Psychology, 2010, 1, 116-127
doi:10.4236/psych.2010.12016 Published Online June 2010 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/psych)
Ethnic Identification, Attitudes, and Group
Relations in Guatemala*
Judith L. Gibbons, Brien K. Ashdown#
Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, USA.
Received March 16th, 2010; revised April 5th, 2010; accepted April 10th, 2010.
ABSTRACT
Despite many studies that address relations between the two major ethnic groups—Indigenous and Ladino—in Guate-
mala, there are no scales devised specifically to measure ethnic attitudes. Participants (196 university students) indi-
cated agreemen t or disag reement on a four-poin t scale with a large pool of items exp ressing positive and negative atti-
tudes towards the two group s, and, on a line from pure Indigenous to pure Lad ino, their own ethnic identification (the
label they use to describe their ethnicity). Reliable scales measuring Attitudes toward Indigenous (AIG ) and Attitudes
toward Ladinos (ALG) were constructed, and 35% of the pa rticipants claimed mixed ethnic identificatio n. Ethnic iden-
tification was related to attitudes, with groups demonstrating in-group favoritism; that is, participants expressed more
positive attitudes toward their own ethnic group. The results imply that the dichotomous categories of Ladino and In-
digenous are inadequate for measuring ethnicity in Guatemala. The newly developed attitude scales may be used to
advance knowledge about ethnic relations in Guatemala and to test the generality of findings relating to relations be-
tween dominant and subord inate group s.
Keywords: Gu at em al a, Ethnic Identification, Ladino, Indi g e no us, Maya, Ethnic Attitudes
1. Introduction
“Guatemalans, we are a multiethnic, religiously and cul-
turally plural country… So, why is there inequality be-
tween Indigenous and Ladinos?… everything depends on
how we educate our children…” [1].
Ethnic relations have a long an d conflict-r idden history
in Guatemala. Numerous scholars, especially anthropolo-
gists and historians, have examined ethnicity and its con-
sequences in both the pueblos and urban areas of Guate-
mala [2-7]. Originating with the Spanish conquest in
1523, lineage and blood were used to justify exploitation
and oppression of Indigenous persons. For centuries the
ethnic group defined as Spaniards or criollos (“home
grown” or locally born persons of pure Spanish descent)
was the source of the Guatemalan oligarchy [8]. T hroug h-
out colonial times, independence, and into the present,
relations between Indigenous persons and those of Euro-
pean or mixed descent have been characterized by eth-
nocentrism, paternalism, and discrimination against the
Indigenous people [4,7,9]. Although the 1996 Peace Ac-
cords that ended the 30-year armed conflict in Guatemala
promised rights for Indigenous people, those accords
have yet to be put into practice. An excellent summary of
the history of ethnic relations in Guatemala is provided
by the two volume series Ethnicity, state, and nation in
Guatemala [10,11] and by its sequel Ethnic relations in
Guatemala, 1944-2000 [12]. Those three volumes docu-
ment ethnic divisions, attempts to “civilize” and “Ladi-
nize” Indigenous persons, and continued ethnic dispari-
ties within Guatemala.
Today, ethnic relation s are part of the public d iscourse.
Newspapers such as the Prensa Libre frequently feature
articles and commentary on ethnic discrimination in
Guatemala, and a prominent non-profit foundation El
Centro de Investigaciones Regionales de Mesoamérica
(CIRMA) sponsored an exhibit and a book series titled
Por qué estamos como estamos (Why we are like we are)
that highlighted ethnicity. The quote that introduces this
article represents part of a letter to the editor of Prensa
Libre. Ethnicity is also part of the political arena with a
pan-Maya movement gaining increasing momentum [5,
13]. A presidential commission, Comisión Presidencial
contra la Discriminación y el Racismo [Presidential Com-
mission against Discrimination and Racism]—was char-
ged in 2007 with investigating and developing plans to
*An earlier version of this research was presented at the annual meeting
of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research, San Antonio, Texas, 2007.
#Now Brien K. Ashdown is in Department of Psychology, University o
f
Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, USA.

Ethnic Identification, Attitudes, and Group Relations in Guatemala 117
eliminate discrim ination and racism in Guatemala [14,15].
According to the latest census of Guatemala, the two
major ethnic groups today are Ladino persons (58.3%)
and Indigenous persons (40%). Within Guatemala La-
dinos are defined as non-Indigenous persons or persons
of mixed Indigenous and European descent. Most In-
digenous in Guatemala are of Mayan heritage, speak one
of the 22 different Mayan languages, and often identify
themselves by the language they speak. Among those the
most numerous are the K’iche’, who represent over one
million persons, and the Kaqchikel and the Q’eqchi’, who
are slightly less numerous with about 800,000 speakers
each [16]. It is important to note that the ethnic categories
are socially constructed. For various reasons, people can,
and do, change their ethnic identification—the way they
label or describe their ethnicity. In Guatemala, some in-
dividuals may adopt the Spanish language and Western
dress, and claim a non-Indigenous identity. The process
of the transformation of individuals or communities from
Indige n o us to Ladino ha s b een called Ladinizatio n [17].
A report by the Programa de las Naciones Unidas para
el Desarrollo Humano [United Nations Human Devel-
opment Programme] provided an extensive analysis of
ethnicity and its correlates within Guatemala [16]. There
is clear evidence for ethnic economic stratification. For
example, approximately 80% of Indigenous persons live
in poverty or extreme poverty, whereas approximately
45% of non-Indigenous live in poverty. There are almost
no Indigenous persons represented in the highest socio-
economic strata. Indigenous persons living in rural areas
are most likely to be extremely poor; Thirty-eig ht percent
of rural Indigenous persons earn less than one US dollar
per day. Extreme poverty is also unequally distributed
among the different language groups with almost 50% of
rural Q’eqchi’ speakers earning less than one USD per
day. The GINI ratio (a measure of economic disparity) of
Guatemala is one of the highest in the world, at 0.57 in
comparison to the United States at 0.41 and Japan at 0.25
[16].
Occupations are also distributed by ethnicity with the
majority of Indigenous persons engaged in agriculture or
the informal sector; non-Indigenous persons are more
likely to be engaged in commercial or service enterprises
[16].
Education is also unequally distributed. Thirty-eight pe-
rcent of Indigenous persons have no education and 50%
are educated only at the primary level; of non-Indigenous
persons, those percentages are 17% and 50% respectively.
