Master Thesis

AMERICANS AND ARABS:HOW THEY PERCEIVE EACH OTHER

by

TALAL ALMUTAIRI

2007

1

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.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTSLIST OF FIGURES ii

LIST OF TABLES iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

INTRODUCTION 1

LITERATURE REVIEW 8 Arabs perception of Americans 8 Americans perception of Arabs 9 Coorientation model 10 Research questions 16

METHODOLOGY 17 Participants 17 Questionnaire 18 Translation 20 Pretest 21

DATA ANALYSIS 22 Factor analysis 22 Reliability tests 25 T-tests 26

RESULTS 27 Descriptive analysis 27 Coorientation variables 32

DISCUSSION 43 How do Arabs view Americans beliefs and attitudes? 43 How do Americans view Arabs beliefs and attitudes? 45 Social construction of reality 47 Conclusion 48

REFERENCES 50

APPENDIX 55

i

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Coorientational measure model 12

Figure 2: Coorientational model for large social group (Arabs and Americans) 15

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Factors and Reliabilities 23

Table 2: Demographic profiles of the American sample by University 29

Table 3: Demographic profiles of the Arab sample by country 30

Table 4: Agreement variables 34

Table 5: Arab sample accuracy of Americans' views 35

Table 6: American sample accuracy of Arabs' views 36

Table 7: Arab sample congruency variable 40

Table 8: American sample congruency variable 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

1

East was not included as the subject of this study because: 1) scholars cannot agree on

the 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

2

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).

3

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 Islamic-Confucian states" (p. 50).

4

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 anti-

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).

5

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

6

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).

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).

8

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

9

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.

10

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 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

11

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.

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 Chaffee-

McLeod model congruency is presented as the third variable necessary in the

Perception of B's cognition

Perception of A's cognition

A's cognition about "X"

B's cognition about "X"

Congruency A Congruency BAccuracy

Agreement

Person BPerson A

12

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 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

13

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 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

14

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.

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

Americans' Perception of Arabs'

cognition

Arabs' Perception of Americans' cognition

Americans' cognition of Arabs

Arabs' cognition of Americans

Congruency A Congruency BAccuracy

Agreement

ArabsAmericans

15

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-sided-

story (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?

16

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 group’s average

citizen. Furthermore, they were assured confidentiality. The completion time ranged

from fifteen to thirty minutes.

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.

17

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

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

18

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?"

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

19

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.

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

20

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

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

21

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 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

22

Factors Statements Reliability

Negative perception of American Policies

4. America should follow the United Nations'

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. The war in Iraq is a war to control Mideast

oil.

10. American policies are causing the conflict

in the Middle East.

15. The war in Iraq has made the world more

dangerous.

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.

.877

Positive perception of American Policies

1. America has a responsibility to maintain

the 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.

.482

23

11. Arab countries’ policies are causing the

conflicts in the Middle East.

13. Arab countries support terrorism.

17. A 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. American women are sexually immoral.

46. Americans lack traditional family ties.

55. Americans like to dominate other people.

.751

Positive perception of American culture

41. Americans are a peaceful people.

48. Americans are open-minded regarding

others.

52. Americans treat the elderly with respect.

.530

Negative perception of Arab culture

39. Arabs are aggressive.

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. Arabs have strong family values.

50. Arabs have strong religious values.

53. Arabs treat the elderly with respect.

.693

24

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

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

25

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 perception of Arab culture, positive perception of Arab culture, negative

perception of Islam and Christianity and Islam are different).

26

RESULTSDescriptive 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 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

27

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 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

28

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

University

Villanova Universit

y

Grand Valley State

University

University of

Arizona

Total

Respondents 53.1 24.4 8.1 14.4 100

Age 17- 20 21- 24 25- 28 29- above

58.340.51.20

23.176.9

00

38.553.8

07.7

21.760.9134.3

42.853.502.501.3

Year in School Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Student

24.717.625.931.8

0

00

56.443.6

0

023.138.538.5

0

013

17.469.6

0

13.113.133.140.6

0

Sex Female Male

81.218.8

56.443.6

53.846.2

56.543.5

69.430.6

Martial Status Single Married Divorced Engaged Other

91.83.50

3.51.2

1000000

92.37.7000

878.70

4.30

93.13.80

02.50.6

Religious Affiliation Christian Muslim Jewish Other None

87.11.21.20

10.6

89.7000

10.3

69.2000

30.8

63.60

9.14.522.7

83.00.61.90.613.8

Party Affiliation Democratic

3146.4

20.559.0

30.815.4

39.113

29.642.1

29

Republican Independent Other None

4.83.614.3

07.70

12.8

07.746.2

39.10

8.7

10.102.515.7

Table 3 Demographic profiles of the Arab sample by country.

