183 SOCIOLOGY Race and Ethnic Relations Session 8: Prejudice in Socio-Political Life: SocioOn Native American Rights
Race Problem as Moral Dilemma
Clash of the American Creed of equality and individual rights vs Actual practice of prejudice and discrimination di i i ti Values Centered Gunnar Myrdal, 1944. An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and g American Democracy
Race Problem as a Personality Problem P bl
T Adorno et al, 1949 The Authoritarian T. al 1949. Personality Authoritarianism was a deep seated deep-seated personality syndrome involving hostility and aggression toward a wide range of ethnic minority and other unconventional groups (e.g., homosexuals). This hostility (e g homosexuals) was based in a general pattern of rigid, unreflective, hyperconforming, unreflective hyperconforming and highly suggestible ways of thinking
Race Problem as Socio-Cultural Prejudice P j di
"Prejudice, then, can be thought of as irrationally j g y based, negative attitudes against certain ethnic groups and their members." -Pettigrew et al. 1980. Prejudice j Object Appraisal or knowledge function Social adjustment or learning and conformity Externalization anxiety reduction or psychological need and scapegoating Gordon Allport, 1954. The Nature of Prejudice
Institutional Critique and Dominance of "S D i f "Structural" A l" Approval l
Blalock 1967 Toward a Theory of Blalock, 1967. Minority Group Relations V d B h 1967 R Van den Berghe, 1967. Race and R i d Racism: A Comparative Perspective Wilson, 1973. Power, Racism, and Privilege: Race Relations in Theoretical g and Sociohistorical Perspective Blauner, 1972. Racial Oppression in America
Elaborating a More Sociological Approach to Prejudice and Why It Matters
Prejudice as Group Position
4 Elements of Group Position theory Group Attachment: In-group sense of superiority Out-Group Derogation: Out-group viewed as alien and different Sense of Entitlement: proprietary claim over certain rights, statuses, and resources Perception o Threat: belief t at members o a e cept o of eat be e that e be s of an out-group seek a greater share of in-group entitlements
Prejudice as Group Position
3 Core Assumptions of Group Position Theory Ethno-racial cleavages f d Eh i l l fundamental: racial id i i are quasil i l identities i autonomous social forces, ranking with economic and other institutional dynamics in shaping human social organization p ; Emotions Matter: Affect Central to the Sense of Group Position; that is, racial attachments and the sense of group position have core non-rational or socio-emotional elements Interests Matter: Configuration of Interests and interest groups central to group position since once a set of racialized inequalities have been institutionalize there are meaningful interests that attach to such group positions in a hierarchical and racially stratified social order.
Recall the Competing Approaches
Socio-cultural prejudice (negative beliefs and feelings) Symbolic racism (new politicized racial resentments--rejection of self- and groupinterests in favor of purely ideational/psychology claim)
Consider one Additional Alternative
Injustice Frame j Some social policies are rightly viewed as either involving such high costs and unwanted social consequences that sensible people reject them h ibl l j h (on racial neutral basis) OR Some social policies are rightly viewed as violating traditional and cherished moral values de t ed t t u Stinchcombe, Garth Identified with Arthur St c co be, D. Ga t Taylor (sociologists), Paul Sniderman (political scientist), and Philip Tetlock (social sychologist)
Substance of the Wisconsin Chippewa T Chi Treaty Ri h Di Rights Dispute
Fred & Mike Tribble 1974 Court Cases Culminating in Voight Decision 1983 Why?
--usufructory right usufructory --no taste for opening treaty issues within U.S. senate
Explosive Controversy in State
--protest groups (STA, ERE, PARR) --protests at boatlandings --threats of bombings, shootings, etc --Governor tries to organize Congressional delegation --"buyout" negotiations by state --political recall effort
Figure 3.1 Salience of the Treaty Rights Dispute
Have you heard or read anything about the controversy over Indian treaty rights?
Since January, have you seen any newspaper articles or stories that dealt with Indian treaty rights?
