Perceiving personal discrimination: The role of group status and legitimizing ideology.

It was hypothesized that relative group status and endorsement of ideologies that legitimize group status differences moderate attributions to discrimination in intergroup encounters. According to the status-legitimacy hypothesis, the more members of low-status groups endorse the ideology of individual mobility, the less likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from higher status group members to discrimination. In contrast, the more members of high-status groups endorse individual mobility, the more likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from lower status group members to discrimination. Results from 3 studies using 2 different methodologies provide support for this hypothesis among members of different high-status (European Americans and men) and low-status (African Americans, Latino Americans, and women) groups. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cobalamin and folate deficiency: acquired and hereditary disorders in children

Two experiments examined the viability of several explanations for why majority group individuals process persuasive messages from stigmatized sources more than those from nonstigmatized sources. In each study, majority group participants who either were high or low in prejudice or were high or low in ambivalence toward a stigmatized source's group were exposed to a persuasive communication attributed to a stigmatized (Black, Experiment 1; homosexual, Experiment 2) or nonstigmatized (White, Experiment 1; heterosexual, Experiment 2) source. In both studies, source stigmatization increased message scrutiny only among those who were low in prejudice toward the stigmatized group. This finding is most consistent with the view that people scrutinize messages from stigmatized sources in order to guard against possibly unfair reactions by themselves or others.     

Stigmatized sources and persuasion: Prejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny.

Two experiments examined the viability of several explanations for why majority group individuals process persuasive messages from stigmatized sources more than those from nonstigmatized sources. in each study. majority group participants who either were high or low in prejudice or were high or low in ambivalence toward a stigmatized source's group were exposed to a persuasive communication attributed to a stigmatized (Black, Experiment 1; homosexual, Experiment 2) or nonstigmatized (White, Experiment 1; heterosexual, Experiment 2) source. In both studies, source stigmatization increased message scrutiny only among those who were low in prejudice toward the stigmatized group. This finding is most consistent with the view that people scrutinize messages from stigmatized sources in order to guard against possibly unfair reactions by themselves or others. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Ethnic Group Identification and Group Evaluation Among Minority and Majority Groups: Testing the Multiculturalism Hypothesis.

Following social identity theory, the author hypothesized that members of minority groups are more likely than majority group members to endorse multiculturalism more strongly and assimilationist thinking less strongly. In addition, the multiculturalism hypothesis proposes that the more minority groups endorse the ideology of multiculturalism (or assimilationism), the more (or less) likely they will be to identify with their ethnic in-group and to show positive in-group evaluation. In contrast, the more majority group members endorse multiculturalism (or assimilationism), the less (or more) likely they are to identify with their ethnic group and to show negative out-group evaluation. Results from 4 studies (correlational and experimental) provide support for this hypothesis among Dutch and Turkish participants living in the Netherlands. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Can the absence of prejudice be more threatening than its presence? It depends on one's worldview.

The present research used validated cardiovascular measures to examine threat reactions among members of stigmatized groups when interacting with members of nonstigmatized groups who were, or were not, prejudiced against their group. The authors hypothesized that people's beliefs about the fairness of the status system would moderate their experience of threat during intergroup interactions. The authors predicted that for members of stigmatized groups who believe the status system is fair, interacting with a prejudiced partner, compared with interacting with an unprejudiced partner, would disconfirm their worldview and result in greater threat. In contrast, the authors predicted that for members of stigmatized groups who believe the system is unfair, interacting with a prejudiced partner, compared with interacting with an unprejudiced partner, would confirm their worldview and result in less threat. The authors examined these predictions among Latinas interacting with a White female confederate (Study 1) and White females interacting with a White male confederate (Study 2). As predicted, people's beliefs about the fairness of the status system moderated their experiences of threat during intergroup interactions, indicated both by cardiovascular responses and nonverbal behavior. The specific pattern of the moderation differed across the 2 studies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Role Rigidity: A Problem of Identity Misclassification?

When nonstigmatized individuals enact certain role-violating behaviors, they risk becoming "falsely accused deviants" (H. S. Becker, 1963, p. 20). For instance, when heterosexual men perform stereotypically feminine behaviors, they are liable to get misclassified as homosexual. Findings presented here reveal that expectations of identity misclassification fuel nonstigmatized individuals' negative reactions to role violations (Studies 1-2) and that using a disclaimer--that is, informing their audience of their nonstigmatized identity--assuages people's discomfort during a role-violating behavior (Studies 3-4). Moreover, when not concerned about being misclassified, nonstigmatized individuals benefit psychologically from the enactment of a challenging role violation (Study 4). Discussion considers the nature of the threat that misclassified role violators face and compares the plight of the falsely accused deviant to that of the truly stigmatized individual. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Where are you really from?: Asian Americans and identity denial.

