Anda di halaman 1dari 90

AMERICANS AND ARABS: HOW THEY PERCEIVE EACH OTHER

by TALAL ALMUTAIRI 2007

ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions and attitudes of Americans and Arabs toward each other. Using the coorientational model, this study attempted to describe and compare the perceptual patterns that Arabs and Americans hold in regard to themselves and each other. Three hundred American students and Arab students comprised the sample of the study. They were asked to complete a survey that included 55 statements regarding their attitude toward each other. To detect the mass media effect on Americans and Arabs' attitudes and perceptions toward each other, the 'social construction of reality' theory was used to interpret the findings of this study. The overall results indicated that the American and Arab students held quite negative attitudes toward and perceptions of each other. Both groups participants had limited or no direct experience with the other group, and they relied on the media as their primary source of information about the other group. Therefore, there is little question that the media have an important role in improving the relationship between Arab nations and the United States.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION LITERATURE REVIEW Arabs perception of Americans Americans perception of Arabs Coorientation model Research questions METHODOLOGY Participants Questionnaire Translation Pretest DATA ANALYSIS Factor analysis Reliability tests T-tests RESULTS Descriptive analysis Coorientation variables DISCUSSION How do Arabs view Americans beliefs and attitudes? How do Americans view Arabs beliefs and attitudes? Social construction of reality Conclusion REFERENCES APPENDIX ii iii iv 1 8 8 9 10 16 17 17 18 20 21 22 22 25 26 27 27 32 43 43 45 47 48 50 55

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Coorientational measure model Figure 2: Coorientational model for large social group (Arabs and Americans) 12 15

ii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Factors and Reliabilities Table 2: Demographic profiles of the American sample by University Table 3: Demographic profiles of the Arab sample by country Table 4: Agreement variables Table 5: Arab sample accuracy of Americans' views Table 6: American sample accuracy of Arabs' views Table 7: Arab sample congruency variable Table 8: American sample congruency variable 23 29 30 34 35 36 40 41

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my committee members, Dr. Robert Meeds, Dr. Bill Adams, and Dr. Steve Smethers. This thesis would have been impossible without their advice and help. I owe much gratitude to my friends who helped me distributed the questionnaire in five Arabic countries. Finally, I will like to thank my wonderful family for encouragement throughout this time.

iv

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW


Many studies had been done on the relationship between Arabs and Americans, especially from a political perspective. Yet, no actual communication research providing in-depth information about the perceptions and the attitudes held by the two groups toward each other exists. This study seeks to clarify some counter cultural perceptions held by Arabs and Americans in relationship to one another, from different angles including religion, stereotypes, values and personal characteristics. The study will also investigate the impact that the media may have in shaping the two groups' perceptions. Knowing what information the other needs or wants is critical for both groups in terms of resolving misunderstandings and reaching a middle ground for dialogue. It is no secret that there are misunderstandings between Arab countries and the United States; relations have, historically, been troublesome. The events of September 11, 2001 and the situation in Iraq are clear indications that the relationship has reached the most serious negative point on the intensity scale. National surveys, conducted by different polling agencies, indicate that Arabs are strongly united in their negative perceptions of the United States (Kohut 2003; Pew, 2002; Zogby, 2002). Also, the negative perception of Americans toward Arabs apparently less intense- has been revealed by surveys and studies (DeFluer 2002; Pew 2002). Although these sentiments existed years ago, they have recently become sharp and, possibly, antagonistic. It is noteworthy to explain the reason that Arabs are specifically delineated in this study, rather than all people or countries of the Middle East. The entire Middle East was not included as the subject of this study because: 1) scholars cannot agree on the 1

boundaries of the region, 2) Middle Eastern countries are composed of individuals of considerable ethnic, religious, and even linguistic diversity; in addition, levels of wealth, education, and secularization also vary widely, and 3) the Middle East includes two non-Arab countries about which Americans hold extreme attitudes, Iran and Israel. Iran conjures up a very negative image in the minds of many Americans, so much so that Shelly Slade states, "no other group in recent history, with the exception perhaps of the Japanese during World War 2, has had as bad an image in the United States as have the Iranians" (Slade, 1981). On the other hand, Israel has a very positive image in American minds, causing many to sympathize with Israel. This support is nonpartisan, with a majority of Democrats and Republicans consistently favoring Israel by large margins over Arabs. This was indicated by the response of most Americans to the following question that was asked as part of a Gallup poll: In the Middle East situation, are your sympathies more with Israel or with the Arab nations? Since 1988, Americans are much more likely to sympathize with the Israelis (59 percent) than with the Palestinians (15 percent), with the remaining 26 percent not taking either side or not having an opinion (Jones, 2006).

Sources of negative perceptions Most scholars agree on the existence of mostly negative perceptions of Arabs and Americans in reference to each other. This section summarizes the possible reasons for the negative perceptions. There are four predominant points of view in reference to this issue. Some believe that the religion of most Arabs is the main source for the negative perceptions. Others believe that the United States' foreign policy is the main cause. The

third group supports the belief that Arab internal state policies and low economic development are the causes of existing anti-American attitudes. The fourth group of scholars believes public communication to be the cause of negative perceptions.

Scholar Group One Lewis (2001), a pre-eminent expert on the Middle East, believes that the reason behind the negative perceptions that most Americans hold toward Arabs involves the nature of Islam as a religion; followers of Islam see themselves as "the center of truth and enlightenment," and others as "infidel barbarians." Lewis states that, In the classical Islamic view, to which many Muslims are beginning to return, the world and all mankind are divided into two: the House of Islam, where the Muslim law and faith prevail, and the rest, known as the House of Unbelief or the House of War, which it is the duty of Muslims ultimately to bring to Islam. But the greater part of the world is still outside Islam, and even inside the Islamic lands, according to the view of the Muslim radicals, the faith of Islam has been undermined and the law of Islam has been abrogated. The obligation of holy war therefore begins at home and continues abroad, against the same infidel enemy (p.19). Lewis also believes that Islam is inherently violent. Muslims, in daily life, might appear to be harmless, and are able to live peacefully and participate in society with those of other religions and ideologies. Yet, civilized attitudes and behaviors are not applicable during crises. In these situations, somehow, peaceful Muslim people are

perceived as hateful and violent to others, destroying and hurting everything around them, invulnerable to all powers that are thrown against them. Another scholar who supports this point of view is Huntington (1993), who formulated the controversial theory of "the clash of civilizations. Huntington later expanded his thesis in a 1996 book entitled The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Huntington (1993) believes,

Civilization identity will be increasingly important in the future, and the world will be shaped in large measure by the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations. These include Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American and possibly African civilization. The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations from one another (p.24). Huntington believes that Islam, as a civilization, has traditionally had difficulty dealing peacefully with other civilizations. Further, he predicted that "a central focus of conflict for the immediate future will be between the West and several IslamicConfucian states" (p. 50).

Scholar Group Two Scholars from the second school of thought believe that United States policies are the main cause of the negative perceptions that Americans and Arabs hold in reference to each other. The effect of American policies in terms of enhancing anti4

American sentiment is based on four perceptions: 1) The United States' position regarding its unwavering supports of Israel creates enormous credibility problems for the United States in the region. In a survey of opinions, a majority of Arabs believe that their attitudes regarding the U.S. are shaped by American policies, not American values, and that United States support of Israel is the top reason that people in their countries dislike America (Telhami, 2004, p.5); 2) There is a widespread belief that the United States ignores the interests of Arab countries in deciding its international policies. Anti-Americanism is driven by the perception that America acts unilaterally on the world stage. A majority of people in five Arabic countries say that, in making foreign policy decisions, the United States does not pay attention to their country's interests (Kohut, 2003, p.3); 3) Many in the region maintain the view that the United States does little to solve the world's problems. The United States has the essential task of being a 'policeman' in terms of world problems; no other country is capable of helping to maintain international stability. Yet, lately, the United States has been criticized for not doing the job. 4) America's global popularity plummeted at the start of military action in Iraq, and the United States presence there remains widely unpopular among residents of Arab countries. Strong majorities in Arab nations think the war has made the world a more dangerous place (Kohut, 2003, p.4).