84%
82%
16%
18%
N = 711 Yes No
N = 588
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Table 3.5 Treaty Knowledge Questions
Do Chippewa monitor hunting and fishing? Yes No Don't Know (N) * Correct response 50.3 %* 31.6 31 6 18.0 (592)
Do Chippewa have fish rearing programs? 28.3 %* 32.7 32 7 39.0 (596)
Are Chippewa allowed unlimited fishing? 52.0 % 34.5 34 5* 13.5 (591)
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Figure 3.3 Treaty Knowledge
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% All incorrect One correct Two correct All three correct
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Table 3.3 Attitudes Toward Off-Reservation Treaty Rights
Off-reservation hunting Strongly favor Somewhat favor No opinion i i Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose (N) 4.1 28.0 8.6 35.0 24.4 (567)
Off-reservation fishing 3.4 21.1 5.4 40.1 30.0 (582)
Off-reservation logging 1.6 18.5 15.8 35.9 28.1 (581)
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Open-Ended Explanations Attitudes A i d on S Spearfishing fi hi
Opposed to spearfishing ("Everyone ( Everyone should have equal rights")
"I don t know. My husband and I have I don't know discussed this a lot. Because to me that doesn't seem fair. I think that everyone is y equal. I don't think the color of a person's skin should give them rights or deny them rights" (26 yr. old, female, animal caretaker, some education beyond high school)
Open ends cn td Open-ends cn'td
Opposition to spearfishing ("Everyone ( Everyone should have equal rights")
"We are all American citizens and we all have We to abide by the same Constitution. They shouldn't have more rights than the rest of us. g I can't help it that they got a treaty from years ago. They wanted to be citizens and they are" (45 yr. old, female, records clerk, some education beyond high school)
Open ends cn td Open-ends cn'td
Opposition to spearfishing ( pp p g ("Everyone should y have equal rights")
"It's been a long time since Custer. They should fit into the melting p , and if they can't, they should g pot, y , y have no more rights than we do." (49 yr. old, female, kitchen worker, high school) "Because I think that the white person is now a p minority. I think that what is good for one race is good for them all." (58 yr. old, male, welder, high school) "Well, I just think they are making the white people the minority b giving them something that we d not h i i by i i h hi h do have. And I think that it is going to come to a big fight." (79 yr. old, female, retired high school teacher, college grad ) grad.)
Open ends cn td Open-ends cn'td
Opposition to spearfishing ("Indians should stay ( Indians on the reservation")
"On the reservation, let them spearfish there. Off the reservation, it's equal rights for everyone" (51 yr. old, male, cashier, high school) "Because they have their area to fish in and that's Because that s where they should be. And if they make whites stay off their land, then they should stay put" (38 yr. old, female, sales supervisor, high school)
Open ends cn td Open-ends cn'td
Opposition to spearfishing ( pp p g ("Will damage supply of fish") g pp y )
"They're taking all the fish." (19 yr. old, male, timber cutter, high school) "They're going to kill all the god-damn fish if they keep going at this rate. It's bullshit and they make a profit off all the fish they take; they sell it" (27 yr. old, male, truck driver, high school) "'Cause they are cleaning out our lakes `til there is nothing, and they don't need it. They all get welfare and everything free " (38 don t it free. yr. old, female, bookkeeper, some education beyond high school) "Well, I believe they re wrecking our natural resources and Well, they're they're not eating what they take. They're doing it just to spite the white people." (42 year old, female, bookkeeper, some education beyond high school)
Open ends cn td Open-ends cn'td
Favor spearfishing ("Legal right, valid contract") ( Legal contract )