Only 1% of Indigenous persons have post- secondary
education. Literacy rates of young people (ages 15 to 24)
reach 89.3% for Ladino persons but are lower for all
Mayan language groups, for example the K’iche’ (73%),
the Kaqchikel (82%), and the Q’eqchi’ (63%) [16]. In
rural areas fewer than one third of Indigenous women can
read or write [18]. Even though bilingual education in
Spanish and the local Mayan language was guaranteed as
part of the Peace Accords, of the 7,832 schools located in
areas with a bilingual population, fewer than one fourth
offer bilingual education [16].
There are similar ethnic disparities in health care. For
example, with regard to childhood illnesses, over half of
Indigenous persons treated their children themselves, and
fewer than one fifth sought attention from doctors. The
disparity with non-Indigenous persons is, in part, due to
the higher numbers of Indigenous persons living in rural
areas with less access to health facilities. But the conse-
quence is that infant and childhood mortality rates are
higher for Indigenous children than for Ladino children
[16].
Although Guatemala is ranked overall as having me-
dium human development as measured by he Human
Development Index (based on health, education, and in-
come indicators), the index is lower for Indigenous per-
sons than for Ladino persons. For Ladinos the Index is
0.70, for Kaqchikel speakers 0.61, and for K’iche’ speak-
ers 0.55 [1 6 ].
In 2005, the Vox Latina-Prensa Libre [16] did a study
of social attitudes based on a representative sample of
Guatemalans. The results documented widespread agree-
ment that Indigenous persons in Guatemala face dis-
crimination. For example, about three quarters of both
Indigenous persons and Ladino persons responded that it
is easier for light-skinned persons and Ladinos to find
jobs than for dark-skinned persons, and Indigenous. Al-
most 90% of both groups held that Ladinos are treated
better in government and private offices. Slightly fewer
believed that Ladinos were treated better on buses. Social
attitudes between th e two ethnic groups tended to be mu-
tually negative. The majority of those claiming Ladino
ethnicity asserted that Indigenous persons were less
agreeable, less intelligent, less clean, and less honest than
Ladino persons, but also more hardworking. Conversely,
persons claiming Indigenous ethnicity held that Ladinos
were less hardworking, less agreeable, less intelligent,
and less honest. However, the majority of both groups
agreed that the other group had good manners. The groups
disagreed on whether it was better to have a Span ish o r an
Indigenous last name, with the groups showing in-group
favoritism or preference for the last name of their own
group. Reflecting widely-shared stereotypes (oversimpli-
fied images of social groups), the majority of persons in
both groups claimed that Indigenous persons were better
at working in the fields and that Ladinos were better at
working in offices [16].
Psychological studies related to ethnic relations in
Guatemala are scarce. Using a task in which children as-
signed adjectives to their own and other group, Quintana
and his collaborators showed high levels of ethnic preju-
dice among Ladino children living in a primarily K’iche’
Indigenous community. Older children, those with great-
er ethnic and social perspective-taking skills, and those
who had more terms to describe their own ethnicity

Ethnic Identification, Attitudes, and Group Relations in Guatemala 118
showed less prejudiced responses [19]. Another study
conducted within Guatemalan schools showed that chil-
dren sought more help from teachers of their own ethnic-
ity [20]. In addition Ladino teachers were similar to each
other in their perceptions of Mayan students; Mayan
teachers held more diverse views of Ladino students.
Those results suggest that Ladino teachers may hold ste-
reotypes about Mayan students. Falbo and De Baessa [21]
addressed the issue of the value of Mayan (bilingual)
education for Ladino and Indigenous middle school stu-
dents. In a longitudinal study they found that both Ladino
and Indigenous students showed greater academic gains
if they attended Mayan schools. Using the Multiethnic
Identity Measure, a scale developed in the USA (MEIM)
[22] the authors measured ethnic identity and attitudes
toward the other ethn ic group. Those students who se eth-
nic identity increased during the school year also show ed
changes toward more positive attitudes toward the other
group [21].
The pursuit of research on ethnic relations in Guate-
mala is hampered by the absence of scales that measure
attitudes toward the ethnic groups. For example, on the
MEIM, items refer not to specific groups, but to the gen-
eralized other. A sample question is “I like meeting and
getting to know people from ethnic groups other than my
own” [22]. When applied in Guatemala the meaning
might be unclear. For example, K’iche’ Mayans might
interpret the item to apply to other Mayan groups, to La-
dinos, or even to foreign visitors. The development of
scales measuring attitudes towards specific other groups-
those ethnic groups that are important in Guatemala-
would greatly facilitate research on this issue.
Thus, the major purpose of the present study was to
develop scales specifically measuring attitudes toward
Indigenous persons and attitud es towards Lad ino persons,
and to examine attitudes of ethnic groups in Guatemala
toward their own and the other group.
In addition, a number of authors have decried the use
of dichotomous (sometimes called bi-polar) categories to
represent ethnicity in Guatemala. Those authors [17,23]
pointed out that ethnic identification is more complex,
fluid, nuanced, and multifaceted than the dichotomous
categories suggest.
An example of the fluidity of ethnic identification
comes from research by Little [6] in his studies of May-
ans working in markets. He reports examples of unusual
construals of ethnicity. Some Mayan vendors, for exam-
ple, told him that he (a European American) was Indige-
nous. “Thank you, but why?” he asked. The response was
two-fold—because he spoke the Mayan language Ka-
qchikel well, and because he was disparaged and spit at
by some Ladinos for his association with Mayas. So, at
least under some conditions, part of the definition of be-
ing Indigenous was being denigrated by Ladinos. Little [6]
also reported how ethnic identification can be constructed
to serve different purposes. The Mayan vendors often
emphasized their Indigenous characteristics in order to
sell their wares more effectively to tourists. In a survey
among the Mayan vendors, the majority labeled them-
selves as Indigenous but, in one wave of the study, also
Guatemalan [6]. Later they said they had claimed the
Guatemalan label because the city officials who regulate
the vendors’ activities would look more favorably on
them for espousing their national identity. These finding s
show clearly that ethnic identification can be variously
defined and also manipulated to fit the circumstances.
Therefore, a second aim of the present study was to
evaluate a new way to measure ethnic identification in
Guatemala—on a continuum from pure Ladino to pure
Indigenous.