Scholar Group Three The third scholar group supports the belief that Arab internal state policies, low economic and social development, and the failure to establish civil societies and democracy are the major causes of existing anti-American attitudes. Rubin (2002)

points out that the belief that anti-Americanism is caused by U.S. policies is misleading; in reality, anti-Americanism in the Arab world is caused by some Arab leaders who blame America for crises that are largely created by their own oppressive regimes. There is also an element of desperation on the part of people in those countries who feel powerless to reform their own governments (P. 81). In addition, Khan (2002) believes that, in many Arabic and Islamic countries, the populations are powerless against their own dictators and dysfunctional political parties, and are dissatisfied with their substandard economic situations. The corrupt and authoritarian regimes in these countries channel Arab discontent toward the West and at the United States and Israel in particular (p.358).

Scholar Group Four The fourth group of scholars believes public communication to be the cause of negative perceptions. Following the events of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush, speaking about his administration's efforts to reach Arab and Muslim audiences, said, "We are not doing a very good job of getting our message out" (Zaharna, 2001). "Weak, very weak," is how a University of Qatar political science professor describes the public communication effort. "It is reaching only the elite, who tend to support the United States anyway," he said. "There is more anti-Americanism now than before September 11," he added. "That's not good. You have to do something about it" (Weiser, 2002). For decades, U.S. foreign policy has viewed the authoritarian governments in Arabic countries as being at the end of the communication process. In

other words they thought by maintaining good relationships with these regimes, American policy planners have believed that they were maintaining good relationships with their people. This approach worked in the past because information was tightly controlled by the authoritarian governments, but after the information revaluation of the 1990s, it is apparent that this approach is not valid anymore (Telhami, p.7).

LITERATURE REIVIEW
There is clear evidence that the Americans and Arabs have negative perceptions toward each other. The roots of these views are deep and well entrenched. Furthermore, previous studies have shown that although the negative perceptions and attitudes

between the Americans and Arabs existed years ago, in recent years these attitudes have become sharper and possibility antagonistic.

Arab Perceptions of Americans In research conducted by Pew, a group of people from Arabic and Muslim countries (Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia, Turkey, and Pakistan) were asked to state whether they associate each of eleven different character traits with Westerners, and they asked Westerners the same set of questions about Arabs. The character list included five positive traits (generous, honest, devout, tolerant, and respectful of women) and six negative ones (violent, greedy, fanatical, selfish, immoral, and arrogant). With just a handful of exceptions, majorities or pluralities of each Muslim group associated all of the negative traits on the survey and none of the positive traits to Westerners. In terms of judging positive traits, Muslims who were surveyed found little good to say about Westerners. Minorities of the Muslim publics who had been surveyed associated the following traits with people who live in the West: generous, honest, devout, and tolerant. Also, fewer than half of those questioned in all six Arabic and Muslim publics surveyed said that they associate Westerners with respect toward women (Pew, 2006).

Another study conducted on high school students in twelve countries (including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain) by DeFleur (2002) measured attitudes of teenagers toward Americans. He disseminated a questionnaire that included several statements describing American characteristics (violent, generous, sexually immoral, respectful of other people, intensity and quality of religious values, domination, peaceful, criminal

activities, sympathy for poor people, family values, and materialistic). The findings illustrated that, in most countries, the respondents had at least some degree of negativity in terms of their attitudes toward American people, with the participants in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain having the most negative attitudes.

Americans Perceptions of Arabs American perceptions of Arabs are also negative. Slade (1981) conducted a telephone poll study about American attitudes toward Arab and Islamic countries. The results revealed that the majority of opinions that Americans held in reference to Arabs were more negative (49 percent) than positive (36 percent); the majority of respondents felt that the Arabs can be described as, based on a given number of traits, "barbaric, cruel" (44 percent), "treacherous, cunning" (49 percent), "mistreating women" ( 51 percent) and "warlike, bloodthirsty" (50 percent). Also, the participants held the view that "most" or "all" Arabs were "anti-Christian" (40 percent), "anti-Semitic" (40 percent), and "want to destroy Israel and drive the Israelis into the sea" (44 percent). Recent surveys revealed that the image of the Arab world that is held by Americans has become more negative. A Zogby International survey (2002) revealed that levels of support among Americans for Arab states had dropped to an all-time low. Only ten percent of Americans viewed the Palestinian Authority favorably, and 72 percent were totally unsympathetic toward the Palestinian Authority. The lowest ever level of support was recorded for Egypt and Saudi Arabia. A good and healthy relationship between Americans and Arabs requires the parties to have an accurate picture of each other's perceptions of the issue under

consideration. For this reason, this study used the coorienation model. The coorientation model provides guidance for improving between-group relationships by increasing the accuracy of perception the two groups hold about each other. This means by identifying the coorienation state of the two parties, it should be possible to develop specific communication strategy to help improve the relationship between Americans and Arabs.

Coorientation
The coorientation model was originally developed by Newcomb (1953) to analyze dyadic pairs. This model consists of two communicators, A and B and their "coorientation" toward X. The object of communication (X) can be a physical object, an attitude, activity, or a behavior. In this model each member of A and B has simultaneous orientation toward each other and toward X. Newcomb proposed four elements for this relationship: 1. A's attitude toward X. 2. A's attraction toward B. 3. B's attitude toward X. 4. B's attraction toward A. The basic argument of the coorientation model is that the perceptions and attitudes of the communicator about the receiver directly affect the communication process (McLeod and Chaffee 1973). In other words, human communication behavior is not based only on an individual's interpersonal cognitions of the world, but also upon his/her perception of the other's orientation and his/her orientation toward them. It assumes that the actual cognitions and perceptions of others will also affect an 10

individual's behavior. The Coorientational model (Figure1) of communication assumes "each person in a coorienting pair has two distinguishable set of cognitions: he knows what he thinks and he has some estimate of what the other person thinks" (Chaffee and McLeod, 1968). The two sets of cognition that A and B has is: a "self perception" of X or the attributes of the object and the "other perception" of what the other person thinks about the object or its attributes. The model has three variables to account for the two sets of cognitions: accuracy, congruency, and agreement.

Accuracy Chaffee and McLeod (1973) define accuracy as the extent to which A's estimate of B's views match what B really thinks about X. The coorientational model offers a conceptual definition of accuracy and an operational definition.

Agreement Coorientational agreement is the extent to which A and B have the same evaluation of X. According to Chaffee and McLeod, agreement is not a satisfactory criterion for communication. It can be argued that the total experiences that the individual has are unlikely to be changed sufficiently by communication alone to produce complete agreement.

Person A Agreement A's cognition about "X" 11 Congruency A Accuracy

Person B

B's cognition about "X"

Congruency B

Perception of B's cognition

Perception of A's cognition

Figure 1: Coorientational measure model Congruency Congruency is the extent to which A and B believe that the evaluation of the other side is similar to theirs. It is also called perceived agreement. In the ChaffeeMcLeod model congruency is presented as the third variable necessary in the coorientation model. In individual to group relationships person A is oriented to group or collectivity B as a Unit A's congruency, in this case, will be his perceptions of B's cognitions as a reified entity. As A's reification of B's cognitions are often the result of his experiences or the values and beliefs of his own group environment, they can be prejudices or stereotyped ideas learned from other sources. According to Chaffee and McLeod, a direct communication between the members of the two groups is

12

responsible for the breaking down of these reifications. However, congruency, just like agreement, does not necessarily improve with communication. The coorientation variables are statistically dependent. The status of congruency is directly affected by the status of agreement and accuracy. For example, if agreement and accuracy are both low, consequently, congruency will be low and if both accuracy and agreement are high, then congruency will be high (Oshagan, 1981).

Coorientation State According to Scheff (1967) the perception of agreement between A and B can be independent from real agreement and could have greater influence on the groups' behavior than the real agreement. There are four consensus states suggested by Scheff: 1) True or monolithic consensus which exists when A and B share the same evaluation of an issue and both know that an agreement exists, 2) Dissensus exists when A and B hold conflicting views about the issue and both know that a disagreement exists, 3) False consensus occurs when there is actual disagreement but A and B believe that they agree, 4)Pluralistic Ignorance False occur when there is actual agreement but A and B think they disagree. Coorientation application in large social group studies Many researchers utilized the interpersonal level; however McLeod and Chaffee (1973) proposed that model can be utilized in analyzing relationship that has more than just dyadic pairs (figure 2) ; "it may range in size from the dyad to the small groups, to the organized collectivity or small community"(p.470). Many researchers implemented the coorienational model to analyze the perceptions and attitudes different groups held

13

toward each other. Grunig (1972) used the model to determine the level of understanding between organizations concerned with low income housing in a suburban community. Kutzschenbach used the cooreintation model to identify potential problems facing forest industries in communicating with their consumers (Kutzschenbach, 2006). Stamm and Bowes (1972) employed coorientation analysis to evaluate an army communication program regarding a proposed flood control project in North Dakota. Yet, very few studies have used such an approach in researching the perceptions and attitudes between nations. To study potential communication problems between Slovenia and Croatia, D. Vercic, A. Vercic and Laco (2006) implemented the coorienation model. The researchers used the model to compare the two nation's attitudes toward certain issues that consider being the source of such misperceptions. In particular, the researchers wanted to examine the level of accuracy, congruency, and agreement the two nations achieved. Vercic et all. (2006) conducted 'unstructured personal interviews' with 20 participants from the two countries and used their responses with the media reports on the issues to create 12 statements that represented "the major problems contaminating relationship between the countries". To measure the two nations' coorientation toward the issues, the researchers asked 500 participants represented the two nations to estimate their agreement with the 12 statements and then estimate the other group agreement on the issues.