"I think we made an agreement and signed it. It is their land and is part of their rights." (59 yr. old male, clergyman, college grad.) "Because the court said that they could do it. I don't feel my personal opinion goes over their legal rights " rights. (50 yr. old, female, lawyer, post-graduate education) "A contract is a contract, and treaties cannot be abrogated without shame." (36 yr. old, female, physician, post-graduate education)
Figure 3.8 Correlation of Prejudice Measures with Treaty Opposition
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 01 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5
Knowledge Scale Black Stereotype Rating Indian Stereotype Rating Negative Affect Toward Indians
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Figure 3.7 Treaty Opposition by Self Interest
0.8
0.7
p < .001
p < .001
Mean .6486
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 Treaty County Non-Treaty County Goes Fishing/Hunting Does not Fish/Hunt
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Table 3.8 Multivariate Models of Treaty Opposition
Constant Model 1 .791*** (.050) .002 002* (.001) -.068*** (.020) -.005 (.006) -.084* (.038) -.032 (.025) -.117*** (.028) --Model 2 .645*** (.052) 002** .002 (.001) -.067*** (.019) -.003 (.006) -.078* (.036) -.022 (.024) -.087*** (.027) .112*** (.020) .087*** (.023) --Model 3 .440*** (.070) 002* .002 (.001) -.070*** (.018) -.007 (.005) -.006 (.033) -.007 (.022) -.027 (.025) .067*** (.020) .073*** (.021) -.094** (.030) .087 (.045) ( 045) .214*** (.065) .042 (.073) -.005 (.056) -.015 (.047) .242*** (.041) --Model 4 .424*** (.070) .002 002** (.001) -.070*** (.018) -.007 (.006) -.058 (.033) -.004 (.022) -.028 (.025) .066*** (.019) .073*** (.021) -.090** (.030) .094* (.046) ( 046) .229*** (.055) ---
Age
Sex
Income
No HS diploma p
Some college
BA degree or more
Treaty county
Goes Fishing/ Hunting
---
Knowledge of treaty rights Conservative
---
---
---
Stereotypes of Indians
---
---
Stereotypes of Blacks
---
---
Blacks tend to be poor
---
---
---
Indians tend to be poor
---
---
---
Negative affect toward Indians Not satisfied with economic situation Finances worsened
---
---
.244*** (.040) .026 (.028) -.029 (.026) .30 524
---
---
---
---
---
Adjusted R square .06 .16 N 524 524 Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
.30 524
Table 4.1 Injustice Frame Questions
Creates Two Classes
Hurts Fish Supply
Hurts Tourism
Treaties are Needed 22 % 26 3 20 30 (586)
Strongly agree 18 % 40 % Somewhat agree 37 27 No opinion/neutral 16 8 Somewhat disagree 20 16 Strongly disagree 9 10 (N) (587) (588) Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
32 % 28 9 18 14 (586)
Figure 4.1A Relation of Injustice Frame with Psychological Measures
0.6 0.5 0.4 04 0.3 0.2
C Correlation
0.1 0 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 Conservatism Knowledge Indian Stereotypes Negative Affect Toward Indians
0.8 0.7 0.6
Mean Score
Figure 4.1B Injustice Frame by Self Interest Measures
p < .001 p < .001 Mean .60
0.5 0.4 04 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Treaty County Non-Treaty County Goes Fishing/Hunting Does not Fish/Hunt
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Table 4.2 Symbolic Racism Questions
Indians Take Unfair Advantage
Indians Get Less Government Attention
Indians Have Too Little Influence
Indians Work Hard Like Everyone Else
Strongly agree 24 % 12 % Somewhat agree 24 19 No opinion/neutral 16 12 Somewhat disagree g 26 30 Strongly disagree 11 27 (N) (587) (583) Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
12 % 25 18 32 13 (581)
16 % 27 19 19 20 (583)
Open-Ended Explanations for " Agree" Responses Symbolic Agree Racism "Unfair Advantage" item
"Well it just seems that you give them an inch "Well, and they take a mile." (34 yr. old, male, pest control worker, college grad.) "They can have almost anything they want. They get aid and everything else. All you have to do is be an Indian and you get all that stuff, you know." (62 yr. old, male, bus driver, high school) "I shouldn t say this I work in a bank So if they I shouldn't this. bank. want So, to live on a reservation, then they shouldn't get paid by white man's taxes" (53 yr. old, female, female office clerk, high school) clerk
Open-ended Symbolic Racism, cn'td 'd