Kuwait

United Arab

Emirates

Lebanon

Palestine

Jordan

Total

Respondents

41.5 12.2 17.6 15.1 13.6 100

Age 17- 20 21- 24 25- 28 29- above

64.320.26.09.5

28401220

17.652.914.714.7

86.713.3

00

2521.410.742.9

49.827.408.014.9

Year in School Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Student

3.650.622.916.9

6

02020528

12.130.321.227.39.1

80.66.50

12.90

03.650

14.332.1

16.030.022.522.09.5

Sex Female Male

71.828.2

6040

27.872.2

0100

42.957.1

47.852.2

Martial Status Single Married Divorced Engaged

76.517.61.24.7

722440

80.60

16.72.8

96.83.200

70.418.5

011.1

78.916.201.003.9

30

Religious Affiliation Muslim Christian

1000

1000

88.911.1

1000

92.97.1

97.102.9

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

31

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.

5. Religion Devotion

To measure the religious devotion of Americans and Arabs, the survey

included two questions for each group. The American sample’s 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.

32

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 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

33

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 Americans'

MeanArabs'Mean

t-testt

t-testd. f.

t-testp

Mean difference

Negative perception of American policies

3.0281 1.7202 -22.56 363 .000 -1.30792

Positive perception of American policies

2.5833 3.8431 15.001 362.156 .000 1.25976


2.8281 2.803 .043 350.852 .966 .00277


3.4213 2.3873 -14.34 .362.539 .000 -1.03393


2.8146 2.7138 1.316 363 .189 .10076


3.1969 4.0407 12.778 362.997 .000 .84378


2.6700 1.8515 6.690 353.906 .000 -.81854

Negative 3.1979 4.4669 22.111 363 .000 1.6898

34

perception of Islam


3.0031 2.6732 -3.104 361.510 .002 -.32995

Table 5: Arab sample accuracy of Americans' views

Americans'

Mean

Arabs' Other

sMean

t-testt

t-testd. f.

t-testp

Mean differenc

e


3.03 3.41 5.605 361.47 .000 .384

Positive perception of America Policies

2.58 1.57 -14.58 363 .000 -1.01


2.83 1.81 -17.01 362.73 .000 -1.02


3.4213 3.8510 6.411 .362.62 .000 .429


2.81 1.56 -18.63 363 .000 -1.25


3.17 2.03 -16.68 361.02 .000 -1.16


2.6700 3.0810 6.319 311.839 .000 .411

35


3.19 1.85 -19.62 361.51 .000 -1.35


3.01 2.04 -10.78 363 .000 -.96

Table 6: American sample accuracy of Arabs' views

Americans' OthersMean

Arabs'

Mean

t-testt

t-testd. f.

t-testp

Mean differenc

e


2.03 1.72 5.49 363 .000 -.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

36


3.56 4.47 -14.69 295.28 .000 -.90


2.65 2.67 -.25 359.53 .80 -.026

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

37

(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.

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

38

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.

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

39

positive perception of American culture and positive perception of American culture

variables.

Table 7: Arab sample congruency variable

Arabs'

Mean

Arabs' OthersMean

t-testt

t-testd. f.

t-testp

Mean differenc

e


1.72 3.41 -26.31 383.49 .000 -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

40


4.47 1.85 42.88 365.01 .000 2.62


2.67 2.04 6.29 367.26 .000 .63

Table 8: American sample congruency variable

Americans'Mean

Americans' OthersMean

t-testt

t-testd. f.

t-testp

Meandifferenc

e


3.03 2.03 16.95 318 .000 .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

Positive perception of

2.67 2.08 12.21 298.66 .000 .59

41

Arab culture


3.19 3.56 -5.32 318 .000 -.36


3.30 2.46 3.78 318 .000 .36

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.