Americans Agreement 14 Congruency A Accuracy

Arabs

Americans' cognition of Arabs

Arabs' cognition of Americans

Congruency B

Americans' Perception of Arabs' cognition

Arabs' Perception of Americans' cognition

Figure 2: Coorientational model for large social group (Arabs and Americans)

Research Questions This study's major objective is to assess the attitudes of Americans and Arabs toward each other. It is not a study of peoples' orientations toward governments or the political leaders. However, this study focuses on one important aspect: the two-sidedstory (the Americans' and Arabs' perceptions). RQ 1: How do Arabs view Americans beliefs and attitudes? RQ 2: How do Americans view Arabs beliefs and attitudes?

15

METHODOLGY
Participants Three hundred and sixty five participants completed the questionnaire which was administered in classrooms on the universities. Students were briefed on the nature of the research and instructed to pay attention to the second part of the questionnaire where they provided estimated views of the other groups average citizen. Furthermore, they were assured confidentiality. The completion time ranged from fifteen to thirty minutes.

16

Arab Sample The final Arabic sample was composed of 205 respondents. In the sample, Arabs were drawn from five Arab countries: Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. For a valid representation of the Arab world, the author selected these countries to represent the main three subcultures or regions: First, the Gulf Region represented by Kuwait and United Arab Emirates. Second, the Fertile Crescent represented by Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine. Egypt was supposed to represent the North Africa region, but the author was unable to obtain permission to collect data in Egypt. The differentiation between the two participating cultures was based on their location in different geographic areas and also their different ways of life and their closeness in physical distance.

American Sample The final American sample was composed of 147 respondents. To provide an accurate image of the Americans attitudes and perceptions, the American sample was drawn from four universities located in four different states, including Kansas State University located in Kansas, Villanova University located in Pennsylvania, University of Arizona in Arizona and Grand Valley State University located in Michigan. Table 2 presents the group profiles of the groups by university.

Questionnaire

17

1. Demographics The questionnaire included information on year of enrollment, field of study, age, gender, marital status, party affiliation (just for American participants) and religious affiliation.

2. Media and Exposure In this part the participants were asked to provide information about how many hours per day during an average day they consume news from a variety of media sources. Also, they were asked to rank the media outlets-Television, Newspaper, Internet, Radio, Magazine and other- as their primary sources of news with "1" being the source they use most frequently and "6" being the source they use least frequently.

3. Knowledge The purpose of this section is to test participants' knowledge about the other group. They were presented with four different multiple choice questions and asked to circle the right choice in each question. The questions for the American sample were "What is the Percentage of Muslims in Arabic countries," "Which country is not an Arabic country," "Which of the following is the Islamic equivalent to the Bible?" and "What is the Capital of Egypt?" For the Arabic sample, the questions were:" What is the Percentage of Christians in America," "Which of the following is not an American City?," "Which of the following is the Christian equivalent to the Quran?" and "What is the Capital of the United States?"

18

4. Personal Experience The goal of this part was to measure the personal experience the participant might have with the other group. Such personal interaction or experience is an influential variable affecting the perception and attitude between the two groups toward each other. The questions were: "Have you been in an Arabic country (America) before? Where? How long?" and "How familiar do you believe you are with Arab (American) culture?"

5. Religion Devotion To measure the influence of religion on the Arabs and Americans perceptions, the participants were asked to indicate their religious devotion through two questions. The first multiple choice question for Americans was "How often do you attend religious services?" For the Arab sample the first question was "Per day, how many times do you pray?" The second question for both groups was "how important is religion in your life?"

6. Attitude Statements This part of the questionnaire was divided into a self-evaluation and an other evaluation part where participants were asked to answer each statement on a five-point scale anchored by "Strongly agree" and "Strongly disagree." For the other evaluation, the same scale statements were repeated and participants were then asked to estimate how the other group would respond to the statements.

19

First they were asked to respond to 55 statements that were developed to include Arabs' and Americans' views on politics, culture and religion. These statements reflect both sides' views about issues and topics thought to be the source of negative perceptions. Some statements represented the point of view of the four schools of thought about the source of the negative attitude (for example: "America is biased toward Israel." Or "Islam is inherently violent."). The other statements were generated from media to measure the media role in constructing the image of the two groups (for example: "Women are oppressed in Arab countries.").

Translation The questionnaire originally was prepared in English then translated into Arabic. The translation process went through to ensure that the translated version conveyed the same information as the original. The first method was a group discussion held by four bilinguals including the researcher. The questionnaire was translated to Arabic through discussion sessions. The second stage was backward translation. In this stage, without reading the original questionnaire, a bilingual translated the Arabic version to English. The final stage was testing the grammar and structure of the translated version by two individuals who were good in Arabic literature.

Pretest The questionnaire was pretested with a group of 10 students from Kansas State University. Five students were American and the other five were Arab students who had been in the United States less than six months. They were encouraged to ask

20

questions if they needed clarification on any of the items. In addition they were assured that the information that they provided would be held in strict confidence. No further revisions were needed after the pretest.

DATA ANALYSIS
Factor Analysis The original data set contained 55 variables that were derived from academic and communication literature and media to represent a variety of perspectives on the main categories: politics, religion and culture. A factor analysis was used to reduce the data to a smaller set of independent factors based on which original variables had the highest intercorrelations. The data were screened to make sure that the data met the assumptions for factor analysis. First a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO-test) measure of sampling adequacy was conducted to check whether the sample was big enough. The result was .892, which exceeded the minimum necessary value of .5. Screening also showed that each variable was significantly correlated with several other variables. No bivariate correlations of .90 or above were found, which means there was no singularity

21

among the variables. Also, no multicollinearity was detected in the data. The determinant of the correlation was 7.88E-012, which exceeded the minimum of .00001 (Field, 2000, p. 453). Initial data reduction produced a solution of fourteen components with eigenvalues of 1.0 and above, and accounted for 63 percent of the variance. Yet this solution was heavily cross loaded with only half of the items loading solidly one single factor. Ten items were eliminated because they were cross loaded at .400 and above. Based on the initial data reduction, ratability test and the researcher knowledge of the data, a solution of nine factors was implemented. This solution, in table (1), included forty five items constructing nine main groups.

Table 1: Factors and Reliabilities

Factors

Statements

Reliability

Negative perception 4. America should follow the United Nations' of American Policies lead for international policy decisions. 5. In making international policy decisions, the United States does not take into account the interests of Arab countries. 6. America is biased toward Israel.
9.

.877

The war in Iraq is a war to control Mideast oil. American policies are causing the conflict in the Middle East.

10.

15. The war in Iraq has made the world more

dangerous.

22

16. American

policies are primarily

responsible for the lack of prosperity in Arab countries. 26. America's disrespect for the Islamic religion is the root of the problems. Positive perception 1. America has a responsibility to maintain the of American Policies world order. 2. America supports democracy in the Middle East. 8. The war in Iraq is a war against terrorism. 12. America is defending democracy by fighting terrorism.

.802

Negative perception of Arab Policies

3. Arab countries are against democracy in the Middle East. 11. Arab countries policies are causing the conflicts in the Middle East. 13. Arab countries support terrorism.
17. A

.482

lack of education and political and

economic systems in Arab countries are the main obstacles to their prosperity.

Negative perception of American culture

38. Americans are generally violent. 43. Americans are abusive toward women
44.

.751

American women are sexually immoral.

46. Americans lack traditional family ties. 55. Americans like to dominate other people. 41. Americans are a peaceful people. 23 .530

Positive perception

of American culture

48.

