No description available.

Master of Science / Department of Psychological Sciences / Donald A. Saucier / The current research examined whether participants’ levels of racial prejudice impact their perceptions of a Black racial slur (“nigga”) used by a Black individual toward a White individual. The “racism justification hypothesis” predicts racial prejudice will be negatively related to perceptions of offensiveness due to motivations to trivialize racial slurs which allows for increased use of the slur by individuals higher in prejudice. The “hierarchy defense hypothesis” predicts racial prejudice will be positively related to more negative perceptions of the slur due to White individuals seeking to resist affiliation with Black individuals and perceiving affiliative attempts as threatening. Consistent with the hierarchy defense hypothesis, the results showed racial prejudice predicted greater offensive and negatively expressive perceptions, and lower positively expressive perceptions following “nigga” being used by a Black individual toward a White individual (Study 1). In Study 2, the current research examined whether motivations to trivialize racial slurs (i.e., racism justification) versus participants’ experiences of threat (i.e., hierarchy defense) mediated the relationships between racial prejudice and perceptions of “nigga” used by a Black individual toward a White individual. Consistent with the hierarchy defense hypothesis, racial prejudice, through status hierarchy threat, predicted greater offensive and negatively expressive perceptions, and lower positively expressive perceptions. The racism justification hypothesis was also supported. Participants’ levels of racial prejudice, through racism trivialization, were generally related to lower perceptions of the slur as offensive and greater perceptions of the slur as positively expressive. The current research then examined participants’ perceptions of “nigga” reciprocated by the White individual toward the Black individual. Interestingly, racial prejudice, through status hierarchy threat, predicted greater offensive and negatively expressive perceptions and lower positively expressive perceptions. Racial prejudice, through racism trivialization, predicted generally lower offensive perceptions and greater positively expressive perceptions. Thus, participants may have used their experiences of threat as justification for explicit prejudice toward the Black individual (i.e., perceiving the slur as more offensive and negative), while individuals who experienced trivialization motivations attempted to decrease their experiences of suppression factors by perceiving the slur as less offensive, allowing for increased use of the slur. Implications for these findings are discussed.

The purpose of this research is to explore the benefits of chant music and its pedagogical applications for the individual trombonist or ensemble member. Several common method books are examined and categorized as either musical exercise or lyrical etude. Through this analysis I highlight a gap between the two method types that can be bridged through practice of chant. I support this claim through an analysis of chant characteristics that make it an ideal candidate to encourage pure sound production and connection in a performable work. Practice of chant in trombone chamber or choir ensembles will also encourage the development of skills necessary to play as a member of a group. I propose regular practice of this music will aid the ensemble in blend and balance, intonation, articulation, and slide coordination. The final chapter of the research provides the reader with a brief summary of the works refenced to promote further study as one chooses.

Many of us have grown up hearing or using words meant as insults or negative adjectives that were in fact names for social groups. Most of them have gone unquestioned in the mainstream consciousness, but the term Gay in the generally negative meaning has in the past years been given attention as offensive and homophobic, with debates emerging in response over whether or not this is true, particularly on the internet. It is the articles and forum threads from these debates that make out the empirical material for a qualitative study as I ask what these people’s thoughts are about this term and how it is perceived. After a qualitative coding and analysis of these texts, and interpretation of the results based on Erving Goffman’s theory of Phantom acceptance and stigma terms, Judith Butler’s theory of performativity, Ferdinand de Sassure’s theory of signifier and signified and how it connects to the community and Baudrillards theory of simulacra, this is the principal conclusion that I have drawn: For some of the people in this debate, the term Gay and its use is about homophobia and heterosexism, though mostly it’s not overt but a subconscious part of the continued dehumanization and stigmatization of homo- and bisexual people. This is a position I call The socially focused skepticism. Others distance themselves from this idea, talking about language development, the lack of inherent meaning of words and freedom of expression. Using Baudrillard for guidance, I interpret this as having a different, more abstract view of language than those who connect the term to heterosexism, and with this focus on language I name this position The language centered defense. Yet another group frame their reasoning about the term in compromise, preferring to limit their use of it to certain contexts rather than disposing the habit entirely or risk causing offense. To these people, whether or not the word is homophobic is less relevant to the discussion than showing respect for how it can be perceived, which gives their position the name The compromising position.