Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Title Page -- Dedication -- Author's Note -- Part 1. Public Perceptions in a Rapidly Changing World -- Chapter 1: Getting to Houston -- Chapter 2: The Quintessential American City: Houston, 1836-1982 -- Chapter 3: Launching the Systematic Study of a City in Transition -- Part 2. Confronting the New Economy -- Chapter 4: When All the Good Fortune Suddenly Ended -- Chapter 5: The Growing Opportunity Gap -- Chapter 6: The Moral Core of a Paradoxical City -- Part 3. The Diversity Revolution -- Chapter 7: The Black/White Divide -- Chapter 8: The Demographic Transformations -- Chapter 9: The New Face of Houston -- Part 4. Coming to Grips with the New Realities -- Chapter 10: Generational Divides in a Time of Transition -- Chapter 11: The New Importance of Quality of Place -- Chapter 12: Pathways to Success or Failure -- Chapter 13: Where Will Houston Go from Here? -- Acknowledgments -- About the Author -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index -- Copyright.

Objective. This study explores attitudes toward municipal affirmative action contracting among Anglos, African Americans, and Hispanics, testing predictors of support separately for each group and measuring changes over time.Methods. In five successive annual Houston‐area surveys, U.S.‐born Anglos, African Americans, Hispanics, and Hispanic immigrants evaluated a strong version of the city's affirmative action contracting program.Results. Ethnic contrasts in support were partly mediated by differences on the predictors. The predictors of affirmative action attitudes varied greatly by ethnic group. Changes in support across the five years appeared to be associated with the 1997 campaign surrounding the effort to end the city's affirmative action program, and with subsequent policy modifications.Conclusions. The ethnic divisions and the recent increases among all groups in support for the city's program underscore the value of crafting carefully targeted and flexible policies that are perceived to be responding only to documented disadvantage.

This study explores attitudes toward municipal affirmative action contracting among Anglos, African Americans, & Hispanics, testing predictors of support separately for each group & measuring changes over time. In five successive annual Houston-area surveys, US-born Anglos, African Americans, Hispanics, & Hispanic immigrants evaluated a strong version of the city's affirmative action contracting program. Ethnic contrasts in support were partly mediated by differences on the predictors. The predictors of affirmative action attitudes varied greatly by ethnic group. Changes in support across the five years appeared to be associated with the 1997 campaign surrounding the effort to end the city's affirmative action program, & with subsequent policy modifications. The ethnic divisions & the recent increases among all groups in support for the city's program underscore the value of crafting carefully targeted & flexible policies that are perceived to be responding only to documented disadvantage. 2 Tables, 32 References. Adapted from the source document.

The complex variety of experiences that characterize the current wave of immigration have prompted revisions in the classic model of straight‐line assimilation; the most important alternative theory is based on the concept of "segmented" assimilation. This paper assesses the validity of these two perspectives with data on three generations of Hispanic immigrants in Houston. Contrary to the standard assimilation model, third‐generation Hispanics are not staying in school longer, nor are they earning higher wages than members of the second generation. But contrary to the segmented‐assimilation model, third‐generation Hispanics also give no evidence at all of having assimilated into an "adversarial" culture that rejects mainstream American values and is presumably responsible for restricting their upward mobility. The data reaffirm the pivotal role of education in determining occupational mobility, and they point to the importance of identifying the external societal factors that account for the stalled progress in educational achievement among third‐generation Hispanic Americans.

An attempt is made to clarify reasons for the inconsistent relationships reported in previous research between measures of environmental concern & standard demographic predictors, highlighting the specific trade-offs & implicit comparisons associated with the different ways environmental issues are framed in questionnaire items. Combining data from 4 biennial surveys across TX, 8 demographic variables are regressed on each of 21 repeated measures of environmental attitudes. Reliable relationships across the different ways of measuring environmental concern are found for education & age. This is much less true for gender, religiosity, & ethnicity. Income, size of town, & self-identified political ideology have quite specific & delimited effects. It is concluded that the determinants of environmental concern vary in predictable ways, depending on the trade-offs reflected in the questionnaire items. 6 Tables, 38 References. Adapted from the source document.

Two experiments found that affirmative action attitudes varied with the respondent's racioethnic group, strength of affirmative action plan (AAP), anticipated consequences of the AAP, and interactions of racioethnic group with the other variables. AAP strength had a monotonic negative effect on attitudes for some groups, but an inverse-U effect for others. Attitudes were most strongly associated with the anticipated impact of the AAP on company performance; they were also related to the expected effects on collective self-interest, target group representation, and target group stigmatization. The positive relation between the anticipated impact on company performance and support for the AAP was stronger among Whites than U.S.-born Hispanics; the negative relation between anticipated stigmatization and AAP support was stronger among Whites than African-Americans. The effect of AAP strength on attitudes was partially mediated by the anticipated consequences among Whites and African-Americans, but not among Hispanics and Asians.