Fairness or stereotypes? Young children's priorities when evaluating group exclusion and inclusion.

Seventy-two children (35 4?-year-olds and 37 5?-year-olds), nearly evenly divided by gender, from European American (71%), Asian American (17%), and African American (12%) middle-class backgrounds, were individually interviewed about straightforward exclusion and inclusion for two gender-stereotypic peer-group contexts: activities (doll and truck play) and role-play (teacher and firefighter). All children evaluated straightforward exclusion based on gender (e.g., girls excluding a boy from doll play) as wrong and used moral reasons. Preliminary inclusion decisions in the activity contexts (choosing a boy or a girl to join the group) were based on stereotypic expectations, particularly for younger children. Given the opportunity to weigh alternative considerations, however, all children gave priority to fairness over stereotypic expectations in both multifaceted inclusion peer-group contexts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Voice in political decision-making: The effect of group voice on perceived trustworthiness of decision makers and subsequent acceptance of decisions.

The implementation of carbon dioxide capture and storage technology (CCS) is considered an important climate change mitigation strategy, but the viability of this technology will depend on public acceptance of CCS policy decisions. The results of three experiments with students as participants show that whether or not interest groups receive an opportunity to express their opinions in the decision-making process (i.e., group voice) affects acceptance of CCS policy decisions, with inferred trustworthiness of the decision maker mediating this effect. Decision-making procedures providing different interest groups with equal opportunities to voice their opinions instigate more trust in the decision maker and, in turn, lead to greater willingness to accept decisions compared to no-voice procedures (i.e., unilateral decision-making—Study 1) and unequal group-voice procedures (i.e., when one type of interest group receives voice, but another type of interest group does not—Study 2). Study 3 further shows that an individual's own level of knowledge about CCS moderates the desire for an opportunity for members of the general public to voice opinions in the decision-making process, inferred trustworthiness of decision makers, and policy acceptance. These results imply that people care about voice in decision-making even when they are not directly personally involved in the decision-making process. We conclude that people tend to use procedural information when deciding to accept or oppose policy decisions on political complex issues; hence, it is important that policymakers use fair group-voice procedures and that they communicate to the public how they arrive at their decisions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Development of object categories and inclusion relations: Preschoolers' hypotheses about word meanings.

Parents' strategies for labeling objects differ for categories at different hierarchical levels. Whereas basic-level terms (e.g., chair and dog) are used to name single objects, superordinate labels (e.g., furniture and animal) are used (a) to refer to groups of objects and (b) to state the inclusion relation among levels explicitly. Two studies tested 3- and 5-year-old children's ability to use these different strategies to interpret new words. A puppet taught children new words using labeling strategies modeled after those used by parents. In both studies, children interpreted labels for single objects at the basic level. The multiple-referent strategy (Study 1) and the inclusion strategy (Study 2), however, led children to interpret novel words at the superordinate level. The information in parents' labeling strategies seems to help children to solve the problem of inducing the meanings of novel words. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Diagnostic efficiency of DSM–IV indicators for binge eating episodes.

Objective: Research has examined various aspects of the validity of the research criteria for binge eating disorder (BED) but has yet to evaluate the utility of the 5 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM–IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) “indicators for impaired control” specified to help determine loss of control while overeating (i.e., binge eating). We examined the diagnostic efficiency of these indicators proposed as part of the research criteria for BED (eating until uncomfortably full; eating when not hungry; eating more rapidly than usual; eating in secret; and feeling disgust, shame, or depression after the episode). Method: A total of 916 community volunteers completed a battery of measures including questions about each of the indicators. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: BED (N = 164), bulimia nervosa (BN; N = 83), and non-binge-eating controls (N = 669). Four conditional probabilities (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive power [PPP], and negative predictive power [NPP]) as well as total predictive value (TPV) and kappa coefficients were calculated for each indicator criterion in separate analyses comparing BED, BN, and combined BED + BN groups relative to controls. Results: PPPs and NPPs suggest all of the indicators have predictive value, with eating alone because embarrassed (PPP = .80) and feeling disgusted (NPP = .93) performing as the best inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively. The best overall indicators for correctly identifying binge eating (based on TPV and kappa) were eating when not hungry and eating alone because embarrassed. Conclusions: All 5 proposed indicators for impaired control for determining binge eating have utility, and the diagnostic efficiency statistics provide guidance for clinicians and the DSM–5 regarding their usefulness for inclusion or exclusion. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

“What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and Whites' reactions to multiculturalism.