Americans are open-minded regarding others.

52. Americans treat the elderly with respect. 39. Arabs are aggressive. Negative perception of Arab culture 42. Arabs are abusive toward women. 45. Arab women are sexually immoral. 49. Arabs have a close culture that rejects outsiders. .714

Positive perception of Arab culture

14. Arab countries fight terrorism. 39. Arab countries are peaceful nations.
47. 50. 53.

.693

Arabs have strong family values. Arabs have strong religious values. Arabs treat the elderly with respect.

Negative perception of Islam

25. Terrorism is justifiable in Islam. 30. Islam itself is an obstacle to Arab prosperity. 31. Islam is intolerant of different points of view. 33. Islam is oppressive toward women. 34. Islam is inherently violent. 35. Muslims cannot adapt to Western societies. 37. Muslims have a hostile view toward Christianity.

.856

Christianity and Islam are different

29. Christianity and Islam are very different. 32. Islam is fundamentally different from Christianity and Judaism. .625

Reliability Test

24

From table one it is noticeable that the ratability test of each group varies. The reliabilities of the common variables in the nine categories were tested as scales. John and Benet-Martinez (1999) suggest reliability of .70 or higher. In this study case, five categories pass the .70 mark starting with .714 for "Negative perception of Arab culture" category and going up to.877 for the "Negative perception of American policies" category. The remaining four have reliability less than .70 starting with .693 for the "Positive perception of Arab culture" category and going down to .482 "Negative perception of Arab policies" item. John and Benet-Martinez (1999) also suggested that the .70 is not a "benchmark every scale must pass" but rather a guide (p.346). For this reason and for the fact that this study is an exploratory study based on research questions rather than hypothesis testing, the four categories that had reliability less than .70 were retained. The symmetrical nature of the categories was another factor in deciding to retain some factors with questionable reliabilities.

T-tests In order to obtain the co-orientation scores, independent t-tests were used to explore the relationships between several categorical independent variables (Arabs self / other evaluation; American self/ other evaluations) and the nine dependent variables derived from the factor analysis (negative perception of America policies, positive perception of America policies, negative perception of Arab policies, negative perception of American culture, positive perception of American culture, negative

25

perception of Arab culture, positive perception of Arab culture, negative perception of Islam and Christianity and Islam are different).

RESULTS
Descriptive analysis 1. Demographics The American sample consisted of 160 participants 30.6 percent were male and 79.4 were female from four universities from four universities: Kansas State University, University of Arizona, , Villanova University, and Grand Valley State University (see Table 2). Their ages ranged from 17 through 20 (43.8 percent), 21 through 24 (53.5 percent), 25 through 28 (2.5 percent), and 29 through 55 (1.3 percent). The distribution of year of enrollment was freshman (13.1 percent), sophomore (13.1 percent), junior (33.1 percent), senior (40.6 percent), and first-year graduate (0 percent). The marital status for the sample was single (93.1 percent), married (3.8

26

percent), divorced (0 percent), engaged (02.5 percent), and other (0.6 percent). The religious affiliations included Christian (83 percent), Muslim (0.6 percent), Jewish (1.9 percent), other (0.6 percent), and none (13.8 percent). The party affiliations were Democrat (29.6 percent), Republican (42.1 percent), Independent (10.1 percent), other (02.5 percent), and none (15.7 percent). On other hand, the Arab sample consisted of 205 Arab students 52.2 percent were male and 47.8 were female from five Arab countries (see Table 2). The countries were Kuwait (41.5 percent), United Arab Emirates (12.2 percent), Jordan (13.6 percent), Lebanon (17.6 percent), and Palestine. Their ages ranged from 17 through 20 (49.8 percent), 21 through 24 (27.4 percent), 25 through 28 (8 percent), and 29 through 55 (14.9 percent). The distribution of year of enrollment was freshman (16 percent), sophomore (30 percent), junior (22.5 percent), senior (22 percent), and first-year graduate (9.5 percent). The marital status for the sample was single (78.9 percent), married (16.2 percent), divorced (1 percent), engaged (3.9 percent), and other (0 percent). The religious affiliations were Christian (2.9 percent), Muslim (97.1 percent), Jewish (0 percent), other (0 percent), and none (0 percent). 2. Knowledge Each group answered four questions to measure their knowledge of the participants in the other group. For the Arab sample, 47.8 percent answered the four questions correctly, 42.9 percent answered three out of four correctly, 7.8 percent answered two out of four correctly, and 1.5 percent answered one out of four correctly. For the American sample, 3.1 percent answered all four questions correctly, 47.5 percent answered three out of four correctly, 38.1 percent answered two out of four

27

correctly, 10.6 percent answered one out of four correctly, and 0.6 percent answered all four questions incorrectly. 3. Personal Experience Two questions were designed to measure the personal experience that the participants from each group had about the other group. For the first question, 15.1 percent of the Arab sample had visited the United States. Of this subsample, 29 percent of them stayed for less than one month, 41.9 percent stayed from one to six months, 12.9 percent from six months to one year, and 16.1 percent stayed for more than one year. On the other hand, 84.9 percent of the Arab sample had never been to the United States before. For the American sample, 2.7 percent had visited an Arabic country. The period of their visit was as follows: 33.3 percent stayed for less than one month, 33.3 percent stayed from one to six months, and 33.3 percent stayed for more than one year. Table 2 Demographic profiles of the American sample by University.

Kansas State Universit y


Respondents Age 17- 20 21- 24 25- 28 29- above Year in School Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate 53.1 58.3 40.5 1.2 0 24.7 17.6 25.9 31.8 0

Villanova Universit y

Grand Valley State Universit y


8.1 38.5 53.8 0 7.7 0 23.1 38.5 38.5 0

Universit y of Arizona

Total

24.4 23.1 76.9 0 0 0 0 56.4 43.6 0

14.4 21.7 60.9 13 4.3 0 13 17.4 69.6 0

100 42.8 53.5 02.5 01.3 13.1 13.1 33.1 40.6 0

28

Student

Sex Female Male Martial Status Single Married Divorced Engaged Other Religious Affiliation Christian Muslim Jewish Other None Party Affiliation Democratic Republican Independent Other None

81.2 18.8 91.8 3.5 0 3.5 1.2 87.1 1.2 1.2 0 10.6 31 46.4 4.8 3.6 14.3

56.4 43.6 100 0 0 0 0 89.7 0 0 0 10.3 20.5 59.0 07.7 0 12.8

53.8 46.2 92.3 7.7 0 0 0 69.2 0 0 0 30.8 30.8 15.4 0 7.7 46.2

56.5 43.5 87 8.7 0 4.3 0 63.6 0 9.1 4.5 22.7 39.1 13 39.1 0 8.7

69.4 30.6 93.1 3.8 0 02.5 0.6 83.0 0.6 1.9 0.6 13.8 29.6 42.1 10.1 02.5 15.7

Table 3 Demographic profiles of the Arab sample by country.

29

Kuwai t

United Arab Emirate s


12.2

Lebano n

Palestin e

Jorda n

Total

Respondents Age 17- 20 21- 24 25- 28 29- above Year in School Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Student Sex Female Male Martial Status Single Married Divorced Engaged Religious Affiliation Muslim Christian

41.5

17.6

15.1

13.6

100

64.3 20.2 6.0 9.5

28 40 12 20

17.6 52.9 14.7 14.7

86.7 13.3 0 0

25 21.4 10.7 42.9

49.8 27.4 08.0 14.9

3.6 50.6 22.9 16.9 6

0 20 20 52 8

12.1 30.3 21.2 27.3 9.1

80.6 6.5 0 12.9 0

0 3.6 50 14.3 32.1

16.0 30.0 22.5 22.0 9.5

71.8 28.2

60 40

27.8 72.2

0 100

42.9 57.1

47.8 52.2

76.5 17.6 1.2 4.7

72 24 4 0

80.6 0 16.7 2.8

96.8 3.2 0 0

70.4 18.5 0 11.1

78.9 16.2 01.0 03.9

100 0

100 0

88.9 11.1

100 0

92.9 7.1

97.1 02.9

30

For the second question, the participants ranked their familiarity with the other culture using a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very familiar). The results for the American sample were as follows: 0.7% were very familiar with the other culture, 4.8 percent ranked 4 out of 5, 21.9 percent ranked 3 out of 5, 50.7 percent ranked 2 out of 5, and 21.9 percent were not very familiar with the other culture at all. For the Arab samples, the results were as follows: 7.4 percent were very familiar with the other culture, 10.8 percent ranked 4 out of 5, 52.5 percent ranked 3 out of 5, 16.2 percent ranked 2 out of 5, and 13.2 percent were not at all familiar with the other culture. 4. Media Exposure This part of the questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part was designed to measure the participants' consumption of news media. For Arabs, the average exposure to news media per day was 1.6 hours of television, 1.3 hours of Internet, 1.3 hours of radio, and an average of four days reading a newspaper per week. For Americans, the average exposure to news media per day was 1.4 hours of television, 1.3 hours of Internet, 1.1 hours of radio, and an average of three days reading a newspaper per week. The second part of the questionnaire measured the participants' reliance on the different media outlets as their primary news source. The Arab sample ranked the media outlets as follows: 59.3 percent television, 19.2 percent newspapers, 12.4 percent Internet, 7.8 percent radio, 1.8 percent people, and 0.6 percent magazines. On the other hand, the American sample ranked the media as follows: 44.7 percent television, 19.1 percent newspapers, 31.2 percent Internet, 2.8 percent radio, 2.1 percent people and 1.4 percent magazines.

