Role of Perceived Importance in Intergroup Contact.

Furthering G. W. Allport's (1954) contentions for optimal contact, the authors introduce a new construct: the perceived importance of contact. They propose that perceived importance is the best proximal predictor of contact's reduction of prejudice. If individuals have opportunities for contact at work or in the neighborhood, their chances to have intergroup acquaintances and friends increase. Intergroup contact among acquaintances and friends can be perceived as more or less important, which in turn determines intergroup evaluations. A 1st study shows that the new measure of perceived importance is indeed distinct from established quantity and quality indicators. The results are cross-validated in a 2nd study that also sheds light on the meaning of importance. In 3rd and 4th studies, structural equation analyses and a meta-analysis support the hypotheses. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Contact with out-group friends as a predictor of meta-attitudinal strength and accessibility of attitudes toward gay men.

Two studies examined the effects of cross-group friendships on heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men. In Study 1, the authors tested the effects of cross-group friendships with gay men on out-group attitudes, meta-attitudinal strength, and attitude accessibility. The authors simultaneously explored mediational effects of intergroup anxiety. Path analysis showed that cross-group friendships were associated with meta-attitudinally stronger and more accessible out-group attitudes, and the effects on all 3 criterion variables were mediated by intergroup anxiety. In Study 2, the authors sought to replicate the basic results of Study 1, while additionally exploring mediational effects of closeness of cross-group friendship and moderational effects of perceived group typicality. Structural equation modeling showed that cross-group friendships were associated with meta-attitudinally stronger and more accessible out-group attitudes; friendships had indirect effects on all 3 criterion variables, via closeness of friendship and intergroup anxiety. Closeness of friendship only predicted lower intergroup anxiety, however, when the out-group friend was perceived as highly typical. The authors emphasize the importance of considering the nature of out-group attitudes more completely when evaluating the effectiveness of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The role of intent and harm in judgments of prejudice and discrimination.

Four experiments examined how an actor's intent and the harm experienced by a target influence judgments of prejudice and discrimination. The presence of intent increased the likelihood that participants judged an actor as prejudiced and the actor's behavior as discriminatory. When intent was uncertain, harm influenced judgments of the behavior, which in turn influenced judgments of the actor, and participants were more cautious in their judgments about an actor than an actor's behavior. Harm also played a stronger role in targets' than observers' judgments. Understanding the role of intent and harm on perceptions of prejudice can help explain variations in targets' versus observers', and possibly targets' versus actors', judgments of discrimination and prejudice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Does social dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions.

Social dominance orientation (SDO) has been proposed as an important variable in the explanation of prejudice. We distinguish between three conceptualizations of SDO: SDO as a personality trait (personality model), SDO as a moderator of the effects of situational variables (Person X Situation model), and SDO as a mediator of the effect of social position on prejudice (group socialization model [GSM]). Four studies (N = 1,657) looking at the relations between social positions, SDO, and prejudice in a natural setting and in a laboratory setting provide strong support for the GSM. In contrast to previous correlational findings, there is evidence of a cause (dominant social position), an effect (prejudice increases), and a mediator (SDO). These results suggest new perspectives on the integration of individual and contextual determinants of prejudice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

美国大学教学评估及其对中国高等教育的启示

美国大学和学院，学生对教师教学进行有效性评估。不同大学对教学有不同要求和标准；美国学术界对教学评估体系利与弊展开过辩论，而学生和老师的背景特征可能引起偏见。美国学生对老师进行教学评估的体系，对中国高等教育教学可能有一定的他石意义，但是，评估体系的现实条件有差异，中国不应当照抄或照搬美国教学评估，尤其应该摒弃将教与学关系扭曲为买方和卖方关系的观念。取其精华而弃其糟粕，建立适应中国的教学评估体系才能提高高等教育质量。     

析《傲慢与偏见》中的讽刺艺术

本文通过分析简·奥斯汀的代表作《傲慢与偏见》,让人们领会到其中绝妙的讽刺的写作手法,这种讽刺艺术不仅运用在对人物性格的描述上,也贯穿于整个故事的结构之中。     

Distributing prejudice unequally: Do Whites direct their prejudice toward strongly identified minorities?

Across 6 studies, Whites expressed more negative attitudes toward strongly identified racial minorities than toward weakly identified minorities. Whites who personally endorsed worldviews that legitimize the status hierarchy were particularly likely to express negative attitudes toward strongly identified minorities relative to weakly identified minorities, whereas Whites who personally rejected status-legitimizing worldviews displayed the opposite pattern. In addition, Whites' biases against strongly identified minorities dissipated when strongly identified minorities expressed strong endorsement of status-legitimizing worldviews. These studies suggest that Whites do not distribute their prejudicial attitudes equally among all members of minority groups and that some subsets of minorities (the strongly identified) might bear the brunt of racial prejudice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

What's in a norm? Sources and processes of norm change.

This reply to the commentary by E. Staub and L. A. Pearlman (2009) revisits the field experimental results of E. L. Paluck (2009). It introduces further evidence and theoretical elaboration supporting Paluck's conclusion that exposure to a reconciliation-themed radio soap opera changed perceptions of social norms and behaviors, not beliefs. Experimental and longitudinal survey evidence reinforces the finding that the radio program affected socially shared perceptions of typical or prescribed behavior—that is, social norms. Specifically, measurements of perceptions of social norms called into question by Staub and Pearlman are shown to correlate with perceptions of public opinion and public, not private, behaviors. Although measurement issues and the mechanisms of the radio program's influence merit further testing, theory and evidence point to social interactions and emotional engagement, not individual education, as the likely mechanisms of change. The present exchange makes salient what is at stake in this debate: a model of change based on learning and personal beliefs versus a model based on group influence and social norms. These theoretical models recommend very different strategies for prejudice and conflict reduction. Future field experiments should attempt to adjudicate between these models by testing relevant policies in real-world settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

(Close) distance makes the heart grow fonder: Improving implicit racial attitudes and interracial interactions through approach behaviors.

In 4 studies, the authors examined the effect of approaching Blacks on implicit racial attitudes and immediacy behaviors. In Studies 1-3, participants were trained to pull a joystick toward themselves or to push it away from themselves when presented with photographs of Blacks, Whites, or Asians before completing an Implicit Association Test to measure racial bias. In Study 4, the effect of this training procedure on nonverbal behavior in an interracial contact situation was investigated. Results from the studies demonstrated that approaching Blacks decreased participants' implicit racial prejudice and increased immediacy when interacting with a Black confederate. The implications of these findings for current theories on approach, avoidance, and intergroup relations are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Can emotions be truly group level? Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria.

Recent advances in understanding prejudice and intergroup behavior have made clear that emotions help explain people's reactions to social groups and their members. Intergroup emotions theory (D. M. Mackie, T. Devos, & E. R. Smith, 2000; E. R. Smith, 1993) holds that intergroup emotions are experienced by individuals when they identify with a social group, making the group part of the psychological self. What differentiates such group-level emotions from emotions that occur purely at the individual level? The authors argue that 4 key criteria define group-level emotions: Group emotions are distinct from the same person's individual-level emotions, depend on the person's degree of group identification, are socially shared within a group, and contribute to regulating intragroup and intergroup attitudes and behavior. Evidence from 2 studies supports all 4 of these predictions and thus points to the meaningfulness, coherence, and functionality of group-level emotions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)