Suchergebnisse

"The main objective of this volume is to show how a mature social psychological study of social categories can help us understand the similarities and differences between different categorical systems, the way multiple social categories intersect and overlap, and the way they can inform our everyday interactions and public policy. What makes this book unique is its emphasis on the similarities and differences between two category systems: gender and immigration. Consistent with Deaux's research, the chapters in this volume demonstrate that a social psychological perspective can be applied to both. At the same time, people attach different meanings to each. This volume also takes seriously the variations between them. The second unique contribution of the book is its emphasis on multiplicity. Much of the research on social psychology has considered categories one at a time (Bodenhausen, 2010), despite the fact that we all belong to many and their independent effects cannot be easily partialed out. The experience of race is different for women and men, just as the immigrant experience cannot be captured by studying attachment to the home and the host culture independently. The third and final contribution of the book is the clear link between the science in each chapter and public policy and everyday life. For budding psychologists the book can serve as an introduction to the way that social psychologists understand social categories in an increasingly complex world. For more established researchers the book highlights the cutting edge of psychological theorizing and research on how social categories overlap and intersect in the real world and how they influence outcomes as diverse as leadership, stereotyping, attributions, and intergroup relations. The book can be used in classes across multiple disciplines, including psychology, sociology, political science, and public policy"--Preface. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

On the eve of the 2012 U.S. Presidential election, we conducted an initial investigation into the determinants of people's attitudes toward the U.S. military's use of drone strikes in Pakistan. Drawing on existing research and theory in social and political psychology, we examined the effects of political ideology, framing effects (national security vs. human costs), value orientations, and the salience of Presidential candidate endorsement (Obama vs. Romney) on attitudes toward drone policy. The perceived relevance of security values and universalism values to judgments of drone policy mediated the relationship between ideology and drone policy attitudes. Additionally, a human costs frame increased the relevance of universalism values and decreased the relevance of security values to drone policy attitudes relative to a national security frame, and, through these values, decreased support for drone strikes. Neither of these effects was moderated by candidate salience. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, and identify several avenues for future research on this important and controversial policy. Adapted from the source document.

On the eve of the 2012 U.S. Presidential election, we conducted an initial investigation into the determinants of people's attitudes toward the U.S. military's use of drone strikes in Pakistan. Drawing on existing research and theory in social and political psychology, we examined the effects of political ideology, framing effects (national security vs. human costs), value orientations, and the salience of Presidential candidate endorsement (Obama vs. Romney) on attitudes toward drone policy. The perceived relevance of security values and universalism values to judgments of drone policy mediated the relationship between ideology and drone policy attitudes. Additionally, a human costs frame increased the relevance of universalism values and decreased the relevance of security values to drone policy attitudes relative to a national security frame, and, through these values, decreased support for drone strikes. Neither of these effects was moderated by candidate salience. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings, and identify several avenues for future research on this important and controversial policy.