2. Method
2.1 Development of the Items
A pool of potential ite ms was written in Span ish based on
consultation with informants who were diverse in age,
ethnicity, and research experience, and from Guatemalan
newspaper accounts of ethnic relations, government re-
ports, and racist events. We compiled a list of 22 poten-
tial items concerning attitud es toward Ladino p ersons and
29 potential items concerning attitudes toward Indige-
nous persons. Approximately half of the potential items
were positive (e.g. “Indigenous persons face their prob-
lems with a great deal of dignity” or “In general Ladinos
are well brought-up.”) The other half of the potential
items were negative (e.g. “The majority of Indigenous
people speak poor Spanish” or “In general Ladinos are
stuck-up (conceited).”) The scale was a four-point scale
with each point labeled: 1) strongly agree, 2) agree, 3)
disagree, or 4) strongly disagree. Positively worded items
were reverse-scored so that higher values represented
more positive attitudes toward a group.
2.2 Evaluation of the Items
Participants. The participants were 196 university stu-
dents recruited from a private Catholic (n = 136) and a
public (n = 60) university in Guatemala. To ensure geo-
graphic diversity, the private university sample was ad-
ministered at a meeting of students from campuses all
over the country, and the public university sample came
from a campus outside the capital in a region heavily
populated by Indigenous persons. Ages ranged from 18
through 52 (M = 25.77, SD = 6.41). Seventy-six partici-
pants were male (38.8%) and 120 female (61.2%), with
gender unspecified on two questionnaires. Additional
demographic information collected included frequency of
attendance at religious services, marital status, years of
attendance in the university, and father’s occupation. Fa-
ther’s occupation was coded using the Dictionary of Oc-
cupational Titles [24] and then collapsed into two cate-

Ethnic Identification, Attitudes, and Group Relations in Guatemala 119
gories—professional or managerial and non-professional.
Ethnic identification. Ethnic identification was meas-
ured by participants marking a point on a 15 cm line. The
end points of the line were labeled “pure Indigenous” and
“pure Ladino/a” The distance from the left (Indigenous
endpoint) was taken as th e measure of ethnicity.
Social Desirability. Social desirability was measured
by using the 20 item impression management subscale of
the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR)
[25].
Procedure. A recruitment letter approved by the Insti-
tutional Review Board that emphasized the voluntary and
anonymous nature of participation was read to potential
participants and also attached to the questionnaires. Par-
ticipants were recruited from two universities, and com-
pleted the questionnaires under various conditions. The
participants were not given a time limit to complete the
questionnaire packet, but most took about 45 minutes to
complete it. About a third of the participants were ap-
proached by one of the investigators at a university-
sponsored meeting and asked to complete the surveys.
Those who agreed completed the packets in groups of
about 15 participants. The other two-th irds of the partici-
pants were asked to participate by their professors in
university classes. Of those who agreed to participate,
about half were given the packet to take home, fill out,
and return the next class meeting. The other half com-
pleted the packet in a large group in their classroom.
3. Results
3.1 Scale Development
The 29 items relating to attitudes toward Indigenous per-
sons were subjected to an iterative process of examining
the item-scale correlation and eliminating negatively or
poorly correlating items, and arriving at a scale of 23
items with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84 (good). Of the
retained items 14 were positive and 9 were neg ative. The
percent agreement with each of the retained items is pre-
sented in Table 1. This scale was named Attitudes to-
ward Indigenous Persons of Guatemala (AIG). (See Ap-
pendix A.)
Table 1. Percent agreement with AIG items
Item Percent agreement
1. The Indigenous traditions provide a cultural base for Guatemala. 91.5
2. Indigenous children should not wear their traditional clothing in school. 13.6
3. In general, Indigenous people are careless in their personal hygiene. 52.5
4. One should not discriminate against professionals for their ethnicity 81.4
5. The majori t y of Indigenous people speak poor Spanish. 52.5
6. The Indigenous people of Guatemala are very sup e rstitious. 64.4
7. The Indigenous population has a great deal of know ledge. 82.8
8. The rights of Indigenous people should be respected. 89.7
9. The Indigenous communities foster economic development in this cou nt ry. 73.7
10. The majority of the Indigenous population is hardworking. 82.8
11. Indigenous people face their problems with a great deal of dignity . 57.4
12. The accomplishments of the Maya in astronomy, mathematics and medicine make us proud. 93.1
13. All Indigenous people shoul d learn and use their own language to maintain their culture. 87.9
14. It is appro p riate to discriminate against professionals for their ethnicity. 8.8
15. With more political participation from Indigenous people, the country will advance. 67.3
16. Indigenous people are only qualified to fill dome stic and manual labor jobs. 3.5
17. The use of traditional clothing allows Indígenous people to maintain their identity. 80.7
18. The majority of Indigenous people speak a lazy Sp anish. 38.6
19. In general, Indigenous people are careless abo ut their manners. 57.1
20. The country should encourage the inclusion of Indigenou s people in society. 89.5
21. It bothers me when I hear parents tell their children, “Don’t be bad, it makes you seem like an Indian” or
something similar. 83.9
22. I like to associate with Indigenous people. 92.6
23. I joke about Indigenous people with my friends. 28.3

Ethnic Identification, Attitudes, and Group Relations in Guatemala 120
The 22 items relating to attitudes toward Ladino persons
were subjected to the same procedure, resulting in a 14 item
scale with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.79 (acceptable). Of
the retained items, 5 were positive and 9 were negative.
The resulting scale was named Attitudes toward Ladino
Persons of Guatemala (ALG) (See Appendix B). The
percent agreement with each of the retained items is pre-
sented in Table 2.
3.2 Factor Analysis of Scales
Exploratory factor analyses were conducted with each of
the scales, using principal axis factoring in SPSS. Obli-
que rotations were conducted because the factors were
expected to be correlated. Factors with an initial Eigen-
value greater than one were rotated and interpreted.
For the AIG, five factors were identified, accounting
for a total of 41.9% of the variance. The rotated factors
were named Accomplishments, Rejection of Stereotype,
Mayan Culture, Anti-discrimination, and Negative Atti-
tudes. Factor loadings greater than 0.40 are presented in
Table 3.
For the ALG, four factors were identified accounting
for a total of 38.8% of the variance. The rotated factors
were named Rejection of Stereotype, Accomplishments,
High Esteem, and Negative Attitudes. Factor loadings
greater than 0.40 are presented in Table 4.