31

5. Religion Devotion To measure the religious devotion of Americans and Arabs, the survey included two questions for each group. The American samples attendance at religious services was as follows: once a week (22.1percent), once or twice a month (20.7 percent), a few times a year (29.7 percent), seldom (19.3 percent), and never (8.3 percent). For the second question where the participants indicated religion importance in their lives, the American sample average responses were (3.1), which means fairly important. For the Arab sample, the average number of prayers per day was 4.5 out of 5. Also, the importance of religion in Arab life was considered very important (4.7).

Co-orientation Variables The co-orientation model offers three variables that describe self-other relationships -agreement, accuracy, and congruency. In order to measure the level of agreement, accuracy, and congruency between the two groups, SPSS was used to calculate means, mean difference, and t-values (p < 0.05) for the nine items. Responses were coded from 1 to 5 on a Likert scale, with (1) being strongly agree and (5) being strongly disagree.

Agreement Agreement is the extent to which Arabs and Americans have the same evaluation of X (see Table 4). Differences in attitudes towards 7 of the 9 items were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The items were: 1) negative perception of American policies, 2) positive perception of American policies, 3) negative perception of

32

American culture, 4) negative perception of Arab culture, 5) positive perception of Arab culture, 6) negative perception of Islam, and 7) Christianity and Islam are different. The two items for which the differences proved nonsignificant were the positive perception of American culture and the negative perception of Arab policies. For the first item, the two groups agreed on the positive characteristics of American culture. This is an interesting finding; Arab participants had a strong negative view of American policies, yet they still had a positive attitude toward American people and culture. For the second item that proved nonsignificant, the two groups also agreed with statements that depicted Arab policies negatively. With regard to the other two items (i.e., the positive perception of Arab culture and Christianity and Islam are different), the t-test showed significant differences, yet these differences accounted for the strength of each group's agreement with the statements. As the differences did not cross the boundaries of agreement (< 3.0) according to the coding method, the two groups still indicated an overall agreement with the three items, but differed in terms of the strength of their agreement. The most significant difference in attitude among all nine items appeared in two items: the negative perception of Islam (t = 22.1) and the negative perception of American policies (t = -22.6). For the first item, the Arab students disagreed strongly with the statement while the American students remained neutral. For the negative perception of American policies, American students were also neutral while the Arab students agreed strongly with the statement. Table 4 Agreement variables

33

Table 5: Arab sample accuracy of Americans' views

Negative perception of American Negative policies of perception American Policies Positive perception of Positive American of perception policies Policies America Negative Negative of perception perception of Arab Policies Arab Policies Negative perception of Negative American perception of culture American culture Positive Positive of perception perception of American American culture culture Negative Negative perception of perception of Arab culture Arab culture Positive Positive perception of perception of Arab culture Arab culture Negative Negative perception of perception of Islam Islam Christianity and Christianity and Islam are Islam are different different

Americans' Arabs' t-test t-test t-test t-test t-test Mean Mean Americans Arabs' t-test Mean Mean difference ' Other tt d.d. f. f. p p differenc Mean s e 3.0281 1.7202 -22.56 363 .000 -1.30792 Mean
3.03 3.41 5.605 361.47 .000 .384

2.5833 2.58

3.8431 1.57

15.001 -14.58

362.156 363

.000 .000

1.25976 -1.01

2.83 2.8281

1.81 2.803

-17.01 .043

362.73 .000 350.852 .966

-1.02 .00277

3.4213 3.4213

3.8510 2.3873

6.411 -14.34

.362.62 .362.539

.000 .000

.429 -1.03393

2.81 2.8146

1.56 -18.63 2.7138 1.316

363 363

.000 .189

-1.25 .10076

3.1969 3.17

4.0407 -16.68 361.02 12.778 362.997 .000 .000 2.03

.84378 -1.16

2.6700 2.6700

1.8515 6.690 353.906 .000 .000 3.0810 6.319 311.839

-.81854 .411

3.1979 3.19

4.4669 -19.62 361.51 22.111 363 1.85

.000 .000

1.6898 -1.35

3.01 3.0031

2.04 -10.78 2.6732 -3.104

363 .000 361.510 .002

-.96 -.32995

34

Table 6: American sample accuracy of Arabs' views

Americans ' Others Mean


Negative perception of American Policies Positive perception of American Policies Negative perception of Arab Policies Negative perception of American culture Positive perception of American culture Negative perception of Arab culture Positive perception of Arab culture Negative perception of Islam Christianity and Islam are different 2.03

Arabs ' Mean


1.72

t-test t
5.49

t-test d. f.
363

t-test p
.000

Mean differenc e
-.31

3.53

3.84

-3.5

361.37

.000

.31

3.49

2.80

9.80

361.05

.000

.66

2.19

2.39

-3.86

362.54

.000

-.27

3.75

2.71

14.28

362.54

.000

1.03

3.74

4.04

4.490

359.89

.000

-.30

2.08

1.85

4.41

363

.000

.23

3.56

4.47

-14.69

295.28

.000

-.90

2.65

2.67

-.25

359.53

.80

-.026

35

Accuracy The Arab students could not accurately predict the view of Americans (see Table 4). All items showed a significant difference (p < 0.05). The biggest error of misperception occurred in three items: the negative perception of Islam, the positive perception of American culture, and the negative perception of Arab culture. In the first item, the Arab sample predicted that Americans would agree strongly (M = 1.85) with the statements that depicted Islam negatively. However, the responses of the American sample indicated that they were neutral (M = 3.0). In the second item about American positive cultural characteristics, Arabs overestimated (M = 1.56) the Americans agreement (M = 2.81) with the statement. In the third item, the Arab sample overestimated the Americans agreement (M = 1.80) with the statement that presented Arab culture negatively; Americans agreement with this statement was (M = 2.82). Although the t-test showed significant differences, these differences in the remaining items accounted for the degree of agreement or disagreement where the differences did not cross the boundaries of agreement (< 3.0) or disagreement (> 3.0), which meant an overall agreement or disagreement with the items. The American sample was relatively more accurate in predicting the Arab evaluations (see Table 5). One item out of nine showed a nonsignificant difference (i.e., Christianity and Islam are different). The American sample agreed (M = 2.6) with the statement that Christianity and Islam are very different and predicted accurately that the Arabs would agree (M = 2.67) with this statement.

36

The remaining eight items yielded significant differences. Yet the differences in seven items accounted for the degree of agreement and disagreement, which indicated that the Americans were relatively more accurate in their predictions than the Arabs. This is an interesting finding because the knowledge and personal experience measurement for the two groups showed that the Arabs were more knowledgeable (M = 3.37) and familiar (M = 2.83) with American people and culture than the Americans (Knowledge M = 2.41, familiarity M = 2.12) were familiar with Arab people and culture. I expected that the Arab sample would have more knowledge and personal experience with American people and culture, and would therefore have more accurate predictions, but that was not the case. The most significant differences in attitude were in two items: the negative perception of Islam (t = -14.69) and the positive perception of American culture (t = 14.27). For the first item, the American sample underestimated (M = 3.56) the Arabs disagreement (M = 4.46) with statements that depicted Islam negatively. The American sample predicted that the Arabs would disagree (M = 3.77) with statements that described American culture positively while the Arabs agreed (M = 2.71) with these statements. Congruency Congruency is the average level of evaluations made by the Americans (or Arabs) and the predictions made by the Americans (or Arabs) about the evaluations made by Arabs (or Americans). For both samples, the results in Tables 6 and 7 show a significant difference in all cases. The congruency variable contained the most significant differences of the three coorientation variables.