Five studies investigate identity denial, the situation in which an individual is not recognized as a member of an important in-group. Asian Americans are seen as less American than other Americans (Study 1) and realize this is the case, although they do not report being any less American than White Americans (Studies 2A and 2B). Identity denial is a common occurrence in Asian Americans' daily lives (Study 3). They react to instances of identity denial by presenting American cultural knowledge and claiming greater participation in American practices (Studies 4 & 5). Identity denial furthers the understanding of group dynamics by capturing the experience of less prototypical group members who desire to have their common in-group identity recognized by fellow group members. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others.

The extent to which stigmatized interaction partners engender perceivers' threat reactions (i.e., stigma–threat hypothesis) was examined. Experiments 1 and 2 included the manipulation of stigma using facial birthmarks. Experiment 3 included manipulations of race and socioeconomic status. Threat responses were measured physiologically, behaviorally, and subjectively. Perceivers interacting with stigmatized partners exhibited cardiovascular reactivity consistent with threat and poorer performance compared with participants interacting with nonstigmatized partners, who exhibited challenge reactivity. In Experiment 3, intergroup contact moderated physiological reactivity such that participants who reported more contact with Black persons exhibited less physiological threat when interacting with them. These results support the stigma–threat hypothesis and suggest the utility of a biopsychosocial approach to the study of stigma and related constructs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Transactive memory and performance in work groups: Specificity, communication, ability differences, and work allocation.

The present study examined the effects of specificity, communication, ability differences, and work allocation, on the utilization of transactive memory in work groups. Clerical staff members (N = 36) worked individually and then with a coworker to complete a quiz covering six domains of work-related knowledge and to allocate domains of knowledge or specific quiz items in a manner that maximized group performance. Allocations were made first individually and then collaboratively. Results indicated that transactive memory facilitated group performance. Specificity (item allocations vs. domain allocations) led to more effective utilization of member knowledge, but communication did not. Group performance was higher when members differed in ability and when they allocated more work to the more proficient member. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Less pain and more to gain: Why high-status group members blame their failure on discrimination.

Retracted August 2001. (See record 2001-01642-001.) Members of high-status groups are more likely than members of low-status groups to blame their failure on discrimination and are less likely to blame it on themselves. This tendency was demonstrated in 3 experiments comparing men and women, White and Black students, and members of experimentally created high- and low-status groups. Results also showed that when making an attribution to discrimination, high-status group members were less likely to experience a threat to their social state self-esteem, performance perceived control, and social perceived control and were more likely to protect their performance state self-esteem. These findings help to explain why high-status group members are more willing to blame their failure on discrimination by showing that it is less harmful for them than for low-status group members. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Putting the "affirm" into affirmative action: Preferential selection and academic performance.

Two studies explored the relation between academic performance and preferential selection. In Study 1, female participants were led to believe that they had been selected to be leaders in a team problem-solving task because of their gender, because of their gender and ability, or at random. Results showed that women who believed they had been selected because of their gender performed significantly worse on a subsequent problem-solving test than women who believed they had been selected at random and women who believed they were selected because of both their gender and their ability. In Study 2, students' suspicion of having benefited from race-based preferences in college admissions was negatively related to their grade point average (GPA). Furthermore, this suspicion partially mediated the GPA gap between academically stigmatized (Black and Latino) and nonstigmatized (Caucasian and Asian) students. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When fiends become friends: The need to belong and perceptions of personal and group discrimination.

The present article examines the role that the need to belong (NTB) plays in people's judgments of personal and group discrimination and in the attributions people make for potentially discriminatory evaluations. The authors hypothesized that the NTB motivates people to conclude that (a) whereas they rarely experience personal discrimination, (b) their fellow in-group members do experience discrimination. In Study 1, people high in the NTB reported experiencing lower than average levels of personal and higher than average levels of group discrimination. In Study 2, an experimental manipulation of the NTB yielded similar results. In Study 3, women who were motivated to be accepted by a bogus male participant were less likely to attribute his negative evaluations of their work to prejudice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reduction of intergroup discrimination through individuation of the out-group.

Several studies have found that the mere categorization of persons into groups is sufficient to promote intergroup discrimination. Out-group members may be convenient targets of bias because they are more deindividuated than in-group members. If so, then intergroup discrimination may be lessened through individuation of the out-group. In the 1st experiment, 72 undergraduates were divided into groups and were informed that the out-group was either unanimous in its behavior or that one member dissented from the majority. Typical levels of intergroup bias were found in the unanimous condition, but Ss did not discriminate against the out-group when an out-group member dissented. These findings were corroborated and extended in 2 subsequent experiments with 225 Ss. Ss requested assistance from an out-group that had previously frustrated them. Assistance from the out-group was found to be more effective in reducing intergroup bias when the out-group responded as individuals than when it responded as a group. Overall, results indicate that intergroup bias is related to the manner in which persons cognitively structure the out-group. Ss discriminated when the out-group was perceived to be a single entity but behaved more fairly when the out-group was more individuated. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"I didn't do it:" Responsibility biases in open and closed groups.

