Suchergebnisse

What is power? why is power important? -- Chi-square and tests for proportions -- Independent samples and paired t-tests -- Correlations and differences between correlations -- Between subjects anova (one and two factors) -- Within-subjects designs with anova and linear mixed models -- Mixed model anova and multivariate anova -- Multiple regression -- Analysis of covariance, moderated regression, logistic regression, and mediation -- Precision analysis for confidence intervals -- Additional issues and resources -- References -- Index.

Abstract. This meta-analysis examines propositions derived from Intergroup Threat Theory (ITT; Stephan, Ybarra, & Morrison, 2009 ) regarding the role of symbolic and realistic threats on the relationship between contact and prejudice. Specifically, analyses examined whether threat has an indirect effect on the contact–prejudice relationship (aka mediation). Thirty-nine papers comprising 54 samples and over 25,000 participants provided 347 effects for analysis. Supporting ITT predictions, results clearly demonstrated the presence of an indirect effect. Tests of several moderators, including type of contact measure, type of threat, dimension of prejudice, and target of bias suggest that indirect effects are largely consistent across each domain of comparison. Findings are consistent with ITT's propositions that contact influences threat and feelings of threat lead to prejudice.

This study examines the effect of collective self-esteem on ingroup bias exhibited through traditional measures (attributions) and alternative strategies (basking in reflected glory). Seventyseven U.S. college students were divided into minimally defined groups, worked together on a
series of tasks, received performance feedback, completed the Collective Self-esteem scale (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992) and then rated similarity to both groups and attributed performances to a variety of causes. It was predicted and found that low self-esteem individuals utilized basking
in reflected glory more than individuals with higher self-esteem. Additionally, high self-esteem individuals exhibited greater bias through use of attributional ratings. Results are interpreted as evidence for the mediating role of self-consistency needs on ingroup bias strategies (e.g. Brown,
Collins, & Schmidt, 1988).

We proposed a model of intergroup contact wherein contact promotes understanding of outgroup perspectives, perspective taking relates to reduced intergroup anxiety that in turn is associated with lessened stereotyping and more positive intergroup attitudes. Additionally, we examined if implicit attitudes followed this model or were directly impacted by contact. White undergraduates (n = 153) completed measures of contact, perspective taking, intergroup anxiety, stereotype endorsement, and implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. Our model fitted the data well but explained explicit attitudes and stereotyping better than implicit attitudes. Supporting an environmental association interpretation, contact was the only significant predictor of implicit attitudes. Findings support a dual-process model wherein implicit and explicit attitudes represent separate constructs and support the value of contact in improving intergroup attitudes.

Two hundred seventy‐three White undergraduates participated in an investigation of how beliefs relate to support for affirmative action (AA) policies. Beliefs included belief in the fairness of AA, belief in merit, and belief in the value of diversity. Analyses predicted support for a general affirmative action policy, a tiebreak policy, and a policy using banding from beliefs and individual‐level variables such as future benefit from AA and demographics. For the general policy, each belief predicted support for AA. Fairness and value of diversity predicted support for a tiebreak policy. Value of diversity predicted support for aptitude testing. Individual characteristics improved prediction for AA in general but not for tiebreak policy or aptitude testing. We discuss predictions and results in terms of procedural and distributive justice, fairness heuristic theory, and models of support for AA.