37

Media Exposure and Religion Devotion influence Pearson correlations were used to detect any relationships among the media exposure variables, religion devotion variable and the nine dependent variables. The media exposure consisted of four variables: television, internet, radio and newspaper. The religion devotion variable presented the importance of religion in one's life. For both groups, the calculation of Pearson correlation detected several significant, yet weak, relationships between media exposure and religion devotion variables and the nine dependent variables. However, some weak correlations were detected. For the American sample, the radio variable correlated positively (r = .19, p< . 05) with the positive perception of American culture. The internet variable correlated positively (r = .21, p< .01) with the Islam and Christianity are different variable. For the religion devotion variable, weak correlations with three of the nine items were detected. The religion variable correlated negatively(r = -.22, p< .01) with the negative perception of American policy item. Furthermore, correlated positively (r = .22, p< .01) (r = .17, p< .05) with the positive perception of American policies item and with Islam and Christianity are different item. For the Arab sample, more correlation existed between the media exposure variables and several dependent variables. First, the television variable correlated positively (r = .24, p< .01) with the positive perception of American culture variable. Second, the internet correlated positively (r =.19, p< .01) (r =.16, p< .05) with the positive perception of American culture and positive perception of American culture variables.

38

Table 7: Arab sample congruency variable

Arabs ' Mean


Negative perception of American Policies Positive perception of American Policies Negative perception of Arab Policies Negative perception of American culture Positive perception of American culture Negative perception of Arab culture Positive perception of Arab culture Negative perception of Islam Christianity and Islam are different 1.72

Arabs' Others Mean


3.41

t-test t
-26.31

t-test d. f.
383.49

t-test p
.000

Mean differenc e
-1.69

3.84

1.57

29.04

363.97

.000

2.27

2.80

1.81

15.01

397.17

.008

1.02

2.39

3.85

-20.17

408

.000

-1.46

2.71

1.56

16.36

400.11

.000

1.15

4.04

2.03

28.39

408

.000

2.0

1.851

3.08

-18.71

377.28

.000

-1.23

4.47

1.85

42.88

365.01

.000

2.62

2.67

2.04

6.29

367.26

.000

.63

39

Table 8: American sample congruency variable Americans' Mean Negative perception of American Policies Positive perception of American Policies Negative perception of Arab Policies Negative perception of American culture Positive perception of American culture Negative perception of Arab culture Positive perception of Arab culture Negative perception of Islam Christianity and Islam are different 3.03 Americans' Others Mean 2.03 t-test t 16.95 t-test d. f. 318 t-test p .000 Mean difference .99

2.58

3.53

-11.60

318

.000

-.94

2.83

3.49

-11.62

318

.000

-.66

3.42

2.12

20.39

318

.000

.30

2.81

3.75

-13.61

318

.000

-.93

3.19

3.74

-8.63

318

.000

-.54

2.67

2.08

12.21

298.66

.000

.59

3.19

3.56

-5.32

318

.000

-.36

3.30

2.46

3.78

318

.000

.36

40

Third, the radio variable correlated positively (r = .14, p< .05) (r =.16, p< .05) with the positive perception of American culture and positive perception of American culture variables and negatively (r = -.15, p< .05) with negative perception of American culture variable. Finally, the newspaper variable correlated negatively (r =-.14, p< .05) (r = -.15, p< .05) (r = -.15, p< .05) with the positive perception of American culture, the positive perception of Arab culture and with Islam and Christianity are different variables. It also correlated positively (r = .23, p< .01) (r = .16, p< .05) with the negative perception of Arab culture and the negative perception of Islam variables. For the religion devotion variable, two negative weak correlation was detected (r =-.15, p< . 05) with the negative perception of American culture variable and (r =-.15, p< .05) with the negative perception of Islam item.

41

DISCUSSION
The study was undertaken with two general objectives: 1) to identify the negative attitudes the Americans and Arabs may have of one another; and 2) to interpret the impact that the media might have in shaping the two groups perceptions of one another. Limitations and suggestions for future research are also discussed.

Coorientation Variables The coorientation variables were used to clarify the Arabs and Americans perceptions of and attitudes toward each other. The agreement variable presented their direct attitudes about the issues in consideration. The second variable was accuracy, where each group predicted the other groups evaluation of the issues. The last variable was congruency. Congruency compared each groups own evaluation of the issues with the groups predictions of the other groups evaluation of the issues.

RQ 1: How do Arabs view Americans beliefs and attitudes? In general, the results (i.e., agreement) showed that the Arab sample held quite negative attitudes about Americans based on their evaluations of five of the nine items that were related to their views of Americans: 1) negative perception of American policies, 2) positive perception of American policies, 3) negative perception of American culture, 4) positive perception of American culture, and 5) Christianity and Islam are different. With regard to American policies, the Arab sample agreed strongly (M = 1.7) with the negative depiction of American policies and disagreed (M = 3.8) with

42

statements that defended American policies. With regard to American culture, they agreed (M = 2.4) with the negative description of American culture, yet they also agreed with the positive view of American culture. The explanation for these seemingly contradictory attitudes is that the Arab sample viewed the American culture from different angles. They view some of the American culture characteristics to be positive and view other characteristics to be negative. For example, the Arab sample perceived the Americans as open minded people and at the same time they perceived that Americans lack traditional family ties. Finally, the Arab sample agreed (M = 2.67) that Islam and Christianity are very different. The accuracy results showed that the Arab sample believed that Americans had negative perceptions and attitudes about Arabs. This conclusion was based on the Arab samples predictions of Americans evaluation of five items describing Arab policies and culture. The five items were: 1) negative perception of Arab policies, 2) negative perception of Arab culture, 3) positive perception of Arab culture, 4) negative perception of Islam, and 5) Christianity and Islam are different. Starting with the first item, the Arab sample predicted that Americans would strongly agree (M = 1.81) with statements presenting the Arab countries policies negatively. In the description of Arab culture, the Arab sample thought that Americans would agree (M = 2.03) with the negative depiction of their culture and be neutral (M = 3.1) for positive depictions. For the fourth item, the Arabs predicted that the Americans would strongly agree (M = 1.85) with statements that presented Islam negatively. With regard to the final statement, the Arab sample thought the Americans would agree (M = 2.04) that Christianity and Islam are different.

43

The congruency was the lowest among the three co-orientation variables. There was no similarity between the Arab samples evaluations and the perceptions that they attributed to Americans. In other words, the Arab sample did not perceive its view to be similar to the view of its counterparts. There are two possible explanations for such a case. First, the three co-orientation variables are dependent on each other; second, there is a tense relationship between the two groups. The first explanation is that the co-orientation variables are statistically dependent. A change in agreement or accuracy affects a change in congruency. Thus, in this case, the agreement and accuracy were both low; consequently, congruency was low. But if the agreement and accuracy are high, congruency will be high (Oshagan, 1981). The second explanation is based on that fact that the two samples belong to different nations under conflict or tense conditions. The social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 2001) explains that under such conditions, people tend to differentiate their group from other groups to maintain positive self-esteem. By stressing and emphasizing in-group similarity and out-group difference, the theory argues that each group maintains a perceived positive social identity.