A 5-study investigation of reactions of dominant group members (i.e., White Americans) to diversity (relative to racial minority reactions) provides evidence of implicit and explicit associations between multiculturalism and exclusion and of a relationship between perceived exclusion and reactions to diversity. In Study 1, Whites but not racial minorities were faster in an implicit association task at pairing multiculturalism with exclusion than with inclusion. This association diminished in Study 2 through a subtle framing of diversity efforts as targeted toward all groups, including European Americans. In Study 3, in a “Me/Not Me” task, Whites were less likely than minorities to pair multiculturalism concepts with the self and were slower in responding to multiculturalism concepts. Furthermore, associating multiculturalism with the self (Study 3) or feeling included in organizational diversity (Study 4) predicted Whites' endorsement of diversity and also accounted for the oft-cited group status difference in support for diversity initiatives. Study 5 showed that individual differences in need to belong moderated Whites' interest in working for organizations that espouse a multicultural versus a color-blind approach to diversity, with individuals higher in need to belong less attracted to organizations with a multicultural approach. Overall, results show that the purportedly “inclusive” ideology of multiculturalism is not perceived as such by Whites. This may, in part, account for their lower support for diversity efforts in education and work settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Some problems with the process-dissociation approach to memory.

The process-dissociation framework (L. L. Jacoby, see record 1992-07943-001) is a technique for deriving estimates of controlled (e.g., recollection) and automatic (e.g., familiarity) memory processes. The authors examined 3 assumptions of this framework. In Experiment 1, estimates of familiarity were affected by varying the proportion of old targets to old nontargets on the inclusion and exclusion tests and whether or not the tests were completed with full or divided attention, violating the assumption that familiarity's influence is automatic. In Experiment 2, the similarity of old targets and old nontargets was manipulated to show that source confusions (i.e., misrecollections) violate the assumption that the process of recollection is all-or-none. Source confusions also create an imbalance in the influence of recollection on the inclusion and exclusion tests, violating the consistency assumption. The source-monitoring framework is consistent with the present findings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Intragroup decision making in intergroup negotiation: Majority/minority effects and hawkishness of member preferences.

Participants took part in an intergroup negotiation. In the first stage participants recorded their individual preferences (i.e., which of several possible options they should strive to achieve during the negotiation) for each negotiation issue. In the second stage they repeated this process as part of a 3-person cooperative group in preparation for the negotiation task. Our results show that the decision aggregation of negotiation teams is driven by 2 factors: The majority/minority status of the members advocating a given option and the extent to which the option advocated by a member was more hawkish (i.e., advantageous to the ingroup) than that of fellow members. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Managing discrimination in selection: The influence of directives from an authority and social dominance orientation.

The authors examined one manner in which to decrease the negative impact of social dominance orientation (SDO), an individual difference variable that indicates support for the "domination of 'inferior' groups by 'superior' groups" (J. Sidanius & F. Pratto, 1999, p. 48), on the selection of candidates from low-status groups within society. Consistent with the tenets of social dominance theory, in 2 studies we found that those high in SDO reported that they were less likely to select a potential team member who is a member of a low-status group (i.e., a White female in Study 1 and a Black male in Study 2) than those low in SDO. However, explicit directives from an authority moderated this effect such that those high in SDO were more likely to select both candidates when authority figures clearly communicated that job performance indicators should be used when choosing team members. Thus, our studies suggest that the negative effects of SDO may be attenuated if those high in SDO are instructed by superiors to use legitimate performance criteria to evaluate job candidates. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

In-group favoritism and statistical reasoning in social inference: Implications for formation and maintenance of group stereotypes.

The effects of group categorization on statistical inference processes and the consequent effects on group stereotyping were examined in 3 experiments. In Exps 1 and 2, male and female Ss made data-based judgments about gender and leadership ability. In Exp 3, Ss were randomly categorized into groups and then made data-based judgments about the groups' relative intelligence. Results from all 3 studies indicate significant effects of group categorization on Ss' judgments and on their strategies of data integration and logical inference. These results support the hypothesis that group members selectively engage in statistical inference strategies as a means of justifying in-group favoritism. Discussion focuses on the implications for understanding group-serving biases, motivated reasoning, and group stereotyping processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality.

The effect of diversity in individual prediscussion preferences on group decision quality was examined in an experiment in which 135 three-person groups worked on a personnel selection case with 4 alternatives. The information distribution among group members constituted a hidden profile (i.e., the correct solution was not identifiable on the basis of the members' individual information and could be detected only by pooling and integrating the members' unique information). Whereas groups with homogeneous suboptimal prediscussion preferences (no dissent) hardly ever solved the hidden profile, solution rates were significantly higher in groups with prediscussion dissent, even if none of these individual prediscussion preferences were correct. If dissent came from a proponent of the correct solution, solution rates were even higher than in dissent groups without such a proponent. The magnitude of dissent (i.e., minority dissent or full diversity of individual preferences) did not affect decision quality. The beneficial effect of dissent on group decision quality was mediated primarily by greater discussion intensity and to some extent also by less discussion bias in dissent groups. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Extending the stepladder technique: An examination of self-paced stepladder groups.