"Well, it seems that the government backs them up on g p everything and they seem to get away with everything. And now they get a lumber harvest and we are paying p y g y g ( y for it. It seems we are paying for everything." (42 yr. old male, machine operator, high school) "Well, they sit on their lazy butts and do nothing and they get welfare checks and go sit in bars all night " (23 yr night. yr. old, female, waitress, high school) "I figure that they're, to me, more or less wards of the state. don t state I don't know if they're taking advantage of it or not they re not. In my opinion Indians are the only race that can retire the day they're born. They're just whores, you know." (58 year old, male welder/cutter high school) old male, welder/cutter,
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
Co orrelation
Figure 4.2A Relation of Symbolic Racism with Psychological Measures
0.1 0 -0.1 01 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 0.6 -0.6 Conservatism Knowledge Indian Stereotypes Negative Affect Toward Indians
Figure 4.2B Symbolic Racism by Self Interest Measures
0.8 0.7 07 0.6
Mean Score
p < .001 001
p < .001 Mean .55
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Treaty County Non-Treaty County Goes Fishing/Hunting Does not Fish/Hunt
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Table 4.4 Group Competition Questions
Protecting Ri ht f P t ti Rights of Indians Hurts Whites
Whites d I di Whit and Indians Have Same Goals
Indians Get Ahead I di G t Ah d at Expense of Whites 12 % 20 22 32 14 (583)
Strongly agree 12 % Somewhat agree 34 No opinion/neutral 10 Somewhat disagree 33 Strongly disagree 11 (N) (586) Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
21 % 51 10 12 6 (586)
Open-Ended Explanations for `Agree' Responses to Group Competition "Get Ahead at Expense of Whites" item Get Whites
"If they are getting food stamps and welfare coming out of our taxes, I'm paying for them living without working. Im I'm working for them " (57 yr. old male heavy truck them. yr male, driver, less than high school) "Because they're getting more welfare and housing than the hit th t th whites that need it. They make out like b dit th d it Th k t lik bandits, then throw it away." (38 yr. old, female, sales supervisor, high school) "They are asking too much from the government. Niggers don't get all that. This was their land a long time ago, but that is past." (63 yr. old, female, occupational therapist, less than high school)
Table 4.6 Political Threat Questions
Rating of Chippewa Rating of Chippewa Leaders Spearfishers
Rating of Protesters Who Support Treaty 6% 21 20 39 14 (586)
Strongly positive St l iti Somewhat positive No opinion/neutral Somewhat negative Strongly negative (N)
3% 23 46 19 8 (578)
6% 24 27 28 16 (581)
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Figure 4.4A Relation of Group Competition with Psychological Measures
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
Cor rrelation
0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 Conservatism Knowledge Indian Stereotypes Negative Affect Toward Indians
0.8 0.7 07 0.6
Mea Score an
Figure 4.4B Group Competition by Self Interest Measures
p < .001
p < .05 Mean .43
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Treaty County Non-Treaty County Goes Fishing/Hunting Does not Fish/Hunt
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Figure 4.5A Relation of Political Threat with Psychological Measures
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2
Co orrelation
0.1 0 -0.1 01 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0 6 Conservatism Knowledge Indian Stereotypes Negative Affect Toward Indians
0.8 0.7 0.6
Mean Score S
Figure 4.5B Political Threat by Self Interest Measures
p < .001 p < .001 Mean .55
0.5 0.4 04 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Treaty County Non-Treaty County Goes Fishing/Hunting Does not Fish/Hunt
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Figure 4.6 Simplification of Racial Attitude Constructs