RQ 2: How do Americans view Arabs beliefs and attitudes? Generally, the American samples attitude towards and perception of Arabs proved to be less negative than the attitudes of Arabs towards Americans. The results of the agreement of five items supported such a conclusion. The items were: 1) negative perception of Arab policies, 2) negative perception of Arab culture, 3) positive

44

perception of Arab culture, 4) negative perception of Islam, and 5) Christianity and Islam are different. For the first item, the American sample agreed (M = 2.8) with the negative presentation of Arab policies. The subjects were neutral (M = 3.2) with the negative description of Arab culture and were in agreement (M = 2.67) with statements that presented Arab culture positively. Their evaluations were neutral (M = 3.2) for the item that presented Islam negatively. For the last item (i.e., Christianity and Islam are different), their responses were also neutral (M = 3.0). Although the American sample was less negative than the Arab sample in their evaluations, their predictions were as negative as the predictions of the Arab sample. The accuracy results of the five items supported this conclusion. The items were: 1) negative perception of American policies, 2) positive perception of American policies, 3) negative perception of American culture, 4) positive perception of American culture, and 5) Christianity and Islam are different. For the American policies, the American sample predicted that the Arabs would agree (M = 2.3) with the negative statements about the policies and be neutral (M = 3.5) when it came to positive statements about the policies. The participants predicted that the Arabs would agree (M = 2.18) with the negative statements about American culture and that many would disagree (M = 3.75) with positive statements about American culture. Finally, they predicted that the Arabs would agree (M = 2.65) that Christianity and Islam are different. Congruency was the lowest among the three coorientation variables. There was no similarity between the American samples evaluations and perceptions that they

45

attributed to Arabs. In other words, the American sample did not perceive its view to be similar to the view of its counterparts. The two possible explanations for the Arab sample congruency are also applicable here. Social construction of reality The process of learning about the physical and social realities of the world in which one lives is a social one, resulting from communication with others. This idea was originally addressed by Plato many centuries ago. He set forth his ideas in the well-known Allegory of the Cave (Plato, 1958), in which he describes a sort of psychological experiment. In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained in a cave. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them, fire illuminates a parapet, which is kept between the fire and the cave wall. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see. To the prisoners, it appears that the shadows are making the sounds. Plato maintained that the chained prisoners would try to interpret the shadows; that is, they would assign meanings for only the realities that they are able to experience under their circumstances. They would believe that the shadows were reality. The Americans and Arabs living in different countries in this study participated only in the processes of communication that were available to them. The results of the personal experience test showed that 84.9 percent of the Arab sample and 97.3 percent

46

of the American sample had never visited or had a personal experience with the other group. Also, in a different test, the two groups ranked the media outlets, especially television, to be their primary source of information. Therefore, it is valid to say that the two groups constructed most of their personal understandings, perceptions, attitudes, and evaluations of the other group based on media reports as their main source of information. Harris (1989) explains it more clearly: One of the major perceived realities that media help create for us involves information about groups of people. Through TV and other media we are exposed to a much broader range of people than most of us would ever encounter in our own lives. Not only are media our introduction to these people, but often they are practically the only source of information about them. Sometimes everything we know about some kinds of people comes from television (p. 37).

Conclusion This study found that American and Arab students held quite negative attitudes and perceptions toward each other. The coorientational analysis showed significant differences with almost all the issues. The results showed that both groups participants had limited or no direct experience with the other group, and they relied on the media as their primary source of information about the other group. Therefore, there is little question that the media have an important role in improving the relationship between the two cultures.

47

Personally, I believe that both group media outlets, especially the newsrooms, operate with an attitude of us vs. them. Most Arab media present the war in Iraq as a war for oil and call it an invasion. On the other hand, the media in the United States link, with different degrees of objectivity, Islam and Muslims with terrorism. This is, I would say, the wrong approach and one that will help to improve the situation. To help close the gap between the two nations, the media can start by increasing the transparency and objectivity of their coverage. That could be done by diversifying the media professionals. Media professionals with diverse backgrounds and different points of view can be a crucial tool to increase the objectivity of media coverage. Through their actions, they can support deeper public understanding of each group about the other. They can weaken stereotypes by providing multidimensional representations of the story. A good degree of objectivity in the media will lead to improving the accuracy of each side's view of the other, which eventually will build a solid ground for effective communication.

48

REFERENCES
Chaffee, S. H., & McLeod , J. M. (1968) Sensitization in Panel Design: A coorientational experiment. Journalism Quarterly, 24, 661.

DeFleur, L. (2002). The Next Generation's Image of Americans Attitude and Beliefs Held By Teen-Agers in Twelve Countries. Unpublished manuscript, Boston University, Boston.

Field, A (2000). Discovering Statistics using SPSS for Windows. London: Sage Publications, Ltd.

Gruning, J.E. (1972). Communication in community decisions on the problems of the poor. Journal of Communication, 22: 5-22.

Harris, R. J. (1989). A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Huntington, Samuel P. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 2250.

John, O. P., & Benet-Martinez, V. (1999). Measurement: Reliability, Construct Validation, and Scale Construction. In C. Judd & H. Reis (Eds.), Handbook of Methods in Social Psychology (pp 339 369). 49

Jones, Jeffery. (2006). Expectations of Middle East Peace Drop Following Hamas Victory. August, 20, 2006. The Gallup Poll: http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=21406. (February, 13 2006)

Khan, Muqtedar (2002). Nice but Tough: a Framework for U.S. Foreign Policy in the Muslim World. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 5(1), 55-63.

Kohut, A. (2003). American Public Diplomacy in the Islamic World: Remarks of Andrew Kohut to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing. Philadelphia, PA: Pew Center for the People and the Press. http://www.peoplepress.org/commentry/display.php3?AnalysisID=77.

Kutzschenbach, Michael von. (2006). Communicating Sustainable Development Initiatives. Journal of Communication Management, 10(3), 304-322.

Lewis, Bernard. (2001). The Roots of Muslim Rage. Policy, 17(4), 17-26.

McLeod, J. M., and Chaffee, S.H. (1973) Interpersonal Approaches to Communication Research. American Behavioral Scientist 16: 469-499.

Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychology Review, 60. 393-404.

50

Oshagan, Emma. (1981). Coorientation as a Function of Communication: an Intercultural Test. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Pew. (2006). The Great Divide: How westerners and Muslims View each other (Pew Global Attitudes Project). Washington, DC: Pew Research Center Project. Retrieved June 22, 2006, Pew Web site: pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/253.pdf.

Pew Center for People and the Press (2002). What the world thinks in 2002. How Global Politics View: Their Lives, Their Countries, The World, America. Philadelphia, Pew Global Attitude Project. http://www.peoplepress.org/reports/files/report165.pdf.

Rubin, Barry. (2002). The Real Roots of Arab anti-Americanism. Foreign Affairs, 81(6).

Scheff, Thomas. (1967). Toward a Sociological Model of Consensus. American Sociological Review, 32(1), 32-46.

Slade, Shelly. (1981). The Image of the Arab in America: Analysis of a Poll on American Attitudes. Middle East Journal, 35(2), 143-162.

51

Stamm, K.R. and J.E. Bowes (1972). Communication during an Environmental Decision. Journal of Environmental Education, 35, 49-56. Tajel, Henri. & Turner, John. (2001). Intergroup relations: Essential reading. In Michael A. Hogg & Dominic Abrams (Eds.), an integrative theory of intergroup conflict (pp. 94- 109). Philadelphia: Psycology Press.

Telhami, Shibley. (2004). Reaching the public in the Middle East. In William. Rugh (Ed.), Engaging the Arab and Islamic Worlds through Public Diplomacy (pp. 410). Washington, DC, USA: Public Diplomacy Council.

The Republic of Plato, trans. Francis MacDonald Cornfield (New York: Oxford University Press, 1958) P.227-35.

Vercic, D., Vercic, A., & Laco, K. (2006). Coorientation Theory in International Relations: The Case of Slovenia and Croatia. Public Relations Review, 32, 1-9.

Weiser, C. (2002, July 14). Bush administration struggles to build U.S. 'brand' abroad. Gannet News Service. Available: http://www.gannettonline.com/gns/mideast/brand.htm.

Zaharna, R.S. (2001). American diplomacy in the Arab and Muslim world: A strategic communication analysis. Foreign Policy in Focus, 36, 1-4.

52

Zogby, J.J. (2002) What Arabs Think: Values, Beliefs, and Concerns, NY: Zogby International.

APPENDIX A. American sample questionnaire

53

Americans and Arabs: How They Perceive Each Other

Purpose:
I am a master's student at Kansas State Universitys School of Journalism and Mass Communications. My name is Talal. The goal of this research project is to examine and clarify basic perceptions held by Americans and Arabs toward each other. I am conducting a survey to gather information from students at your university.

General direction:
The questionnaire should take about thirty minutes. Instructions precede each set of questions. As questions formats vary, please read the instructions before you start inserting your answers in the spaces provided.

Your participation is helpful and greatly appreciated. Your answers will remain anonymous. You can ask me any type of questions you would like about my research and about this survey; to do so send an email to: talal77@ksu.edu

54

For each statement below, please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement.

Strongly agree

agree

neither agree nor disagree 3

disagree

Strongly disagree 5

America has a responsibility to maintain the world order. America supports democracy in the Middle East. Arab countries are against democracy in the Middle East. America should follow the United Nations' lead for international policy decisions. In making international policy decisions, the United States does not take into account the interests of Arab countries. America is biased toward Israel. Arab countries are biased against Israel. The war in Iraq is a war against terrorism. The war in Iraq is a war to control Mideast oil. American policies are causing the conflict in the Middle East.