3.3 Ethnic Identification
With regard to ethnicity, 35.2% of the participants used
the middle portion of the scale (defined as at least 2 cm
from either pole), indicating that they felt themselves to
be a mixture of Ladino/a and Indigenous. In addition,
34.7% identified themselves as Indigenous (within 2 cm
of the left pole) and 30.1% identified as Ladino (within 2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112131415
0
10
20
30
40
Ethnic Identity Score
Frequency
Figure 1. The distribution of ethnic identity marks as mea-
sured from the left endpoint of a 15 cm line
cm of th e right po le). See Figure 1 for the distribu tion of
ethnic identification scores.
3.4 Demographic Variables
Table 5 presents the correlations among demographic
and other variables. Students at the private Catholic Uni-
versity were slightly more likely to be male, to attend
religious services, and to have fathers with professional
occupations. Ethnicity was no t correlated with any of the
other demographic measures, but was significantly cor-
related with ethnic attitudes.
3.5 Relation of Ethnic Identification to Ethnic
Attitudes
Because of the tripolar distribution of ethnic identifica-
tion scores, for analysis scores were divided into tertiles
Table 2. Percent agreement with ALG items
Item Percent agreement
1. Ladinos deserve some type of pu nishment fo r the suffering that they have caused Indigenous people. 20.5
2. When I see Ladi nos in the street, I think bad things about t h em. 6.3
3. In general, Ladinos are well-mannered. 34.9
4. It is difficult to believe that a Ladino person can listen to and un derstand what an Indigenous per son says. 39.5
5. I think that Ladinos, in general, deserve the contempt of Indigenous people. 6.5
6. In general, Ladinos act like they are better than others. 34.8
7. In general, I have less trust in Ladinos than in Ind i genous people. 20.8
8. I feel angry towards Ladinos because they have more opportunities in life. 17.4
9. I admire Ladinos for their accomplishments in g o v er nment, business, and education. 44.3
10. Ladino men have a negative attitude about the role of women. 47.0
11. The majority of Ladinos are “stuck-up.” 36.1
12. The majority of Ladinos speak c orrect Spanish. 30.3
13. Ladino traditions provide a cultural base for Guatemala. 47.1
14. Ladinos deserve a good economic situation because of their effort. 28.8

Ethnic Identification, Attitudes, and Group Relations in Guatemala 121
Table 3. Factor loadings for five factors of the attitudes toward indigenous persons of Guatemala
Item Factor 1
Accomplishments
Factor 2
Rejection of
stereotype
Factor 3
Mayan Culture Factor 4 Anti-discrimination Factor 5 Negative Attitudes
7. Knowledge 0.64
8. Respect for rights 0.63
9. Foster economic
development 0.77
10. Hardworking 0.64
11. Dignity in the face of
problems 0.46
4. Should not discriminate 0.50 0.45
3. Careless in hygiene 0.53
5. Speak bad Spanish 0.71
6. Superstitious 0.48
16. Only manual labor 0.48 0.45
18. Speak lazy Spanish 0.74
2. Traditional clothing in
school 0.45
1. Cultural traditions 0.52
12. Ancient Maya
achievements 0.60
13. Maintain Mayan
languages 0.83
15. Advance throug h
political participation 0.41 –0.52
17. Identity and traditional
clothing 0.60
20. Inclusion in society 0.46
14. OK to discriminate 0.63
22. Like to assoc iate –0.68
Note: Positive Correlations Represent pro-Indigenous Attitudes and Negative Cor re l at i on s R epresent Ne g at i ve Attitudes.
Table 4. Factor loadings for five factors of the attitudes toward ladino persons of Guatemala
Item Factor 1
Rejection of Stereotype Factor 2 Accomplishments Factor 3 High Esteem Factor 4 Negative Attitudes
8. Angry because have more opportunities 0.62 –0.41
10. Negative attitude toward women 0.54
11. “stuck-up” 0.84 –0.42
3. Well-manner ed 0.55
9. Achievements in go ve rnment, etc 0.53
12. Correct Sp anish 0.65
13. Ladino cul tural traditions 0.47
1. Deserve punis hment 0.45
2. Think bad things 0.74
5. Deserve contempt 0.55 –0.40
6. Act like they are better than others –0.75
7. Distrust them –0.6 4
Note: Positive Correlations Represent pro-Ladino Attitudes and Negative Co rr e l at i on s R e pr esent Nega ti v e A tt i tudes.

Ethnic Identification, Attitudes, and Group Relations in Guatemala 122
Table 5. Correlations among the demographic, ethnic identifica tion, and attitudinal variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Gender – –0.13
194 0.02 194 –0.19* 194 –0.18* 195 0.08 180 –0.02 121 0.04 191 –0.10 179 0.06 182
2. Age – 0.13
194 –0.09 196 0.46** 195 –0.09 180 0.09 121 –0.13 191 –0.06 179 –0.14 182
3. Year
University –
–0.33**
196 0.01 195 –0.15* 180 –0.02 119 –0.01 191 0.03 179 –0.06 182-
4. University – 0.01
196 0.25** 182 –0.23** 121 –0.06 193 0.28** 181 –0.06 184
5. Civil Status – –0.13
181 0.06 121 –0.04 192 0.08 180 –0.09 183
6. Religious
Services
Attendance –
–0.04
111 0.07 177 0.06 167 0.05 170
7. Father’s
Occupation –
0.06
118 0.13 110 0.20* 112
8. Ethnicity –
–0.31**
176 0.40** 179
9. AIG –
–0.114
172
10. ALG –
Note: Cells represent correlations and size of n. Gender 1 = male, 2 = female. University 1 = public, 2 = private, Civil Status 1 = Not married, 2 =
Married, including common law, Father’s Occupation 1 = Professional or Managerial, 2 = Other, Ethnic Identification (see text). ** Correlation is
significant at the .01 level (2-taile d ) . * Correlation i s s ig ni fic an t a t th e . 05 level (2-tai led ).
using the nTiles command on SPSS. This led to three
ethnic groups that could be considered Indigenous, Mixed
identification, and Ladino. A one-way ANOVA with the
mean AIG as the dependent variable and ethnic group as
the independent variable (IV) revealed significant differ-
ences among the ethnic identification groups, F(2, 173) =
9.95, p < 0.001. Tukey HSD post hoc tests revealed that
the Indigenous-identified group differed significantly from
both other groups, but the mixed identification group and
the Ladino identified groups did not differ significantly
from each other. The most positive attitudes toward In-
digenous persons were reported by persons with an In-
digenous identification, and the least positive by persons
with a Ladino identification, with mixed identification
persons falling in between. See Table 6. In order to con-
trol for social desirability of responding a second ANOVA
was performed with the BIDR score as a covariate. The
covariate was significant, F (1, 175) = 5.73, p < 0.05.