42

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 group’s evaluation of the issues. The

last variable was congruency. Congruency compared each group’s own evaluation of

the issues with the group’s predictions of the other group’s 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

43

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

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 sample’s 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

44

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.

The congruency was the lowest among the three co-orientation variables.

There was no similarity between the Arab sample’s 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.

45

RQ 2: How do Americans view Arabs beliefs and attitudes?

Generally, the American sample’s 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 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

46

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 sample’s evaluations and perceptions that

they 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

47

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 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

48

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.

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.

49

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.

50

Huntington, Samuel P. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-

50.

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).

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.people-press.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.

51

http://www.people-press.org/commentry/display.php3?AnalysisID=77

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=21406

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.

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.people-press.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.

52

http://www.people-press.org/reports/files/report165.pdf

Slade, Shelly. (1981). The Image of the Arab in America: Analysis of a Poll on

American Attitudes. Middle East Journal, 35(2), 143-162.

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.

4-10). 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.

53

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.

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

International.

54

http://www.gannettonline.com/gns/mideast/brand.htm

APPENDIX A. American sample questionnaire

Americans and Arabs:How They Perceive Each Other

Purpose:

I am a master's student at Kansas State University’s 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.

55

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: [email protected]

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

Strongly agree neither agree disagree Stronglyagree nor disagree disagree

America has a responsibility to maintain the world order.

1 2 3 4 5

America supports democracy in the Middle East.

1 2 3 4 5

Arab countries are against democracy in the Middle East.

1 2 3 4 5

America should follow the United Nations' lead for international policy decisions.

1 2 3 4 5

In making international policy decisions, the United States does not take into account the interests of Arab countries.

1 2 3 4 5

56

America is biased toward Israel.

1 2 3 4 5

Arab countries are biased against Israel.

1 2 3 4 5

The war in Iraq is a war against terrorism.

1 2 3 4 5

The war in Iraq is a war to control Mideast oil.

1 2 3 4 5

American policies are causing the conflict in the Middle East.

1 2 3 4 5


Arab countries’ policies are causing the conflicts in the Middle East.

1 2 3 4 5

America is defending democracy by fighting terrorism.

1 2 3 4 5

Arab countries support terrorism.

1 2 3 4 5

Arab countries fight terrorism.

1 2 3 4 5

The war in Iraq has made the world more dangerous.

1 2 3 4 5

American policies are primarily responsible for the lack of prosperity in Arab countries.

1 2 3 4 5

A lack of education and political and economic

1 2 3 4 5

57

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

Arab political attitudes are greatly influenced by religion.

1 2 3 4 5

Americans' political attitudes are greatly influenced by religion.

1 2 3 4 5

Democracy would not work in Arab countries.

1 2 3 4 5

The best way to ensure peace is through military strength.

1 2 3 4 5

Diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace.

1 2 3 4 5


America is a Christian nation.

1 2 3 4 5

Religion plays a major role in creating wars and conflicts in the world.

1 2 3 4 5

Terrorism is justifiable in Islam.

1 2 3 4 5

America's disrespect for the Islamic religion is the root of the problems in the Middle East.

1 2 3 4 5

The differences between Christianity

1 2 3 4 5

58

and Islam are the real cause of the United States and Arab countries’ conflicts.

Islam and Christianity have a lot in common.

1 2 3 4 5

Christianity and Islam are very different.

1 2 3 4 5

Islam itself is an obstacle to Arab prosperity.

1 2 3 4 5

Islam is intolerant of different points of view.

1 2 3 4 5

Islam is fundamentally different from Christianity and Judaism.

1 2 3 4 5

Islam is oppressive toward women.

1 2 3 4 5


Islam is inherently violent. 1 2 3 4 5

Muslims cannot adapt to Western societies.

1 2 3 4 5

Muslims are isolated in Western societies.

1 2 3 4 5

Muslims have a hostile view toward Christianity.

1 2 3 4 5

Americans are generally violent.

1 2 3 4 5

Arabs are aggressive. 1 2 3 4 5

Arab countries are peaceful 1 2 3 4 5

59

nations.