Strongly agree

agree

neither agree nor disagree

disagree

Strong ly disagree

55

Arab countries policies are causing the conflicts in the Middle East. America is defending democracy by fighting terrorism. Arab countries support terrorism. Arab countries fight terrorism. The war in Iraq has made the world more dangerous. American policies are primarily responsible for the lack of prosperity in Arab countries. A lack of education and political and economic systems in Arab countries are the main obstacles to their prosperity. Arab political attitudes are greatly influenced by religion. Americans' political attitudes are greatly influenced by religion. Democracy would not work in Arab countries. The best way to ensure peace is through military strength. Diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace.

56

Strongly agree

agree

neither agree nor disagree

disagree

Strongly disagree

America is a Christian nation. Religion plays a major role in creating wars and conflicts in the world. Terrorism is justifiable in Islam. America's disrespect for the Islamic religion is the root of the problems in the Middle East. The differences between Christianity and Islam are the real cause of the United States and Arab countries conflicts. Islam and Christianity have a lot in common. Christianity and Islam are very different. Islam itself is an obstacle to Arab prosperity. Islam is intolerant of different points of view. Islam is fundamentally different from Christianity and Judaism. Islam is oppressive toward women.
1

57

Strongly agree

agree

neither agree nor disagree 3 3

disagree

Strongly disagree 5 5

Islam is inherently violent. Muslims cannot adapt to Western societies. Muslims are isolated in Western societies. Muslims have a hostile view toward Christianity. Americans are generally violent. Arabs are aggressive. Arab countries are peaceful nations. Americans are a peaceful people. Arabs are abusive toward women. Americans are abusive toward women American women are sexually immoral. Arab women are sexually immoral. Americans lack traditional family ties. Arabs have strong family

1 1

2 2

4 4

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

58

values. Americans are open-minded regarding others.


1 2 3 4 5

Strongly agree

agree

neither agree nor disagree 3 3

disagree

Strongly disagree 5 5

Arabs have a closed culture that rejects outsiders. Americans have strong religious values. Arabs have strong religious values. Americans treat the elderly with respect. Arabs treat the elderly with respect. Arabs value life less than other people do. Americans like to dominate other people.

1 1

2 2

4 4

The same statements from the previous section are repeated in this section, but this time you will indicate

59

how you think an average Arab would respond to these statements.


Strongly agree 1 agree 2 neither agree nor disagree 3 disagree 4 Strongly disagree 5

America has a responsibility to maintain the world order. America supports democracy in the Middle East. Arab countries are against democracy in the Middle East. America should follow the United Nations' lead for international policy decisions. In making international policy decisions, the United States does not take into account the interests of Arab countries. America is biased toward Israel. Arab countries are biased against Israel. The war in Iraq is a war against terrorism. The war in Iraq is a war to control Mideast oil. American policies are causing the conflict in the Middle East.

Strongly agree

agree

neither agree nor disagree

disagree

Strongly disagree

60

Arab countries policies are causing the conflicts in the Middle East. America is defending democracy by fighting terrorism. Arab countries support terrorism. Arab countries fight terrorism. The war in Iraq has made the world more dangerous. American policies are primarily responsible for the lack of prosperity in Arab countries. A lack of education and political and economic systems in Arab countries are the main obstacles to their prosperity. Arab political attitudes are greatly influenced by religion. Americans' political attitude are greatly influenced by religion. Democracy would not work in Arab countries. The best way to ensure peace is through military strength. Diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace.

Strongly agree

agree

neither agree nor disagree

disagree

Strongly disagree

61

America is a Christian nation. Religion plays a major role in creating wars and conflicts in the world. Terrorism is justifiable in Islam. America's disrespect for the Islamic religion is the root of the problems in the Middle East. The differences between Christianity and Islam are the real cause of the United States and Arab countries conflicts. Islam and Christianity have a lot in common. Christianity and Islam are very different. Islam itself is an obstacle to Arab prosperity. Islam is intolerant of different points of view. Islam is fundamentally different from Christianity and Judaism. Islam is oppressive toward women.

62

Strongly agree

agree

neither agree nor disagree 3 3

disagree

Strongly disagree 5 5

Islam is inherently violent. Muslims cannot adapt to Western societies. Muslims are isolated in Western societies. Muslims have a hostile view toward Christianity. Americans are generally violent. Arabs are aggressive. Arab countries are peaceful nations. Americans are a peaceful people. Arabs are abusive toward women. Americans are abusive toward women American women are sexually immoral. Arab women are sexually immoral. Americans lack traditional family ties. Arabs have strong family values. Americans are open-minded regarding others.

1 1

2 2

4 4

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

63

Strongly agree

agree

neither agree nor disagree

disagree

Strongly disagree

Arabs have a closed culture that rejects outsiders. Americans have strong religious values. Arabs have strong religious values. Americans treat the elderly with respect. Arabs treat the elderly with respect. Arabs value life less than other people do. Americans like to dominate other people.

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

64

The following questions will be used only for statistical purpose.

Knowledge The percentage of Muslims in Arab countries is: (Circle) 100% 40% 50% 85% 25%

Which country is not an Arab country? (Circle) Kuwait Egypt Iran Jordan Syria

Which of the following is the Islamic equivalent to the Bible? (Circle) Torah Quran Madrasah Allah

What is the capital of Egypt? (Circle) Al-Riyadh Cairo Baghdad Amman

Media Exposure How many hours per day, on average, do you spend watching television for news or other political material? (Place a check) ______ Less than 1 hour ______ 1 to 2 hours ______ 2 to 3 hours ______ 3 to 4 hours ______ 4 to 5 hours ______ 5 to 6 hours ______ More than 6 hours

65

How many hours per day, on average, do you spend browsing the internet for news or other political material? (Place a check) ______ Less than 1 hour ______ 1 to 2 hours ______ 2 to 3 hours ______ 3 to 4 hours ______ 4 to 5 hours ______ 5 to 6 hours ______ More than 6 hours How many hours per day, on average, do you spend listening to the radio for news or other political material? (Place a check) ______ Less than 1 hour ______ 1 to 2 hours ______ 2 to 3 hours ______ 3 to 4 hours ______ 4 to 5 hours ______ 5 to 6 hours ______ More than 6 hours How many days per week do you read a newspaper? (Place a check) ______ 0 day ______ 1 day ______ 2 days ______ 3 days ______ 4 days ______ 5 days ______ 6 days ______ 7 days Please rank the media below as your primary sources for news (with "1" being the source you use most frequently and "6" being the source you use least frequently) ______ Television ______ Newspaper ______ Internet ______ Radio ______ Magazine ______ Others (please list______________)

66

Background What year are you in school? (Circle) Freshman Sex: (Circle) Male Female Marital Status: (Circle) Single Married Divorced Engaged Other Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Student

Religious Affiliation: (Circle) Christian Muslim Jewish Other______ Non

Party Affiliation: (Circle) Democratic Field of study: Age: Nationality: General Information Have you been in an Arab country before? (Circle) Yes If so, where?___________ How long did you stay there? ____________ No Republican Independent Other Non

67

How familiar do you believe you are with Arab culture? (Circle) Not at all 1 2 3 4 Very Familiar 5

Religion How often do you attend religious services? (Circle) Once or more a week Once or twice a month A few times a year Seldom Never

How important is religion in your life? (Circle) Not Very important 1 2 Fairly important 3 4 Very important 5

68

APPENDIX B. Arab sample questionnaire

:
. . , .

:
. . .

. .

96

1 ,

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

1 1

07

1 1

1 1

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

17

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

27

5 5 5

4 4 4

3 3 3

2 2 2

1 1 1

37

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

5 5 5

4 4 4

3 3 3

2 2 2

1 1 1

5 5

4 4

3 3

1 1

2 2

47

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

57

.
5 4 3 2 1 ,

67

1 1

77

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

87

5 4 3 2 1

5 5 5

4 4 4

3 3 3

2 2 2

1 1 1

97

5 4 3 2 1

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

08

18



%001 %03 %08 %52 %05

) X )

, ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______

28

, ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ , ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ , )( _____ _____1 _____2 _____3 _____4 _____5 _____6 _____ . ) 1 , 6 ) _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______)________ )

38


5 4 3 ) 2 1 : : :

)______________: _________: _________: _______:

_________ , ______________ ,

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

48

Anda mungkin juga menyukai