However, the effect of ethnic group also remained sig-
nificant, F (2, 175) = 12.36, p < 0.001.
A one-way AN OVA with mean ALG as the dependent
variable and ethnic group as the IV led to complementary
results, F(2, 176) = 15.57, p < 0.001. Tukey HSD post
hoc tests revealed that the Indigenous-identified group
differed significantly from both other groups, but the
mixed identification group and the Ladino-identified
groups did not differ significantly from each other. The
most positive attitudes toward Ladinos were held by per-
sons with a Ladino identification, and the least positive
by those with an Indigenous identification, with mixed
identification persons again falling in between . See Table
6. In order to control for social desirability of responding,
a second ANOVA was performed with the BIDR score as
a covariate. The covariate was significant, F (1, 175) =
2.81, p < 0.05; the effect of ethnic group remained sig-
nificant, F (2, 175) = 13.00, p < 0.001.
3.6 Re-Analysis Using Weighted Scores
Because males and public university students were un-
der-represented in the sample, the analyses were re-run
using weighted scores. The population statistic for gender
was estimated from World Bank data [26], and that for
the proportion of public versus private university students
from an administrator at a Guatemalan university (F. Caj a s ,
personal communication, July 6, 2008). The following
weights were applied: male students at the pub lic univer-
sity, 4.67, female students at the public university, 1.35,
male students at the private university, 0.58, and female
students at the public university, 0.39. Using weighted
scores, 44.8% of the sample reported a mixed ethnic
identification (as defined above, marking a point 2 cm or
greater from the pole). Using the same definition of eth-
nic group (0 to 2 cm = Indigenous, 2.01 to 13 = Mixed,
and 13.01 to 15 = Ladino ) the A NOVAs w ith th e 3 ethnic
groups as the IV and the two attitude scales as the DV
were re-run. There was a significant effect for the AIG, F
(2, 171) = 4.46, p < 0.05, and for the ALG, F(2, 171) =
5.67, p < 0.01. Tukey HSD post hoc tests revealed that in
both cases, self-identification as Indigenous or Ladino
was associated with more positive attitudes toward one’s
own group. Those with mixed identification did not differ
in their attitudes from either of the other groups on either
scale.

Ethnic Identification, Attitudes, and Group Relations in Guatemala 123
Table 6. Means and standard deviations of AIG and ALG
scores for the three ethnic identification groups
Ethnic Group AIG ALG
M SD M SD
Indigenous (NTile 1) 3.30 0.33 2.51 0.37
Mixed (NTile 2) 3.14 0.31 2.74 0.28
Ladino (NTile 3) 3.03 0.37 2.84 0 .36
3.7 Correlations between Attitude Scales
The correlation between the AIG and the ALG was r
(172) = –0.11 , NS. When the data fro m persons falling in
the first tertile of ethnic identification (a predominantly
Indigenous identification) were examined separately,
there was a correlation of r (59) = –0.25, NS, between the
AIG and the ALG. When the data from persons falling in
the third tertile of ethnic identification (a predominantly
Ladino identification) were examined separately, there
was a correlation of 0.14, r (59) = 0.14, NS, between the
AIG and the ALG scores.
4. Discussion
The most important outcome of the present study was the
development of scales to measure attitudes toward the
two major ethnic groups in Guatemala—Indigenous and
Ladino. Those scales, named the AIG and the ALG,
showed good reliability in terms of internal consistency
as measured by Cronbach’s alpha. In addition, the sig-
nificant relationship of ethnic identification to ethnic at-
titudes suggests that the new scales are valid, and that
they can dist i nguish am ong pe rsons of diffe r ent ethnicities.
The second major finding of the present study is that in
terms of ethnic identification many Guatemalan univer-
sity students felt themselves to be neither Ladino nor
Indigenous, but a mixture of the two. In the present study
approximately one third of the participants claimed a
mixed ethnicity. When the data were weighted to ap-
proximate the population, almost 50% claimed a mixed
ethnicity. Thus, a continuous scale might be a better
measure of ethnic identification in Guatemala than the
typical measure that uses boxes labeled as Indigenous or
Ladino. The mixed-identification of many Guatemalans
differs greatly from the clear separation of Indigenous
and Ladino populations described by early anthropolo-
gists [27-30] and reified by the categories used in current
psychological research [19-21]. Although a number of
authors [17,23] have urged researchers to move away
from the dichotomous categorization of ethnicity in Gua-
temala, to our knowledge, this is the first study to have
taken that step and to have established the usefulness of a
continuous measure. The use of a continuous line to re-
cord ethnic identification does not imply that “Ladiniza-
tion” is an inevitable, desirable, or even a prevalent,
process for Indigenous persons of Guatemala. Ladiniza-
tion is a unidirectional process of assimilation that was
described by some anthropologists [31] and promoted by
early Guatemalan government policies [11]. According to
the Ladinization perspective, with greater socialization
and more education Mayas would lose their Indigenous
languages, dress, and customs, and become more like
Ladino people. In contrast, the use of a continuum to de-
scribe ethnicity in the present study allows individuals to
represent their own ethnic identification in a more nu-
anced and complex manner, but does not imply that indi-
viduals will/or should demonstrate increasing Ladiniza-
tion.
Another point worth noting with regard to the results
of this study is that negative ethnic attitudes in Guatemala
are neither subtle nor covert. Over half of the respondents
held that Indigenous people are careless in their manners
and over one fourth admitted joking about Indigenous
people with their friends. Over a third of respondents
agreed that Ladino people are conceited and act like they
are better than others. In an anthropological study of
contemporary attitudes of Ladinos toward Indigenous,
Hale [32] argued that many Ladinos have adopted an
ideology of multiculturalism that continues to see the
Indigenous as inferior, but with a rationale of “culture”
rather than “race”. He notes attitudes that would be con-
sidered “modern racism” in psychological terms, including
a belief that in today’s world Mayas receive favored
treatment. Although modern racism may be emerging in
Guatemala, the present study revealed that old-fashioned
prejudice is also in evidence.
The results also demonstrate clear in-group favoritism.
Attitudes towards one’s own ethnic group were most posi-
tive, whether one identified as either Ladino or In d ig e n ou s .