Americans are a peaceful people.

1 2 3 4 5

Arabs are abusive toward women.

1 2 3 4 5

Americans are abusive toward women

1 2 3 4 5

American women are sexually immoral.

1 2 3 4 5

Arab women are sexually immoral.

1 2 3 4 5

Americans lack traditional family ties.

1 2 3 4 5

Arabs have strong family values.

1 2 3 4 5

Americans are open-minded regarding others.

1 2 3 4 5


Arabs have a closed culture that rejects outsiders. 1 2 3 4 5

Americans have strong religious values.

1 2 3 4 5

Arabs have strong religious values.

1 2 3 4 5

Americans treat the elderly with respect.

1 2 3 4 5

Arabs treat the elderly with respect.

1 2 3 4 5

Arabs value life less than other people do.

1 2 3 4 5

60

Americans like to dominate other people.

1 2 3 4 5

The same statements from the previous section are repeated in this section, but this time you will indicate how you think an average Arab would respond to these statements.


America has a responsibility to maintain the world order.

1 2 3 4 5

America supports democracy in the Middle East.

1 2 3 4 5

Arab countries are against democracy in the Middle East.

1 2 3 4 5

America should follow the United Nations' lead for international policy decisions.

1 2 3 4 5

In making international policy decisions, the United States does not take into account the interests of Arab countries.

1 2 3 4 5

61

America is biased toward Israel.

1 2 3 4 5

Arab countries are biased against Israel.

1 2 3 4 5

The war in Iraq is a war against terrorism.

1 2 3 4 5

The war in Iraq is a war to control Mideast oil.

1 2 3 4 5

American policies are causing the conflict in the Middle East.

1 2 3 4 5


Arab countries’ policies are causing the conflicts in the Middle East.

1 2 3 4 5

America is defending democracy by fighting terrorism.

1 2 3 4 5

Arab countries support terrorism.

1 2 3 4 5

Arab countries fight terrorism.

1 2 3 4 5

The war in Iraq has made the world more dangerous.

1 2 3 4 5

American policies are primarily responsible for the lack of prosperity in Arab countries.

1 2 3 4 5

A lack of education and political and economic systems in Arab countries are the main

1 2 3 4 5

62

obstacles to their prosperity.

Arab political attitudes are greatly influenced by religion.

1 2 3 4 5

Americans' political attitude are greatly influenced by religion.

1 2 3 4 5

Democracy would not work in Arab countries.

1 2 3 4 5

The best way to ensure peace is through military strength.

1 2 3 4 5

Diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace.

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly agree neither agree disagree Strongly agree nor disagree disagree

America is a Christian nation.

1 2 3 4 5

Religion plays a major role in creating wars and conflicts in the world.

1 2 3 4 5

Terrorism is justifiable in Islam.

1 2 3 4 5

America's disrespect for the Islamic religion is the root of the problems in the Middle East.

1 2 3 4 5

The differences between Christianity and Islam are the real cause of the United States and Arab countries’ conflicts.

1 2 3 4 5

63

Islam and Christianity have a lot in common.

1 2 3 4 5

Christianity and Islam are very different.

1 2 3 4 5

Islam itself is an obstacle to Arab prosperity.

1 2 3 4 5

Islam is intolerant of different points of view.

1 2 3 4 5

Islam is fundamentally different from Christianity and Judaism.

1 2 3 4 5

Islam is oppressive toward women.

1 2 3 4 5


Islam is inherently violent. 1 2 3 4 5

Muslims cannot adapt to Western societies.

1 2 3 4 5

Muslims are isolated in Western societies.

1 2 3 4 5

Muslims have a hostile view toward Christianity.

1 2 3 4 5

Americans are generally violent.

1 2 3 4 5

Arabs are aggressive. 1 2 3 4 5

Arab countries are peaceful nations.

1 2 3 4 5

Americans are a peaceful people.

1 2 3 4 5

64

Arabs are abusive toward women.

1 2 3 4 5

Americans are abusive toward women

1 2 3 4 5

American women are sexually immoral.

1 2 3 4 5

Arab women are sexually immoral.

1 2 3 4 5

Americans lack traditional family ties.