Original Mapping of Constructs 1) Affect Chippewa rating 2) Stereotypes (Alpha = .59) Respect nature Lazy Welfare dependent 3) Injustice Frame (Alpha = .63) Two classes Hurt fish Hurt tourism Need treaty 4) Symbolic Racism (Alpha = .71) Unfair advantage Government attention Indian influence Work hard 5) Group Competition (Alpha = .59) Rights h t Ri ht hurt Same goal Get ahead 6) Political Threat (Alpha = .61) Chippewa leaders pp Chippewa spearfishers Sympathy protests
Final Mapping of Constructs 1) Affect Chippewa rating 2) New Stereotypes (Alpha = .74) Respect Nature (ST) Lazy (ST) Welfare dependent (ST) Same goals (GC) Unfair advantage (SR) Work Hard (SR) 3) New Group Competition (Alpha = .71) Rights hurt (GC) Get ahead (GC) Hurt fish (IF) Hurt tourism (IF) Two classes (IF) 4) New Political Threat (Alpha = .72) Chippewa leaders (PT) Chippewa spearfishers (PT) Sympathy protests (PT) S th t t Government attention (SR) Indian influence (SR) Need treaty (IF)
Table 4.8 OLS Regression Predicting Opposition to Indian Treaty Rights
Constant Age No HS diploma Some college S ll BA degree or more Female Income Treaty county g g Goes Fishing/hunting Conservative Negative affect toward Indians New Indian t N I di stereotype scale t l New group competition New political threat scale Model 1 .57*** (.06) .002* (.001) -.07* (.04) -.02 02 (.02) -.08** (.03) -.06*** (.02) ( 02) -.002 (.01) .11*** (.02) .09*** (.02) .13** (.05) Model 2 .45*** (.06) .002** (.001) -.07* (.03) -.01 01 (.02) -.06* (.03) -.06*** (.02) ( 02) -.001 (.01) .07*** (.02) .07*** (.02) .14** (.05) .31*** (.04) Model 3 .33*** (.06) .001* (.001) -.06* (.03) -.003 003 (.02) -.02 (.02) -.05** (.02) ( 02) -.01 (.01) .04* (.02) .06** (.02) .07 (.04) .17*** (.04) .45*** 45*** (.06) Model 4 .23*** (.05) .001* (.001) -.05 (.03) -.003 003 (.02) -.01 (.02) -.04** (.02) ( 02) -.01 (.01) .03 (.02) .05** (.02) .06 (.04) .11** (.04) .27*** 27*** (.06) .38*** (.05) Model 5 .21*** (.05) .0002 (.001) -.05 (.03) -.01 01 (.02) -.01 (.02) -.05** (.02) ( 02) -.01 (.01) -.001 (.02) .03 (.02) .04 (.04) .01 (.04) .19*** 19*** (.05) .24*** (.04) .48*** (.05) ( 05) .51*** 504
Adjusted R square .16*** .26*** N 504 504 Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
.35*** 504
.42*** 504
Table 6.1 Summary of Results Statewide Non-Treaty County Treaty issue salient 84 % 82 %
Treaty County 93 %
Oppose off-reservation hunting Oppose off-reservation fishing Oppose off-reservation logging Correct answer on 3 knowledge questions Positive rating of anti-treaty protestors Treaty is a very important/important issue Any of the four behaviors All four behaviors Agree with obeying court orders Favor co-management
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990. pp y g y
59 70 64 9 25 22 18 1 82 73
56 67 60 9 24 20 16 1 82 75
79 86 85 9 32 34 30 2 80 56
Figure 5.3 Issue Centrality
One of the most 3% important 19% Very important
4%
One of the most important
19% Very important
Somewhat important
53%
50%
Somewhat important
Not too important
25%
27%
Not too important
Is the treaty rights issue important to you?
Is a candidate's position on treaty rights important to your vote for Governor?
Source: Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Table 5.1 Why Are There Protests Against the Practice of Spearfishing?
Protesters prejudiced against Indians Total % Agreeing County Non-treaty county Treaty county Goes Hunting/Fishing No Yes High Opposition to treaty rights Low Medium High 77 %
Protesters believe unfair for some to have rights 92 %
Media blows problem out of proportion 74 %
Protesters believe spearfishing damages fish supply 87 %
80 65
91 97
75 71
86 94
88 72 61
93 92 95
77 73 67
86 88 96
93 78 61
90 91 95
71 83 67
75 91 96
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Table 5.3 OLS Regression Predicting Centrality of the Treaty Rights Issue
Constant Model 1 .484*** (.050) -.001 001 (.001) -.010 (.038) .002 (.025) -.068* (.027) -.033 (.020) ( 020) -.001 (.006) --Model 2 .452*** (.053) -.001 001 (.001) -.001 (.038) .002 (.025) -.064* (.028) -.031 (.020) ( 020) -.002 (.006) .067 (.041) --Model 3 .274*** (.064) -.002* 002* (.001) .014 (.038) .010 (.025) -.041 (.028) -.017 (.020) ( 020) -.000 (.006) .078* (.040) .210*** (.043) --Model 4 .205*** (.063) -.001 001 (.001) -.011 (.037) .014 (.024) -.021 (.027) -.018 (.019) ( 019) -.002 (.006) .060 (.039) .136** (.044) .119*** (.023) .034 (.021) --Model 5 .389*** (.079) -.001 001 (.001) -.018 (.036) .013 (.024) -.018 (.027) -.019 (.019) ( 019) -.004 (.006) .060 (.038) -.171 (.094) -.039 (.069) -.148* (.065) .253** (.101) .252** 252** (.087) .13*** 539