In-group favoritism in ethnic relations is a very wide-
spread, if not universal, phenomena [33] and forms the
basis of Social Identity Theory [34]. In this study, the
mean attitudes towards th e “other” ethn ic group, althou gh
significantly less positive, were neutral or slightly posi-
tive. With this rating scale, a mean of 2.5 represents neu-
tral attitudes. The mean score of self-identified Ladinos’
attitudes towards Indigenous persons was 2.9 (slightly
positive) and that of Indigenous persons’ attitudes to-
wards Ladinos, 2.5 (neutral). Thus, although there was
clear evidence of in-group favoritism, there was no evi-
dence of out-gr oup derogation. The relatio n of one’s own
ethnicity to attitudes toward the other group cannot be
accounted for by social desirability as the effect persisted
even when corrected for socially desirable responding.
Identifying oneself as a mix of both Indigenous and
Ladino in Guatemala needs further exploration, because
many questions remain unanswered. Are persons claim-
ing mixed identity because of having a parent from each
ethnic group? How do individuals integrate their mixed
identities? Is the representation of a mixed identification
constant or is it context dependent? There is increasing

Ethnic Identification, Attitudes, and Group Relations in Guatemala 124
evidence that context influences the identity that indi-
viduals claim [6,35], especially when people have several
identities to choose from. In addition, there is evidence
that persons with mixed identities are more positively
disposed toward other groups [36]. In the present study
people with mixed identification did not differ signifi-
cantly in their attitudes from people with Ladino identi-
fication. They were, however, less positive toward In-
digenous persons, an d more positive toward Ladinos th an
were Indigenous persons.
A controversy in ethnic identity research is whether a
strong ethnic identity fosters more positive feelings to-
ward out-groups, or whether a strong identity with the
in-group fosters negative attitudes toward the out-group.
The two theories that propose these relationships are the
multiculturalism hypothesis [37] and social identity the-
ory [34] resp ectively. Although we did not ex plicitly test
this hypothesis in the current study, there were no sig-
nificant relationships b etween attitud es toward on e’s own
and the other ethnic group.
The present study has important implications for ethnic
relations not only within Gu atemala but also in other set-
tings. It is estimated that there are currently one million
Guatemalan immigrants, refugees and sojourners living
in the United States [38]. Those individuals are not uni-
form in terms of their ethnicity and might be studied
more veridically using a continuous measure of ethnic
identification. In addition the AIG and ALG scales might
be adapted for use in Latin American countries with
similar histories of colonialism.
Further studies might also address such issues as the
relation of ethnic attitudes to experiences of racism and to
social distance and whether a socia l dominan ce orie nta tio n
[39] is related to negative out-grou p attitudes.
The present study has a number of important limita-
tions. Factor analysis revealed that the scales, although
demonstrating adequate alpha, were composed of a num-
ber of factors, with significant variance unaccounted for.
This suggests that attitudes are complex and not easily
represented by a single scale. In addition, the sample was
not representative of all Guatemalans, especially because
less than 4% of the Guatemalan population has the op-
portunity to attend university [16]. Although the scales
developed will be useful for investigating many issues
related to ethnicity in Guatemala, they will not be appro-
priate for the high percentage of the population that is
illiterate; other, non-written tasks will need to be devised.
With respect to ethnic id entification, even thoug h a bipo-
lar scale may be preferable to “boxes”, it is likely that
ethnic identification could be even better represented on a
multidimensional measure that would allow individuals
to rate the extent to which they id en tified with each of the
major ethnic groups .
5. Conclusions
Despite their limitations, the newly developed scales, the
AIG and the ALG, will be useful for investigating issues
regarding ethnicity in Guatemala, including the develop-
ment of ethnic attitudes among youth, the effects of con-
text on ethnic identity and ethnic attitud es, the relation of
ethnic attitudes to particular experiences of contact or
discrimination, and the instantiation of attitudes in daily
life. They also might be used to address such questions as:
“What is the role of physical attribu tes such as skin color
in ethnic discrimination? “Are there situational or daily
fluctuations in ethnic attitudes and ethnic identification?
“Is a modern ethnocentrism emerging in Guatemala?”
Future studies should also tease out the relative effects of
socio-economic status and ethnicity. In addition, more
attention needs to be paid to people in Guatemala who
define themselves as having a mixed ethnic identification.
Those individuals reflect the cultural diversity in Guate-
mala and have the potential to breach ethnic divisions.
Addressing ethnic attitudes and inter-group relations is
critical to reducing prejudice and creating a more egali-
tarian future in Guatemala. A 2006 report by the Guate-
malan presidential commission CODISRA concluded “the
fight against racial discrimination ought to be a central
pillar in the construction of peace and democracy in
Guatemala” [14].
Finally, the Guatemalan context, where approximately
50% of the population is made up of Indigenous people,
could be used to examine theories of group relations in a
setting where the subordinate group makes up a high
percentage of the population.
6. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Guillermina Herrera,
Lisette Rodríquez, Carlos Rafael Yllescas Mijangos,
María Mercedes Valdés, Claire T. Van den Broeck,
Richard D. Harvey, Ana Gabriela González, María del
Pilar Grazioso, and Walter E. Little for help during vari-
ous stages of this study.
REFERENCES
[1] H. A. Abaj Xicay, “Guatemala Soy Yo,” Prensa Libre,
May 2007, p. 17.
[2] M. Camus, “Ser indígena en ciudad de Guatemala,” 2002.
http://www.enlaceacademico.org/base-documental/bibliot
eca/documento/ser-indigena-en-ciudad-de-guatemala/
[3] M. E. Casaús Arzú, “La metamorfosis del racismo en
Guatemala,” Cholsamaj, 2002.
[4] B. N. Colby and P. L. van den Berghe, “Ixil Country: A
Plural Society in Highland Guatemala,” University of
California Press, Berkeley, 1969.
[5] D. Cojtí Cuxil, “The Politics of Maya Revindication,” In:
E. F. Fischer and R. M. Brown, Eds., Maya Cultural Ac-
tivism in Guatemala, University of Texas Press, Austin,
1996, pp. 19-50.
[6] W. E. Little, “Mayas in the Marketplace: Tourism, Glob-
alization, and Cultural Identity,” University of Texas
Press, Austin, 2004.
[7] S. Martínez Peláez, “La patria del criollo: Ensayo de in-

Ethnic Identification, Attitudes, and Group Relations in Guatemala 125
terpretación de la realidad colonial Guatemalteca,” Uni-
versitaria Centroamericana, 1998.
