“The symbolic Racism 2000 Scale.”
Construct(s), domain(s), or variable(s) the instrument measures:
It is important to know that this measure of the instrument is categorized into four subscales of racism:
The black people were specifically used as variables in the instrument (Henry & Sears, 2002). Although there were other independent variables used in the instrument, it is essential to know that in the civil rights leaders of the black community were used to measure political predispositions as well as the traditional racial attitudes and perceptions. The instrument contributed to the measurement of three forms of traditional racial attitudes.
This instrument relied on racial policy preferences (Henry & Sears, 2002). The instrument was characterized by items of measuring attitudes that primarily emphasized on the government policies. It is important to know that the two items of measurement asked:
Later, other items were incorporated together to determine the racial policy attitude scale for every specific study. The items included:
Unidimensionality or multidimensionality of construct(s), domains(s), or variables(s):
This study rightfully used the multidimensional scale (Henry & Sears, 2002). The instrument gave the priority of measurement to the current symbolic racism scale. The scale used two important criterions for the measurement:
After properly reviewing all the items involved in the measurement criterion, it was agreed that none of these items correlated to the government policies, actions as well as programs (Henry & Sears, 2002).
Following the conclusion of the research, it led to the construction of the eight-item of symbolic racism 2000 scale (SR2K scale) (Henry & Sears, 2002). It is important to recognize that the substances of (SR2K scale) contained two substances from every one of the four subscales (Henry & Sears, 2002). It is also vital to indicate that the items were equal in direction and response of choices. From the eight items, there were five items measured through the Likert scales while the three remaining items were marked to show advanced symbolic racism (Henry & Sears, 2002). The seven of the eight items were also on a four-point scale while one of the substances was on a three-point scale. This scale proved reliable after examination.
Theoretical and empirical foundations of the instrument:
The instrument had the following foundations:
The goal of this study is to offer the scale of the contemporary symbolic racism especially the ones that can help with the upcoming researches (Henry & Sears, 2002).
The instrument obtained data that targeted different racial groups like the people of color, Latinos, Asians, whites as well as the people of mixed races (Henry & Sears, 2002). The two studies conducted first relied on the random-digit-dial phone reviews of the adult people in the County of Los Angeles (Henry & Sears, 2002). However, the next set of researches was built on questionnaires forms that were given to UCLA students. These students were already enrolled in the psychology class (Henry & Sears, 2002). And the final study relied on the different race related statement was given out in the form of questionnaires to the students that were enrolled in UCLA for the introductory psychology class during the fall semester.
The instruments assembled from the five tables were expressed in the surveys and then given to the objective groups
These various surveys provided an opportunity for the items to measure the scale of symbolic racism (Henry & Sears, 2002). It is important to know that the scales improved the existing measures that were put into place in various ways: the content emphasized the emerging racial challenges (Henry & Sears, 2002). It applied the use of items such as Likert as well as the non-Likert formats. The Likert substances were utilized to demonstrate the agreement and disagreement of racial hostility (Henry & Sears, 2002). It is vital to realize that this scale did not possess any reference to government policies
The instrument had eight substances lifted from the surveys
This instrument did not contain any subscales, so it is not applicable
This instrument was separated into eight open-ended queries, and those responding to the questions required making their choice from any of the four questions
This particular instrument was valid since it accurately reflected the mixture of racial prejudice as well as the American political conservatism (Henry & Sears, 2002). The prediction that white people resent racial policies was also found to be valid. However, when the general opinion from both the public and the students were compared, an unexpected feature was discovered (Henry & Sears, 2002). In the beginning, the researchers thought that adult whites would demonstrate a clear attitude on race based on prejudice then the college students (Henry & Sears, 2002). However, the adult whites had higher opinion level and when it came to the white college students; the difference in the scale of response was not significant (Henry & Sears, 2002). It shows that the scale of this instrument administered to the educated and uneducated white adult people
This information was never provided, so it is not applicable
It is vital to know that this instrument conducted five studies using diverse races as their objective group (Henry & Sears, 2002). The study presented numerous open-ended queries connected to the issues of race in the earlier on as well as in the upcoming studies. The data was obtained, and the scale was set to help in the measurement of the magnitude of symbolic racism in America.
It is important to know that this scale used the Likert scales to analyze data to see the scale of symbolic racism in America
This instrument was found as unreliable (Henry & Sears, 2002). The research covered three years to find out different races response or ideas on racism. It is vital to realize that the research came out with the finding that symbolic racism was lower among the people of color when compared to other racial groupings such as the whites, Latinos, and Asians (Henry & Sears, 2002). The statistics found out that uneducated blacks had a score of 36%; educated blacks had a score of 24%. It proved the impact of education on the issues of racial biasness (Henry & Sears, 2002). The uneducated people from all the racial grouping showed a higher number of racial prejudice as compared to the educated guys from the racial groupings. For instance, the uneducated whites had a score of 77% and educated whites had a score of 79% (Henry & Sears, 2002). The research found out that the white people’s perception and attitude on race have not changed over time and even education does little if not nothing.
This instrument did a lot to measure the response of different racial groupings. It found out that every race had their ideas and opinions on race and that these ideas almost remained the same even with the aspect of education
In this instrument, those who participated came from diverse racial groupings (Henry & Sears, 2002). For instance, it is essential to know that the students who participated came from different ethnic and racial backgrounds hence causing some biasness to the data. The responses of the whites, Latinos, blacks as well as Asians reflected different opinions (Henry & Sears, 2002). It is important to know that this difference in opinion about racial prejudice is influenced by traditional values and culture of an ethnic group or race.
Summary evaluation and critique
This instrument had no substantial restrictions
The instrument demonstrated that the problematic issues shown in the study got solved (Henry & Sears, 2002). The aspect of symbolic racism led to the emergence of diverse beliefs and opinions that every ethnic hold against each other.
Henry, P. J. and Sears, D. O. (2002). The symbolic racism 2000 scale. Political Psychology,