1 2 3 4 5

Arabs have strong family values.

1 2 3 4 5

Americans are open-minded regarding others.

1 2 3 4 5


Arabs have a closed culture that rejects outsiders. 1 2 3 4 5

Americans have strong religious values.

1 2 3 4 5

Arabs have strong religious values.

1 2 3 4 5

Americans treat the elderly with respect.

1 2 3 4 5

Arabs treat the elderly with respect.

1 2 3 4 5

Arabs value life less than other people do.

1 2 3 4 5

Americans like to dominate other people.

1 2 3 4 5

65

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

66

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

How many hours per day, on average, do you spend browsing the internet for news or other political material? (Place a check)


How many hours per day, on average, do you spend listening to the radio for news or other political material? (Place a check)


How many days per week do you read a newspaper? (Place a check)

______ 0 day ______ 1 day

67

______ 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______________)

Background What year are you in school? (Circle)

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Student

Sex: (Circle)

Male Female

Marital Status: (Circle)

Single Married Divorced Engaged Other

Religious Affiliation: (Circle)

Christian Muslim Jewish Other______ Non

Party Affiliation: (Circle)

Democratic Republican Independent Other Non

68

Field of study:

Age:

Nationality:

General Information

Have you been in an Arab country before? (Circle)

Yes No

If so, where?___________

How long did you stay there? ____________ How familiar do you believe you are with Arab culture? (Circle)

Not at all Very Familiar 1 2 3 4 5

Religion

How often do you attend religious services? (Circle)

Once or more Once or twice A few times Seldom Never a week a month a year

How important is religion in your life? (Circle)

Not Very important Fairly important Very important 1 2 3 4 5

69

APPENDIX B. Arab sample questionnaire

واألمــريـكــي الــعــربـــي الشــعـــباآلخر إلي منهم كل ينظر كيف

البحث :هدفو التوافق درجة معرفة هو اإلستبيان هذا الهدفمن

األمريكيون و العرب المواطنون نظرة اإلختالففيالعائلية القيم و التقاليد و العادات و الدين و للسياسة

علىعالقة اإلختالفات هذه تأثير و اإلنسانية ومبنية. عبارات و إسئلة يتضمن اإلستبيان هذا الشعبين . قد عبارة أي وجدت إذا موضوعية علمية بحوث علىأو مسيئة األحوال من حال أي في رأيك في تراها

70

فيعدم, الكاملة الحرية لديك الحالة هذه في جارحةاإلستبيان .إكمال

عامة إرشادات :

يقارب ما اإلسئلة علىجميع اإلجابة مدة تستغرق . أجزاء من جزء كل فيمقدمة توجد دقيقة ثالثين

. اإلجابة قبل اإلجابة طريقة تبين إرشادات اإلستبياناإلرشادات قراءة .الرجاء

هي للماجستير. إجابتك الباحث رسالة من جزء اإلستبيان هذا لبحثا في قيمة مساهمة .