The stepladder technique was developed to facilitate group effectiveness by sequentially entering members into a group. Unlike past research where the experimenter regulated the entry of members into a group (Rogelberg, Barnes-Farrell, & Lowe, 1992), this study examined 26 4-person stepladder groups that proceeded through the stepladder process at a self-determined pace (i.e., group members decide how much time to take at each step). Self-pacing stepladder groups produced significantly higher quality group decisions than did the 26 4-person conventional groups studied. Furthermore, members with the best individual decisions in self-pacing stepladder groups, on average, exerted the greatest amount of influence in their respective groups and had more influence on group decision quality than best members in conventional groups. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

MR findings of hypoxic damage of the bilateral striate cortices: a case report

The frequency of accessory mental foramina (AMF) was studied in four population groups: 20th century Asian Indians, African Americans and American Whites, and Pre-Columbian Nazca Indians. AMF were found less frequently in the American White and Asian Indian populations than in the other groups (American White, 1.4%; Asian Indian, 1.5%; African American, 5.7% and Nazca, 9.0%). The incidence of AMFs did not differ significantly between right- and left-hand sides. In certain ethnic groups, i.e., African American, AMF may occur more often in males. Additional studies with larger samples are needed to show whether AMFs are more common in males.     

Can I retake it? Exploring subgroup differences and criterion-related validity in promotion retesting.

Despite recent interest in the practice of allowing job applicants to retest, surprisingly little is known about how retesting affects 2 of the most critical factors on which staffing procedures are evaluated: subgroup differences and criterion-related validity. We examined these important issues in a sample of internal candidates who completed a job-knowledge test for a within-job promotion. This was a useful context for these questions because we had job-performance data on all candidates (N = 403), regardless of whether they passed or failed the promotion test (i.e., there was no direct range restriction). We found that retest effects varied by subgroup, such that females and younger candidates improved more upon retesting than did males and older candidates. There also was some evidence that Black candidates did not improve as much as did candidates from other racial groups. In addition, among candidates who retested, their retest scores were somewhat better predictors of subsequent job performance than were their initial test scores (rs = .38 vs. .27). The overall results suggest that retesting does not negatively affect criterion-related validity and may even enhance it. Furthermore, retesting may reduce the likelihood of adverse impact against some subgroups (e.g., female candidates) but increase the likelihood of adverse impact against other subgroups (e.g., older candidates). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Diversity in in-group bias: Structural factors, situational features, and social functions.

Four experiments addressed the different forms and functions of in-group bias in different contexts. The authors proposed 2 functions: an identity-expressive function and an instrumental function (or promotion of positive social change). The authors manipulated status differentials, the stability of these differences, and the communication context (intra- vs. intergroup) and measured in-group bias and both functions. As predicted, identity expression via in-group bias on symbolic measures was most important for stable, high-status groups. By contrast, material in-group bias for instrumental motives was most prevalent in unstable, low-status groups but only when communicating with in-group members. This latter effect illustrates the strategic adaptation of group behavior to audience (i.e., displaying in-group bias may provoke the out-group and be counterproductive in instrumental terms). Stable, low-status groups displayed more extreme forms of in-group bias for instrumental reasons regardless of communication context (i.e., they had nothing to lose). Results are discussed in terms of a contextual-functional approach to in-group bias. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Is it better to be moral than smart? The effects of morality and competence norms on the decision to work at group status improvement.

Three studies examined strategies of status improvement in experimentally created (Study 1 and 2) and preexisting (Study 3) low-status groups. Theory and prior research suggested that an in-group norm that established a particular strategy of status improvement as moral (rather than competent) would have a greater effect on individuals' decision to work at this strategy. Both Study 1 and Study 2 found that morality norms had a greater impact than competence norms on individuals' decision to work at group (rather than individual) status improvement. In both studies participants also needed less time to decide on a strategy of status improvement when it is was encouraged by a morality norm rather than a competence norm. Study 3 used a preexisting low-status group (i.e., Southern Italians) to further confirm that morality norms have a greater effect on the decision to work at group status improvement than do competence norms. Results are discussed in terms of social influence and identity management strategies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

“Everyone knows their Miranda rights”: Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence.

