth possible type of understanding. ↩
The number preceding each quotation refers to the interview from which the excerpt was taken. At the conclusion of each question we shall also indicate the prejudice-type (the criteria on the basis of which prejudice-type was coded are discussed in Chapter III, pp.27-29), the educational level, and the religion of the respondent quoted. In addition, we shall indicate the nationality background of foreign-born respondents. ↩
In order to assure the proper classification of understanding it was coded independently by two analysts. There was approximately 90% agreement as to the type of understanding represented by each interview. ↩
Understanding was classified for the first time after two cartoons had been shown and a first general question asked. It was classified for a second time after the third cartoon had been presented and a second general question asked. The final classification was made at the conclusion of the interview, following the general discussion of problems pertinent to an understanding of the Mr. Biggott cartoons. ↩
Since it makes little difference which classification is used, our discussions of understanding in the following chapters will be based on the second one -- that obtained immediately after the third cartoon had been presented. ↩
See Ernest Greenwood, Experimental Sociology (New York: King’s Crown Press, 1945.) p. 106 and passim. ↩
The results of the two studies are compared in Appendix D. When we say that the techniques used in Decatur minimized the possibility that understanding would be “cued”, we refer, of course, only to the free-answer parts of the questionnaire. The check-lists did provide the same sorts of aids to comprehension which result from extensive probing. In fact, one type of understanding which was found in the Decatur study was actually called “checklist aided”: the free-answer was corrected when the subject was given an opportunity to study the alternatives suggested in the check-list. ↩