Age A
No HS diploma
g Some college
BA degree or more
Sex
Income
Interest in politics
Opposition to treaty rights
---
Goes hunting/fishing
---
---
North county
---
---
---
Hunt/fish*treaty rights
---
---
---
North*treaty rights
---
---
---
---
Adjusted R square N
.01 539
.01 539
.05*** 539
.11*** 539
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Figure 5.2 Perceptions of Why Protests Occur
100% 90% 80% 70%
Percent Agre eeing
60% 50% 40% 30% % 20% 10% 0% Prejudice Unfair Media Hurts fish supply
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Figure 5.4 Involvement in Treaty Rights Dispute
25%
20%
Percent Invo olved
15%
10%
5%
0% Attended rally Gave money Signed petition Wrote letter Any of the four
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Figure 5.5 Cumulative Involvement Index by Self-Interest and Opposition to Treaty Rights
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
o C ty un -T on N at re y t un o C y ng hi s g in nt u /H s oe D n h is t un /H h ig H O iti os on um di e p O n ti o si po w Lo n tio si o pp O
p < .001
p < .001
p < .001
Mean .2849
Tr
ty ea
oe G
s
Fi
F ot
pp
M
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Table 5.4 OLS Regression Predicting Involvement in the Treaty Rights Dispute (Cumulative Behaviors Index)
Constant Model 1 .618** (.196) -.001 (.003) .056 (.140) .171 (.092) .001 (.101) -.279*** (.074) -.018 (.022) .443** (.149) ( 149) --Model 2 -.126 (.237) -.001 (.003) .108 (.136) .208* (.089) .123 (.100) -.238*** (.073) -.011 (.022) .442** (.146) ( 146) .581*** (.166) .169* (.086) .187* (.077) --Model 3 -.176 (.222) -.001 (.002) .109 (.127) .198* (.084) .167 (.094) -.211** (.068) -.011 (.020) .365** (.137) ( 137) .468** (.156) .045 (.082) .147* (.072) .636*** (.074) --Model 4 -.142 (.235) -.001 (.002) .110 (.128) .200* (.084) .170 (.094) -.210** (.068) -.012 (.020) .364** (.137) ( 137) .414* (.198) .047 (.082) .146* (.072) .543* (.225) .129 129 (.295) .206 530
Age
No HS diploma
Some college
BA degree or more
Sex
Income
Interest in politics
Opposition to treaty rights
Goes hunting/fishing
---
North county
---
High Centrality
---
High Hi h centrality*treaty rights li * i h
---
---
Adjusted R square N
.040 530
.097 530
.208 530
Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
Table 5.5 Logistic Regression Predicting Support for Co-Management
Constant Age No HS diploma Some college BA degree or more Female Income Treaty county Goes fishing/hunting Conservative Negative affect toward Indians New Indian stereotype scale Zero sum competition scale New political threat scale Medium opposition to treaty rights i ht High opposition to treaty rights Rule of law scale Rule of law*medium opposition Rule of law*high opposition Model 1 1.98** (.66) -.02* 02* (.01) -.12 (.41) .06 (.25) .62* (.31) ( 31) .62** (.21) -.12 (.06) -.69** ( ) (.22) -.59* (.27) -.84 (.54) Model 2 4.54*** (.85) 01 -.01 (.01) -.31 (.44) .17 (.28) .40 (.34) ( 34) .66** (.23) -.12 (.07) -.06 ( ) (.25) -.29 (.29) -.48 (.60) .19 (.54) -1 43 1.43 (.77) -.37 (.71) -4.47*** (.84) Model 3 4.42*** (.87) 01 -.01 (.01) -.44 (.45) .12 (.29) .35 (.35) ( 35) .56* (.24) -.14 (.07) .02 ( ) (.26) -.22 (.29) -.35 (.61) .24 (.55) -1 09 1.09 (.78) -.04 (.75) -3.54*** (.88) -.50 (.45) ( 45) -1.19** (.46) Model 4 3.23*** (1.02) -.01 01 (.01) -.46 (.45) .10 (.29) .28 (.35) ( 35) .62** (.24) -.14 (.07) .01 ( ) (.26) -.14 (.30) -.44 (.62) .20 (.55) -1 01 1.01 (.79) .02 (.76) -3.57*** (.89) -.49 (.45) ( 45) -1.22** (.46) 1.52* (.73) Model 5 .84 (2.09) 01 -.01 (.01) -.47 (.45) .10 (.29) .31 (.36) ( 36) .61** (.24) -.15* (.07) -.02 ( ) (.26) -.11 (.30) -.43 (.62) .23 (.55) -.86 86 (.79) .12 (.76) -3.69*** (.90) 3.45 (2.19) (2 19) .91 (2.01) 5.32 (3.09) -6.16 (3.44) -3.41 (3.20) .24 447
Pseudo R square .09 .21 N 447 447 Source: The Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights Survey 1990.
.23 447
.23 447
End of slide show