Suchergebnisse

AbstractMany national or racial majority groups increasingly perceive discrimination against their group, despite objective indicators of advantage. The present studies simultaneously test three individual‐level explanations of perceived discrimination among White Americans: system legitimizing beliefs, economic precarity, and group interest, in addition to corresponding predictors at the context (state) level. Using multilevel analysis, we analyzed nationally‐representative data from the 2016 American National Election Survey (N = 2631)—an election period marked by discourse about majority group grievances. Results showed that, at the individual level, system‐legitimizing beliefs (symbolic racism, conservatism, realistic, and symbolic threat) predicted perceived discrimination among Whites, as did objective (income) and subjective (perceived financial insecurity) economic precarity. Conversely, group interest (indicated by White racial identification) was not a significant predictor. At the state level, support for the Republican candidate also predicted perceived discrimination. These findings replicated with data from the 2012 American National Election Survey (N = 3261). We discuss the implications of White Americans' discrimination claims in the current socio‐political climate.

Social dominance theory was developed to account for why societies producing surplus take and maintain the form of group-based dominance hierarchies, in which at least one socially-constructed group has more power than another, and in which men are more powerful than women and adults more powerful than children. Although the theory has always allowed for societies to differ in their severity of group-based dominance and how it is implemented, it has predicted that alternative forms of societal organization will occur rarely and not last. This paper revisits aspects of the theory that allow for the possibility of societal alternatives and change. We also consider boundary conditions for the theory, and whether its current theoretical apparatus can account for societal change. By expanding the typical three-level dynamic system to describe societies (micro-meso-macro) into four levels (including meta) to consider how societies relate to one another, we identify political tensions that are unstable power structures rather than stable hierarchies. In research on institutions, we identify smaller-scale alternative forms of social organization. We identify logical, empirical, and theoretical shortcomings in social dominance theory's account of stability and change, consider alternative forms of social organization, and suggest fruitful avenues for theoretical extension. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

Social dominance theory was developed to account for why societies producing surplus take and maintain the form of group-based dominance hierarchies, in which at least one socially-constructed group has more power than another, and in which men are more powerful than women and adults more powerful than children. Although the theory has always allowed for societies to differ in their severity of group-based dominance and how it is implemented, it has predicted that alternative forms of societal organization will occur rarely and not last. This paper revisits aspects of the theory that allow for the possibility of societal alternatives and change. We also consider boundary conditions for the theory, and whether its current theoretical apparatus can account for societal change. By expanding the typical three-level dynamic system to describe societies (micro-meso-macro) into four levels (including meta) to consider how societies relate to one another, we identify political tensions that are unstable power structures rather than stable hierarchies. In research on institutions, we identify smaller-scale alternative forms of social organization. We identify logical, empirical, and theoretical shortcomings in social dominance theory's account of stability and change, consider alternative forms of social organization, and suggest fruitful avenues for theoretical extension.

This article1 examines the RE-AIM evaluation framework, first expounded by Glasgow, Vogt and Boles (1999) as an approach that can establish the public health impact of a health promotion program. The article presents the practical application of RE-AIM in evaluation of multi-project, multi-setting health promotion programs, illustrated by the evaluation of three statewide programs: a three-year older adult health promotion program, a three-year diabetes prevention program, and a one-year health promotion program in public sector aged care, all set in Victoria, funded by the Department of Human Services. It considers how the RE-AIM approach can be employed to provide insights into real-world program domains of interest to funders, policymakers and health promotion practitioners that are frequently overlooked in conventional impact evaluations. The article concludes that RE-AIM is an adaptable, easy-to-use evaluation approach suited to multi-project program evaluations that can be used in a range of settings and sectors.