للعبارات أورفضك موافقتك درجة يوضح الذي الرقم حول دائرة التالية ضع

أعارض و الأوافق أوافق أوافقأعارض

بشدة ال أعارض بشدة

5 4 3 2 1 عن مسؤولة أمريكاالنظام حفظ

العالمي

5 4 3 2 1 تدعم أمريكافي الديمقراطية

األوسط الشرق

71

5 4 3 2 1 ضد العربية الدولفي الديمقراطية


5 4 3 2 1 إتباع أمريكا على يجبالدولية القرارات

المتحدة لألمم

5 4 3 2 1 , قراراتها صنع فيبعين التأخذ أمريكا

الدول مصالح اإلعتبارالعربية

5 4 3 2 1 دائما متحيزة أمريكاإسرائيل لمصحلة

5 4 3 2 1 متحيزة العربية الدولإسرائيل ضد دائما

5 4 3 2 1 هي العراق في الحرباإلرهاب ضد حرب

5 4 3 2 1 هي العراق في الحربفي للتحكم حرب

الشرق في النفطاألوسط

5 4 3 2 1 األمريكية السياساتفي األزمات سبب




5 4 3 2 1 العربية السياساتفي األزمات سبب

72


5 4 3 2 1 عن تدافع أمريكياخالل من الديقراطية

اإلرهاب ضد حربها

تدعم 1 2 3 4 5 العربية الدولاإلرهاب

5 4 3 2 1 تحارب العربية الدولاإلرهاب

5 4 3 2 1 العراق في الحربآمن غير العالم جعلت

5 4 3 2 1 األمريكية السياسةفي رئيسي سببإزدهار و تقدم إعاقة

العربية الدول

5 4 3 2 1 النظام ضعفالسياسي و التعليمي

العقبة هو اإلقتصادي وو لإلزدهار الرئيسية

الدول في التقدمالعربية

5 4 3 2 1 في بشدة يؤثر الدينالسياسية التوجهات

العرب لدى

5 4 3 2 1 في بشدة يؤثر الدينالسياسية التوجهات

األمريكيين لدى

5 4 3 2 1 تصلح ال الديمقراطيةالدول في تطبق أن

73

العربية

5 4 3 2 1 لضمان طريقة أفضلهو العالمي السالم

القوة إستخدامالعسكرية



5 4 3 2 1 لضمان طريقة أفضلهو العالمي السالم

الدبلوماسي الخيار

5 4 3 2 1 مسيحية دولة أمريكا

5 4 3 2 1 دورا تلعب األديانخلق في رئيسيااألزمات و الحروب

العالم في

5 4 3 2 1 في ر �ر� م�ب اإلرهاباإلسالم

5 4 3 2 1 أمريكا إحترام عدمهو اإلسالمي للدينالعرب مع خالفها أصل

5 4 3 2 1 اإلسالم بين اإلختالفاتهي المسيحية و

في الحقيقي السببو أمريكا بين النزاع

العربية الدول

5 4 3 2 1 مشتركة قواسم توجدو اإلسالم بين كثيرة

74

المسيحية

5 4 3 2 1 بين كبير أختالف هناكالمسيحية و اإلسالم

5 4 3 2 1 عقبة ذاته بحد اإلسالموتقدم إزدهار في

العرب

5 4 3 2 1 اليتقبل اإلسالماألخرى النظر وجهات

5 4 3 2 1 جذريا يختلف اإلسالماليهودية عن

والمسيحية

5 4 3 2 1 المرأه يظلم اإلسالم



5 4 3 2 1 عنف دين اإلسالمبالفطرة

5 4 3 2 1 ال المسلمونفي التكيف يستطيعوا

الغربية المجتمعات

5 4 3 2 1 معزولون المسلمونالمجتمعات في

الغربية

5 4 3 2 1 لديهم المسلمونتجاه عدائية نظرة

المسيحي الدين

75

5 4 3 2 1 عنيفون األمريكيونعام بشكل

5 4 3 2 1 عدوانيون العرب

5 4 3 2 1 شعوبها العربية الدولمسالمة

5 4 3 2 1 األمريكي الشعبمسالم شعب

5 4 3 2 1 للمرأه يسئون العرب

5 4 3 2 1 يسئون األمريكيونللمرأه

5 4 3 2 1 األمريكية المرأهأخالقيا فاسدة

5 4 3 2 1 فاسدة العربية المرأهأخالقيا

5 4 3 2 1 عند العائلية الروابطضعيفة األمريكيين

أعارض أعارض و الأوافق أوافق أوافقبشدة ال أعارض بشدة

5 4 3 2 1 قيم لديهم العربقوية عائيلية

5 4 3 2 1 منفتحون األمريكيوناآلخرين تجاه

76

5 4 3 2 1 عادات لديهم العربتجعلهم وتقاليدمنغلقين

الغرباء ويرفضون

5 4 3 2 1 قيم لديهم األمريكيونقوية دينية

5 4 3 2 1 قيم لديهم العربقوية دينية

5 4 3 2 1 يعاملون األمريكيونبإحترام السن كبار

5 4 3 2 1 كبار يعاملون العرببإحترام السن

5 4 3 2 1 للحياة العرب تقديراألخرين تقدير من أقل

لها

5 4 3 2 1 يحبون األمريكيونعلى السيطرة

األخرين

77

لكن و السابقة نفسالعبارات تقرأ سوف الجزء، هذا فيتتوقع أن منك المطلوب المرة هذه المواطن في الأمريكي رأي