[8] M. E. Casaús Arzú, “Guatemala: Linaje y racismo,”
FLACSO, 1992.
[9] K. B. Warren, “The Symbolism of Subordination: Indian
Identity in A Guatemalan Town,” University of Texas
Press, Austin, 1978.
[10] A. Taracena Arriola, G. Gellert, E. Gordillo Castillo, T.
Sagastume Paiz and K. Walter, “Etnicidad, estado y
nación en Guatemala, 1808-1944,” CIRMA, 2002.
[11] A. Taracena Arriola, G. Gellert, E. Gordillo Castillo, T.
Sagastume Paiz and K. Walter, “Etnicidad, estado y
nación en Guatemala, 1944-1985,” CIRMA, 2004.
[12] R. Adams and S. Bastos, “Las relaciones étnicas en Gua-
temala, 1944-2000,” CIRMA, 2003.
[13] K. B. Warren, “Indigenous Movements and their Critics:
Pan-Maya Activism in Guatemala,” Princeton University
Press, Princeton, 1998.
[14] Comisión Presidencial contra la Discriminacíón y el
Racismo contra los Pueblos Indígenas en Guatemala
(CODISRA), “El racismo, la discriminación racial, la
xenofobia y todas las formas de discrimación,” Author,
June 2006.
[15] A. L. Blas, “He sufrido el racismo,” 2007. http://www.
prensalibre.com/pl/2007/enero/21/161393.html
[16] Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo Hu-
mano (PNUD), “Diversidad étnico-cultural: La ciudadanía
en un estado plural,” Informe Nacional de Desarrollo
Humano, Edisur, 2005.
[17] R. Adams, “An End to Ladinization,” Human Mosaic,
Vol. 27, No. 1-2, 1993, pp. 44-49.
[18] M. Heckt, “Guatemala Pluralidad, educación y relaciones
de poder: Educación intercultural en una sociedad étni-
camente dividida,” AVANSCO, 2004.
[19] S. M. Quintana, V. C. Ybarra, P. G. Doupe and Y. De
Baessa, “Cross-Cultural Evaluation of Ethnic Perspec-
tive-Taking Ability: An Exploratory Investigation with U.
S. Latino and Guatemalan Ladino Children,” Cultural
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, Vol. 6, No. 4,
2000, pp. 334-351.
[20] R. A. Chesterfield, K. I. Enge and F. E. Rubio, “Cross-
Cultural Cognitive Categorization of Students by Guate-
malan Teachers,” Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal
of Comparative Social Science, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2002, pp.
103-122.
[21] T. Falbo and Y. De Baessa, “The Influence of Mayan
Education on Middle School Students in Guatemala,”
Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, Vol. 12,
No. 4, 2006, pp. 601-614.
[22] J. S. Phinney, “The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure:
A New Scale for Use with Adolescents and Young Adults
from Diverse Groups,” Journal of Adolescent Research,
Vol. 7, No. 2, 1992, pp. 156-176.
[23] K. B. Warren, “Rethinking Bi-Polar Constructions of
Ethnicity,” Journal of Latin American Anthropology, Vol.
6, No. 1, 2001, pp. 90-105.
[24] United States Department of Labor, “Dictionary of Occu-
pational Titles,” U. S. Government Printing Office, 1977.
[25] D. L. Paulhus, “Two-Component Models of Socially De-
sirable Responding,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 46, No. 3, 1984, pp. 598-609.
[26] World Bank, “Guatemala. Female Tertiary Enrollment
Share,” 1998. http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/DDPQQ/
report.do?method=showReport
[27] R. Bunzel, “Chichicastenango: A Guatemalan Village,” J.
J. Augustin, New York, 1952.
[28] S. Tax, “Penny Capitalism: A Guatemalan Indian Econ-
omy,” Smithsonian Institute of Social Anthropology,
Washington, 1953.
[29] C. Wagley, “Economics of a Guatemalan Village,” Mem-
oirs of the American Anthropological Association, Kraus
Reprint, 1969.
[30] C. Wagley, “T he Social and Religious Life of a Guatema-
lan Village,” Memoirs of the American Anthropological
Association, Kraus Reprint, 1974.
[31] D. R. Guaján Raxche, “Maya Culture and the Politics of
Development,” In: E. F. Fischer and R. M. Brown, Eds.,
Maya Cultural Activism in Guatemala, University of
Texas Press, Austin, 2002, pp. 74-88.
[32] C. R. Hale, “Más que un Indio: Racial Ambivalence and
Neoliberal Multiculturalism in Guatemala,” School of
American Research Press, 2006.
[33] R. Brown, “Social Identity Theory: Past Achievements,
Current Problems and Future Challenges,” European
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 30, No. 6, 2000, pp.
745-778.
[34] H. Tajfel and J. Turner, “The Social Identity Theory of
Intergroup Behavior,” In: S. Worchel and W. Austin, Eds.,
Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, 1986,
pp. 6-24.
[35] J. S. Phinney and L. L. Alipuria, “Multiple Social Catego-
rization and Identity among Multiracial, Multiethnic, and
Multicultural Individuals,” In: R. J. Crisp and M. Hew-
stone, Eds., Multiple Social Categorization: Processes,
Models, and Applications, Psychology Press, 2006, pp.
211-238.
[36] J. S. Phinney and L. L. Alipuria, “At the Interface of Cul-
tures: Multiethnic/Multiracial High School and College
Students,” Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 136, No. 2,
1996, pp. 139-158.
[37] J. S. Phinney, D. L. Ferguson and J. D. Tate, “Intergroup
Attitudes among Ethnic Minority Adolescents: A Causal
Model,” Child Development, Vol. 68, No. 5, 1997, pp.
955-969.
[38] J. Smith, “Guatemala: Economic Migrants Replace Politi-
cal Refugees,” 2006. http://www.migrationinformation.
org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=392
[39] F. Pratto, J. H. Liu, S. Levin, J. Sidanius, M. Shih, H.
Bachrach and P. Hegarty, “Social Dominance Orientation
and the Legitimization of Inequality across Cultures,”
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 3,
2000, pp. 369-409.

Ethnic Identification, Attitudes, and Group Relations in Guatemala 126
Appendix A
The scale of “Attitudes toward Indigenous Persons of Guate-
mala” in the original Spanish with English translations.