In its landmark decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States buttressed the Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination by requiring as a procedural safeguard that various aspects of this privilege be clearly communicated to custodial suspects. Members of the public often believe that their continually media-fueled familiarity with Miranda warnings results in an adequate understanding of Miranda rights—a frequently erroneous assumption that may diminish counsel's motivation to investigate Miranda waivers and may influence court rulings on the validity of such waivers. The current investigation examined Miranda rights misconceptions held by two groups of pretrial defendants: those arrested more recently (i.e., less than 2 weeks ago) and those arrested less recently (i.e., 4 weeks ago or more). The misconceptions of these groups were then contrasted with those of undergraduate students representing a more educated and comparatively unstressed segment of American society. Results revealed a host of widely-held misconceptions, including a fundamental misunderstanding of the function of the “right to remain silent” as a legal protection. Moreover, many misconceptions appeared unrelated to intelligence, education, or prior contacts with the criminal justice system. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to the validity of Miranda waivers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The generation and resemblance heuristics in face recognition: Cooperation and competition.

Like all probabilistic decisions, recognition memory judgments are based on inferences about the strength and quality of stimulus familiarity. In recent articles, B. W. A. Whittlesea and J. Leboe (2000; J. Leboe & B. W. A. Whittlesea, 2002) proposed that such memory decisions entail various heuristics, similar to well-known heuristics in overt decision making. Using verbal stimulus materials, Whittlesea and Leboe illustrated 3 separate memory heuristics: fluency, generation, and resemblance. In the present investigation, the authors examined the generation and resemblance heuristics in face recognition. In 12 experiments, people memorized faces and later performed exclusion (source memory) tasks. Every experiment contained natural groups of facial photographs (e.g., Caucasian vs. Asian faces), but such groups were not always valid source-memory predictors. Instead, across experiments, the potential utility of generation and resemblance strategies was systematically varied. People were quite sensitive to such variations, changing from one heuristic to another as needed. However, they also combined heuristics, both improving and damaging performance across conditions. The relevance of recognition decision heuristics to eyewitness memory is considered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Power and the Creation of Patronizing Environments: The Stereotype-Based Behaviors of the Powerful and Their Effects on Female Performance in Masculine Domains.

This work tested the following hypothesis: When powerful men stereotype their female subordinates in masculine domains, they behave in patronizing ways that affect the performance of their subordinates. Experiment 1 examined the stereotyping tendencies and patronizing behaviors of the powerful. Findings revealed that powerful men who stereotyped their female subordinates (i.e., those who were weakness focused) gave female subordinates few valued resources but much praise. In Experiment 2, low-power participants received resources (valued or devalued positions) and praise (high or low) from a powerful man. Subordinates who were assigned to a devalued position but received high praise (i.e., the patronizing behavior mirrored from Experiment 1) were angry. However, men performed better in the anger-inspiring situation, whereas women performed worse. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Defense of tests prevents objective consideration of validity and fairness.

In defending tests of cognitive abilities, knowledge, or skills (CAKS) from the skepticism of their “family members, friends, and neighbors” and aiding psychologists forced to defend tests from “myth and hearsay” in their own skeptical social networks (p. 215), Sackett, Borneman, and Connelly (see record 2008-05553-001) focused on evaluating validity coefficients, racial or gender group differences, and fair assessment research. In doing so, they concluded that CAKS tests generally yield valid and fair test scores for their intended purposes, but because the authors did not adequately attend to (a) research design issues (e.g., inclusion of independent or predictor variables [IPV] and dependent variables or criteria), (b) statistical assumptions underlying interpretation of their analyses (e.g., bivariate normality of distributions of test scores and criteria), and (c) conceptual concerns (e.g., whether racial categories should be used as explanatory constructs), alternative conclusions about CAKS test score validity and fairness are plausible. Although all of the foregoing areas of concern are germane to each of the assertions addressed by Sackett et al. (2008), the focus here is on Assertions 6 through 8 (p. 216; hereinafter called the fairness assertions [FA]) because making accurate inferences about fairness requires measurement experts to engage in a paradigmatic shift where sociodemographic groups (e.g., Blacks, Latinos/Latinas) are concerned, whereas, for the most part, addressing the other assertions merely requires a reminder of which standard psychometric principles have not been followed (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1999). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Epistemological beliefs' contributions to study strategies of Asian Americans and European Americans.

Given the increasingly culturally diverse composition of students in American classrooms, understanding the nature of cultural differences is necessary to generate effective instructional interventions. This study examines the individual differences in epistemological beliefs, ways of knowing, study strategies, and academic performance among different cultural groups. These cultural groups include European Americans (Americans of European ancestry) and first and successive generations of Asian Americans. College junior and senior business majors completed instruments assessing epistemological beliefs, ways of knowing, and study strategies. Multivariate analyses of variances revealed significant differences among cultural groups in 5 study strategies (low anxiety, selecting main ideas, testing strategies, high motivation, and information processing), course grades, and reading comprehension. Regression analyses revealed that beliefs about learning speed, knowledge construction, characteristics of successful students, and separate knowing contributed to cultural differences. This study highlights the need to avoid strong stereotyping and to consider individual differences in the classroom. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)