الذي الرقم على دائرة وضع خالل العباراتمن هذه فيتتوقعه الذي الرأي .يمثل



5 4 3 2 1 مسؤولة أمريكاالنظام حفظ عن

العالمي

5 4 3 2 1 تدعم أمريكافي الديمقراطية


5 4 3 2 1 ضد العربية الدولفي الديمقراطية


5 4 3 2 1 أمريكا على يجبالقرارات إتباع

لألمم الدوليةالمتحدة

5 4 3 2 1 , قراراتها صنع فيبعين التأخذ أمريكا

مصالح اإلعتبارالعربية الدول

5 4 3 2 1 متحيزة أمريكا

78

لمصحلة دائماإسرائيل

5 4 3 2 1 العربية الدولضد دائما متحيزة

إسرائيل

5 4 3 2 1 العراق في الحربضد حرب هي

اإلرهاب

5 4 3 2 1 العراق في الحربللتحكم حرب هيفي النفط في


5 4 3 2 1 السياساتسبب األمريكيةفي األزماتاألوسط الشرق



5 4 3 2 1 العربية السياساتفي األزمات سبب


5 4 3 2 1 عن تدافع أمريكيامن الديقراطيةضد حربها خالل

اإلرهاب

العربية 1 2 3 4 5 الدولاإلرهاب تدعم

5 4 3 2 1 العربية الدول

79

اإلرهاب تحارب

5 4 3 2 1 العراق في الحربغير العالم جعلت

آمن

5 4 3 2 1 األمريكية السياسةفي رئيسي سبب

و تقدم إعاقةالدول إزدهارالعربية

5 4 3 2 1 النظام ضعفو التعليمي

و السياسيهو اإلقتصادي

الرئيسية العقبةالتقدم و لإلزدهارالعربية الدول في

5 4 3 2 1 بشدة يؤثر الدينالتوجهات في

لدى السياسيةالعرب

5 4 3 2 1 بشدة يؤثر الدينالتوجهات في

لدى السياسيةاألمريكيين

5 4 3 2 1 ال الديمقراطيةتطبق أن تصلح

العربية الدول في

5 4 3 2 1 طريقة أفضلالسالم لضمان

هو العالميالقوة إستخدامالعسكرية

80



5 4 3 2 1 طريقة أفضلالسالم لضمان

الخيار هو العالميالدبلوماسي

5 4 3 2 1 دولة أمريكامسيحية

5 4 3 2 1 دورا تلعب األديانخلق في رئيسيااألزمات و الحروب

العالم في

5 4 3 2 1 في ر �ر� م�ب اإلرهاباإلسالم

5 4 3 2 1 إحترام عدمللدين أمريكا

أصل هو اإلسالميالعرب مع خالفها

5 4 3 2 1 بين اإلختالفاتو اإلسالم

هي المسيحيةالحقيقي السبب

بين النزاع فيالدول و أمريكا

العربية

5 4 3 2 1 قواسم توجدكثيرة مشتركة

و اإلسالم بينالمسيحية

81

5 4 3 2 1 كبير أختالف هناكو اإلسالم بين

المسيحية

5 4 3 2 1 ذاته بحد اإلسالمإزدهار في عقبة

العرب وتقدم

5 4 3 2 1 اليتقبل اإلسالمالنظر وجهاتاألخرى

5 4 3 2 1 يختلف اإلسالماليهودية عن جذرياوالمسيحية

5 4 3 2 1 يظلم اإلسالمالمرأه



5 4 3 2 1 عنف دين اإلسالمبالفطرة

5 4 3 2 1 ال المسلمونالتكيف يستطيعوا

المجتمعات فيالغربية

5 4 3 2 1 المسلمونفي معزولون

المجتمعاتالغربية

5 4 3 2 1 لديهم المسلمونتجاه عدائية نظرة

82

المسيحي الدين

5 4 3 2 1 األمريكيونبشكل عنيفون

عام

5 4 3 2 1 عدوانيون العرب

5 4 3 2 1 العربية الدولمسالمة شعوبها

5 4 3 2 1 األمريكي الشعبمسالم شعب

5 4 3 2 1 يسئون العربللمرأه

5 4 3 2 1 يسئون األمريكيونللمرأه

5 4 3 2 1 األمريكية المرأهأخالقيا فاسدة

5 4 3 2 1 العربية المرأهأخالقيا فاسدة