En la sociedad Guatemalteca hay diferentes grupos étnicos. A
veces las personas expresan las actitudes positivas o negativas
acerca de los grupos. Por favor lee las siguientes frases con
mucho cuidado y encierra en un círculo la respuesta que mejor
represente tus sentimientos acerca de la frase. [In Guatemalan
society there are different ethnic groups. Sometimes people
express positive or negative attitudes about those groups. Please
read the following phrases and circle the response that best
represents your feelings about the phrase.]
[1] (reverse-scored) Las tradiciones indígenas proveen una
base cultural para Guatemala. [The Indigenous traditions
provide a cultural base for Guatemala.]
[2] Los niños indígenas no deben usar su traje típico en la
escuela. [Indigenous children should not wear their
traditional clothing in school.]
[3] En general, los Indígenas son descuidados en su aseo
personal. [In general, Indigenous people are careless in
their personal hygiene.]
[4] (reverse-scored) No se debe discriminar a los
profesionales por su etnia. [One should not discriminate
against professionals for their ethnicity.]
[5] La mayoría de los Indígenas habla un mal español. [The
majority of Indigenous people speak poor Spanish.]
[6] Los Indígenas de Guatemala son muy supersticiosos. [The
Indigenous people of Guatemala are very superstitious.]
[7] (reverse-scored) La población indígena tiene muchos
conocimientos. [The Indigenous population has a great
deal of knowledge.]
[8] (reverse-scored) Se deben respetar los derechos de los
Indígenas. [The rights of Indigenous people should be
respected.]
[9] (reverse-scored) Los pueblos indígenas fomentan el
desarrollo económico de este país. [The Indigenous
communities foster economic development in this coun-
try.]
[10] (reverse-scored) La mayoría de la población indígena es
trabajadora. [The majority of the Indigenous population is
hardworking.]
[11] (reverse-scored) Los Indígenas tienen mucha dignidad
frente a sus problemas. [Indigenous people face their
problems with a great deal of dignity.]
[12] (reverse-scored) Los logros de los Mayas en astronomía,
matemáticas, y medicina nos hacen orgullosos. [The ac-
complishments of the Maya in astronomy, mathematics
and medicine make us proud.]
[13] (reverse-scored)Todas las personas Indígenas deben
aprender y usar su propio idioma para mantener su cultura.
[All Indigenous people should learn and use their own
language to maintain their culture.]
[14] Es propio discriminar a los profesionales por su etnia. [It
is appropriate to discriminate against professionals for
their ethnicity.]
[15] (reverse-scored) Con más participación de los Indígenas
en la política, el país avanzará. [With more political par-
ticipation from Indigenous people, the country will ad-
vance.]
[16] Los Indígenas están preparados para ocupar solamente
puestos domésticos y oficios manuales. [Indigenous peo-
ple are only qualified to fill domestic and manual labor
jobs.]
[17] (reverse-scored) El uso del traje típico permite mantener
la identidad entre los Indígenas. [The use of traditional
clothing allows Indígenous people to maintain their
identity.]
[18] La mayoría de los Indígenas habla un español perezoso.
[The majority of Indigenous people speak a lazy Spanish.]
[19] En general, los Indígenas son descuidados en su
educación. [In general, Indigenous people are careless
about their manners.]
[20] (reverse-scored) El país debe desarrollar la inclusión de
los Indígenas en la sociedad. [The country should en-
courage the inclusion of Indigenous people in society.]
[21] (reverse-scored) Me molesta cuando oigo a los padres
diciéndole a su hijo, “No seas necio, pareces indio” o algo
como eso. [It bothers me when I hear parents tell their
children, “Don’t be bad, it makes you seem like an In-
dian” or something similar.]
[22] (reverse-scored) Me gusta relacionarme con los indígenas.
[I like to associate with Indigenous people.]
[23] Hago chistes sobre los Indígenas con mis amigos. [I joke
about Indigenous people with my friends.]

Ethnic Identification, Attitudes, and Group Relations in Guatemala 127
Appendix B
The scale of “Attitudes toward Ladino Persons of Guatemala”
in the original Spanish with English translations.
En la sociedad Guatemalteca hay diferentes grupos étnicos. A
veces las personas expresan las actitudes positivas o negativas
acerca de los grupos. Por favor lee las siguientes frases con
mucho cuidado y encierra en un círculo la respuesta que mejor
represente tus sentimientos acerca de la frase. [In Guatemalan
society there are different ethnic groups. Sometimes people
express positive or negative attitudes about those groups. Please
read the following phrases and circle the response that best
represents your feelings about the phrase.]
[1] Los Ladinos merecen algún tipo de castigo por el
sufrimiento que han causado a los Indígenas. [Ladinos
deserve some type of punishment for the suffering that
they have caused Indigenous people.]
[2] Cuando veo a los Ladinos en la calle, pienso cosas malas
sobre ellos. [When I see Ladinos in the street, I think bad
things about them.]
[3] (reversed) En general, los Ladinos son bien educados. [In
general, Ladinos are well-mannered.]
[4] Es difícil creer que una persona Ladina pueda escuchar y
entender lo que una persona indígena dice. [It is difficult
to believe that a Ladino person can listen to and
understand what an Indigenous person says.]
[5] Pienso que los Ladinos, en general, merecen el desprecio
de los Indígenas. [I think that Ladinos, in general, deserve
the contempt of Indigenous people.]
[6] En general, los Ladinos son creídos. [In general, Ladinos
act like the y are better than o t he rs.]
[7] En general, tengo menos confianza en los Ladinos que en
los Indígenas. [In general, I have less trust in Ladinos than
in Indigenous people.]
[8] Me siento enojado contra los Ladinos porque ellos tienen
más oportunidades en la vida. [I feel angry towards
Ladinos because they have more opportunities in life.]
[9] (reversed) Admiro a los Ladinos por sus logros en el
gobierno, los negocios, y la educación. [I admire Ladinos
for their accomplishments in government, business, and
education.]
[10] Los Ladinos varones tienen una actitud negativa hacia el
papel de la mujer. [Ladino men have a negative attitude
about the role of women.]
[11] La mayoría de los Ladinos es “fufurufo”. [The majority of
Ladinos are “stuck-up.”]
[12] (reversed) La mayoría de los Ladinos habla un español
correcto. [The majority of Ladinos speak correct Spanish.]
[13] (reversed) Las tradiciones Ladinas proveen una base
cultural para Guatemala. [Ladino traditions provide a cul-
tural base for Guatemala.]
[14] (reversed) Los Ladinos merecen una buena situación
económica por su esfuerzo. [Ladinos deserve a good eco-
nomic situation because of their effort.]