15/21. That's only a little more than half. What's more revealing is when they actually sat the kids down and talked to them, rather than forcing them to pick one or the other. A lot of them didn't want to pick either. And when they did pick, it mostly came down to a color preference (not a skin color preference). Again, as I said, white/blue/gold/light colors are seen as 'good' whole red/brown/black/purple/orange/dark colors are seen as 'bad'. Has almost nothing to do with skin color itself. If it did, the kids would pick the whitest ones, not the second-whitest. The phrases enforces a choice. Color association does the rest. A more fair test would be to have a group of a variety of skin tones (not just a binary choice), and ask "if any" are bad. If so, point out the bad ones. Be sure to include other stereotypical and associated traits of good/evil things. Stuff like halos/horns, red skin tone, fangs, and a variety of other traits. I guarantee it'll boil down to associations. The things that are similar to stereotypical evil will be labeled as such. And things that are similar to stereotypical good will be labeled as such. With skin tone having very little to do with it. By presenting two binary options, with the only difference being skin tone, you are forcing the decision to be about skin tone. If you naturally have to choose one, that means one will be selected against. If the only difference was long/short hair, you'd get the exact same response. Please tell me what the "ideal" result is. That the white doll one is picked as bad? Is that better? As I said, the phrasing implies you must choose one. And the results show it was not unanimous in the slightest. A sample size of 21 isn't all that great either, and most seemed to have no problems with either doll, often hesitating before their answers and straining to thing of reasons. Amusingly, they say one is bad, and their reasoning is because it does bad things. Yet, that's the definition of bad. Of course the bad one will do bad things. Also of note, one kid couldn't associate with either doll, but strained himself to pick one and come up with a reason, simply due to the nature of the test. Another common thing (towards the end of the video) is that "different=bad, same=good". With the test that has 5 pictures on it, the only difference is again, skin tone. Asking "why" is going to only net responses about that. Modify them, and then ask the reasoning. "Because he has horns". "Because he has a halo" will most likely be the reasons. No skin color bias. The only valid question/response would be "show the color adults like/don't like". Which isn't even a bias on the kid's part, it's just their observation.
I'm saying that the conclusion drawn doesn't follow from the experiment. As I said, to be sure that skin tone was the key factor, and not simply the only possible difference to distinguish against, they need more colors (even unrealistic ones), and varying traits that can influence the decision as well. With the test currently set up as it is, you force the decision to be about the color of the doll, given that it's the only difference. So really the test could only go one of three ways: white=evil, black=evil or a roughly 50/50 split. As it so happens, we get roughly a 50/50 split, with a bit of a lean on black=evil. That doesn't say or prove anything at all. Is there still plenty of racism to go around? Sure. Is this racism being taught to kids? Sure. Does this experiment demonstrate racism? Nope. The sample size is also pathetically low. Only 20 kids? You could easily round up 20 kids, prepare them by giving them answers, and rewarding those answers after the experiment. Then only film the responses. You'd get the exact same response. As I said, the phrasing is awful (implying you must pick one), the set up is awful (having the only difference be skin color, thus making it the distinguishing choice), the filming is awful (cutting away from kids that don't give the proper response), and so on. So many problems with the experiment itself to be able to draw anything from it.
I find it hard to believe that you don't understand the point of the experiment. The issue at hand was whether or not African-American children (negros back then - this is 1938 we're talking about, concurrent with Adolf Hitler arguing you could tell a Jew by the size of his nose) felt themselves inferior to white children. The fact you want to see whether or not kids feel inferior or superior to green children illustrates that you're either trolling or clueless. I have no skin in the game. I'm just relaying fundamental experiments hallowed in Psych 101 classes for the past 70 years. But I'm frankly astonished by your steadfast insistence on the outright invalidity of the data.
Then, once again, they should introduce other alternatives. Perhaps it's simply "different" that they like. Not necessarily white skin. In terms of how they felt about themselves, the choice was either "yes, like me" or "no, not like me". So even if that's what you were looking for (though it's fairly obvious that they are trying to show racial bias), it's still a flawed experiment. Why? Do you have a problem with green skin? Do you feel white/black skin is superior? This is exactly the reason the options should be included. People are astonished by me often. My point still stands. It's a shit experiment. I see what they are trying to get at, but they are doing it horribly. Though I am curious, has this test been done in predominantly african communities? Or simply in the US and other white-skinned areas? There's a lot of factors to consider, and this experiment doesn't isolate any of them. Perhaps it's simply the fact that it's 'different' that they like. The environment they grew up in is definitely a factor. Is the preference social or genetic? Is it really a skin tone issue, or just a case of color association? Have they tried the experiment substituting real kids/babies for the dolls? Was the result the same? What about a dark haired and light skinned doll? Perhaps it's the hair color they are connecting to. Are we sure that the kids weren't instructed to give certain answers? How can we be sure? As I said though, if the only difference is skin color, the selection MUST be about skin color. And since the question is phrased as a matter of picking only one, one must necessarily be picked as "better". It's fundamentally flawed. What's the ideal/desired result, exactly? Honestly, it looks exactly like what you'd expect. Roughly half would pick one doll, and the other half would pick the other doll. Naturally there's a skewed result (not perfectly equal), but that's to be expected.The issue at hand was whether or not African-American children (negros back then - this is 1938 we're talking about, concurrent with Adolf Hitler arguing you could tell a Jew by the size of his nose) felt themselves inferior to white children.
The fact you want to see whether or not kids feel inferior or superior to green children illustrates that you're either trolling or clueless.
But I'm frankly astonished by your steadfast insistence on the outright invalidity of the data.