Search results

Rezension von: Faulstich-Wieland, Hannelore: Einführung in Genderstudien. Stuttgart: UTB, 2006, 233 S.

Drawing on the sensitivity to mean intentions model, we hypothesized that sensitivity to injustice from a victim's perspective (victim sensitivity) is negatively related to the acceptance of political reforms due to an inclination to attribute ulterior motives to policy makers. In Study 1 with a Canadian sample, initial evidence for this mediational model was obtained, as victim sensitivity uniquely predicted distrust of policy makers through general trait suspiciousness. In Study 2, victim‐sensitive Austrians and Germans ascribed sinister motives to initiators of an economic reform when contextual cues of initiators' untrustworthiness were given. This situational suspiciousness led them to subsequently oppose this particular reform, and it even generalized to the whole economic system by reducing economic‐system justification. However, in both studies, mutually suppressive tendencies toward both opposing and justifying the system occurred. This suggests that victim‐sensitive individuals may be torn between distrusting and endorsing the system because it can not only victimize but also promote a sense of security from victimization by conferring order.

PurposeThis paper aims to investigate the effects that a larger societal context (i.e. values, norms) and the legal framework have on an individual's ability to combine work and family.Design/methodology/approachQualitative interviews were used to examine the perceptions female middle managers have of balancing work and family. A total of 25 female managers from the USA and 23 female managers from Germany were interviewed, representing diverse industries.FindingsThe results show that the dominant values in a particular society have a stronger influence on individuals' ability to balance work and family than the legal framework. Most importantly, the study provides empirical evidence for the fact that extensive laws originally designed to make it easier for women to combine work and family can actually have negative consequences for women and thus result in hurting the very persons they were designed to help.Research limitations/implicationsThe sample consisted of only a small number of female managers. Thus, it cannot be regarded as fully representative of women in the USA and Germany.Practical implicationsWhen introducing measures designed at increasing opportunities for employees to balance work and family, it is necessary to examine their completeness, relation to societal norms, and anticipated organizational implementation.Originality/valueThis work is one of the rare studies to have used a cross‐cultural comparison in research on the work‐family interface. It provides evidence for the importance of societal values and for the fact that seemingly supportive laws can have negative consequences for women's ability to combine work and family.

Research on the phenomenon of selective exposure to information demonstrates that after preliminary or final decisions, people show a preference for supporting rather than conflicting information (confirmation bias). In this article, we examine conditions that increase or decrease distortions in the search for information. We report on four experiments indicating that the confirmation bias is influenced by whether people focus on their decision or on the presented pieces of information during the information search. Focusing on the decision, for example, because a reward for a correct decision is promised or simply because participants repeatedly think of it, increases the confirmation bias. On the other hand, if participants focus on the available pieces of information because they have to invest money in order to search for information or because they have to evaluate the individual pieces of information, the confirmation bias decreases. Implications for theoretical understanding and interventions for decision-making situations are discussed.

In this article we suggest that independent vs. interdependent aspects of the self yield different manifestations of psychological reactance and that this is especially relevant in a cross-cultural context. In Studies 1, 2 and 4 we showed that people from collectivistic cultural backgrounds (individuals holding more interdependent attitudes and values) were less sensitive to a threat to their individual freedom than people from individualistic cultural backgrounds (individuals holding more independent attitudes and values), but more sensitive if their collective freedom was threatened. In Study 3 we activated independent vs. interdependent attitudes and values utilizing a cognitive priming method and yielded similar results as the other studies hinting at the important causal role of self-related aspects in understanding reactance in a cross-cultural context.