5 4 3 2 1 العائلية الروابطاألمريكيين عند

ضعيفة

أعارض أعارض و الأوافق أوافق أوافقبشدة ال أعارض بشدة

5 4 3 2 1 قيم لديهم العرب

83

قوية عائيلية

5 4 3 2 1 األمريكيونتجاه منفتحون

اآلخرين

5 4 3 2 1لديهم العربوتقاليد عادات

منغلقين تجعلهمالغرباء ويرفضون

5 4 3 2 1 لديهم األمريكيونقوية دينية قيم

5 4 3 2 1 قيم لديهم العربقوية دينية

5 4 3 2 1 األمريكيونكبار يعاملون

بإحترام السن

5 4 3 2 1 يعاملون العرببإحترام السن كبار

5 4 3 2 1 العرب تقديرمن أقل للحياة

لها األخرين تقدير

5 4 3 2 1 يحبون األمريكيونعلى السيطرة

األخرين

أحصائية أغراض في فقط تستخدم سوف التالية األسئلة

84

المناسبة اإلجابة حول دائره ضع

األمريكية؟ المتحدة الواليات في المسيحيين نسبة هي ما

100% 30% 80% 25% 50%

األمريكية؟ المتحدة الواليات مدن ليستمن التالية المدن من أي

أنجولوس لوس ميامي نيويورك ليدز

المسيحي؟ الدين المقدسفي الكتاب هو ما

إيسترن اإلنجيل عيسى التوراة

األمريكية؟ المتحدة الواليات عاصمة هي من

كاليفورنيا فلوريدا واشنطن نيويورك

المناسبة ( العبارة عالمة\ (X أمام ضع

البرامج, و األخبار فيمشاهدة اليوم في تقضي الوقت من كم تقريبا؟ التلفاز على السياسية

ساعة من ______ أقلساعتين إلي ______ساعة

ساعات ثالث إلي ______ ساعتينساعات أربع إلي ساعات ______ثالث

ساعات خمس إلي ساعات ______ أربعساعات سنة إلي ساعات ______ خمس

ساعات من ستة أكثر ______

85

السياسية, البرامج و األخبار لمتابعة اليوم في تقضي الوقت من كم تقريبا؟ اإلنترنت على





البرامج, و لألخبار لإلستماع اليوم في تقضي الوقت من كم تقريبا؟ الراديو على السياسية





) ) ؟, اليومية الصحف الصحيفه تقرأ األسبوع في يوم كم تقريبا

_____ قرأ أ ال1_____2_____3_____4_____5_____6_____

األسبوع أيام _____كل

) . لألخبار كمصدر عليها أساسإعتمادك على التالية اإلعالمية الوسائل رتب1 , عليه تعتمد مصدر (6أكثر عليه تعتمد مصدر أقل

_______التلفزيون_______ األنترنت

اليومية _______ الصحف_______ الراديو

_______المجالت(________ حدد ( _______أخرى

86

المناسبة اإلجابة حول دائره ضع

: الدراسية عليا 5 4 3 2 1 سنتك دراسات

أنثى: الجنس ذكر

اإلجتماعية مطلق: الحالة خاطب متزوج أعزب أخرى

______________)الديانة حدد: ( أخرى مسيحي مسلم

_________:التخصصالعلمي

_________:العمر

_______:الجنسية

األمريكية؟ المتحدة الواليات زيارة لك سبق ال هل نعم

, والية؟ أي في نعم الإلجابة كانت _________إذا

كانتمدة ؟إقامتككم ______________

, األمريكية؟ بالثقافة معرفتك مامدى إعتقادك في

معرف أي لدي ليس جدا عارف

1 2 3 4 5

اليوم؟ في تصلي مرة كم

1 2 3 4 5

حياتك؟ في الدين أهمية ما

إطالقا مهم غير األهمية متوسط جدا مهم

87

1 2 3 4 5

88

Documents

Master Thesis