Group members often take more responsibility for the group's outcomes than others give to them. Extending evidence that egocentrism can be muted when group members are individuated (the "unpacking effect"), the authors predicted that members of open groups would be less egocentric than members of closed groups. In open groups, the possibility of membership fluctuation reduces collectiveness, breaking the group into individuals, which in turn lessens egocentrism. The authors tested these predictions in a study of groups of students working on a task relevant to their academic success. Members claimed more personal responsibility when they worked in closed groups relative to open groups (egocentrism), and lack of cohesion mediated the open- versus closed-group link to responsibility allocations. Moreover, members of open groups did not take more responsibility after a success than a failure, whereas those in closed, successful groups claimed more credit than members of failure groups (self-serving bias). The discussion suggests that open groups, although often thought to create conflict as members compete, may contribute to a reduction in both egocentrism and self-serving responsibility allocations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Leadership and popularity as a function of behavioral predictions.

Two hypotheses regarding leadership behavior are tested by means of a social prediction test derived from the Rosenzweig P-F test. The leadership hypothesis states that S's who are ranked high in the leadership dimension will be more successful in estimating the predictions made by each group member to a list of test situations than S's ranked low in this dimension. The popularity hypothesis states that leaders who are ranked high on the popularity dimension will be more successful in estimating predictions made on them by group members to a list of test situations than leaders who are ranked low on this dimension. Both hypotheses were confirmed but the design of the experiment precludes generalizations to leaders as a group, claiming only that significant findings existed within the group studied. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Stereotype distinctiveness: How counterstereotypic behavior shapes the self-concept.

Three experiments examined the relationship between distinctiveness and self-schematicity. Experiment 1 revealed that people were more likely to be self-schematic in domains of strong performance when they felt distinct from family and peers in those domains. Experiments 2 and 3 extended this finding into the arena of stereotypes by demonstrating that people were more likely to be self-schematic in domains of strong performance when their performance was counterstereotypic rather than stereotypic. In particular, African Americans and women were more likely to be schematic for intelligence than Caucasians and men if they performed well academically, whereas Caucasians—especially men—were more likely than African Americans to be schematic for athletics if they performed well athletically. These results suggest that counterstereotypic behavior plays a uniquely powerful role in the development of the self-concept. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Decision processes in communication nets.

In star, slash, and common communication nets, the "central S more than the peripheral S tries to change the opinion of those who disagree, but if he fails, he himself changes more… the presence of one supporter strengthens the resistance of a S relatively more than the mere reduction of size of opposition and more than the simple fact that the opposition is not unanimous… member satisfaction is a joint function of centrality and amount of support by other group members." 15 references. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Does group climate mediate the group leadership–group member outcome relationship?: A test of Yalom's hypotheses about leadership priorities.

I. D. Yalom's (1995) hypothesis that group climate mediates the relationship between leadership and outcome was tested. Group leaders (N?=?43) recorded intentions, and adolescent group members (N?=?233) rated climate after 8 semistructured group sessions. Members also rated satisfaction at termination. Leader intentions comprised 4 dimensions: therapeutic work, safe environment, interpersonal, and group structure. Changing group climates did mediate between these intentions and member outcome. Therapeutic work was negatively related and safe environment was positively related to an increasingly active and engaged climate, which was related to treatment benefit. Group structure and possibly interpersonal intentions were related to a climate decreasing in conflict and distance, which was related to a positive leader relationship. The importance of leaders focusing on group process rather than individual change is highlighted. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Contemporary approaches to pharmacotherapy in Tourette''s syndrome and obsessive-compulsive disorder

Considerable research on minority health has examined whether members of a minority group experience more rapid health declines than the White majority when both groups reach later life. Researchers have sought to determine if being both old and a member of a minority creates a double disadvantage to health. The primary purpose of this research is to test the double jeopardy to health hypothesis among Black and White Americans using data from a 15-year panel study of adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey I: Epidemiological Follow-up Study (NHEFS). African Americans have poorer health at all three times on a variety of health status measures, but no evidence for double jeopardy was uncovered. There were important racial differences for change in health status but Black Americans of all ages -- including Black older adults -- suffered from growing disability and more negative ratings of health. Black adults are more likely to develop serious illness, and their ratings of health decline more rapidly than is the case for White respondents. While there is little support for the double jeopardy hypothesis as originally stated, there is overwhelming evidence to show that the health of Black Americans of all ages declines at a faster rate. The formulation of the double jeopardy hypothesis is critiqued on several points: ontogenetic fallacy, attribution of discrimination, and selective mortality.