DOCSLIB.ORG

The Role of Intergroup Threat in Attitudes Toward Same-Sex

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Role of Intergroup Threat in Attitudes Toward Same-Sex THE ROLE OF INTERGROUP THREAT IN ATTITUDES TOWARD SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND ITS BENEFICIARIES HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY By James Patrick Clifton A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Psychology Academic Research May, 2011 THE ROLE OF INTERGROUP THREAT IN ATTITUDES TOWARD SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND ITS BENEFICIARIES HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY By James Patrick Clifton Approved by the Master's Thesis Committee: Dr. Chris Aberson, Major Professor Date Dr. Gregg Gold, Committee Member Date Dr. Dave Campbell, Committee Member Date Dr. Chris Aberson, Graduate Coordinator Date Dr. Jená Burges, Vice Provost Date Abstract The Role of Intergroup Threat in Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage and its Beneficiaries James Patrick Clifton This study investigated the relationship between perceptions of threat and attitudes toward same-sex marriage from the framework of intergroup threat theory (ITT). Intergroup threat theory postulates that outgroup prejudice and discrimination are driven by threats to the ingroup. Threats in ITT include realistic threat (i.e., perceived impediments to ingroup welfare), symbolic threat (i.e., threats to the integrity of ingroup worldview), and intergroup anxiety. As a set, threats explained 84% of the variance in policy attitudes and 67% of the variance in beneficiary attitudes. Symbolic threat was most strongly tied to policy opposition, followed by intergroup anxiety and realistic threat. Prejudice toward beneficiaries of same-sex marriage was predicted by symbolic threat and intergroup anxiety, but not realistic threat. This work supported the prediction that stronger perceptions of intergroup threat are associated with greater resistance to same-sex marriage and more prejudiced attitudes toward its beneficiaries. Implications and directions for future research are discussed. iii Table of Contents Page Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vii Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 Literature Review................................................................................................................ 5 Realistic Threat ............................................................................................................... 5 Symbolic Threat .............................................................................................................. 6 Intergroup Anxiety .......................................................................................................... 7 Integrated Threat Theory ............................................................................................... 11 Intergroup Threat Theory .............................................................................................. 12 Realistic threat ........................................................................................................... 13 Symbolic threat .......................................................................................................... 13 Intergroup anxiety...................................................................................................... 14 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 15 Hypothesis 1 .............................................................................................................. 16 Hypothesis 2 .............................................................................................................. 17 Rationale .................................................................................................................... 17 Hypothesis 3 .............................................................................................................. 18 Rationale .................................................................................................................... 18 Method .............................................................................................................................. 19 Participants .................................................................................................................... 19 Measures ........................................................................................................................ 23 Realistic threat ........................................................................................................... 23 Symbolic threat .......................................................................................................... 23 iv Intergroup anxiety...................................................................................................... 24 Attitudes toward same-sex marriage ......................................................................... 24 Attitudes toward beneficiaries of same-sex marriage ................................................ 24 Procedure ....................................................................................................................... 25 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 25 Results ............................................................................................................................... 28 Reliability ...................................................................................................................... 28 Tests of Hypotheses ...................................................................................................... 31 Do the Threat Measures Address Distinct Constructs? ................................................. 36 Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 38 Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage ........................................................................... 38 Attitudes toward Policy Beneficiaries ........................................................................... 41 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 42 Directions for Future Research ..................................................................................... 44 General Discussion ........................................................................................................ 46 References ......................................................................................................................... 49 APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................... 58 Survey Form .................................................................................................................. 58 v List of Tables Table Page 1 Comparison of the Demographic Characteristics between HSU and ISU …...….21 2 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and α Coefficients among Study Variables ………………………………………………………………….30 3 F Model, R2 Model, Squared Semi-Partial Correlations, Standardized Regression Coefficients, Raw Regression Coefficients, and 95% CI around Regression Coefficients ………………………………………………....33 4 Rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities of Realistic Threat, Symbolic Threat, and Intergroup Anxiety Items …………………………….….37 vi List of Figures Figure Page 1 Standardized Beta Coefficients Demonstrating the Role of Threats in Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage …………………………………………...34 2 Standardized Beta Coefficients Demonstrating the Role of Threats in Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage Beneficiaries …………………………….35 vii Introduction The contentious atmosphere surrounding the policy of same-sex marriage is characterized by fervor from the opposition and an equal intensity of ardor from proponents. Despite considerable strides made by the gay community in gaining equal rights over the past several decades, highly polarized attitudes surrounding same-sex marriage demonstrate that sexual prejudice remains a major societal issue (Herek, 2000). Given the long history of prejudice and discrimination faced by sexual minorities in the United States, it is not surprising that same-sex marriage is a topic of heated debate. Arguments against same-sex marriage are often framed in terms of clashing values or religious beliefs—barriers that are resistant to change (Herek, 2006). However, arguments against same-sex marriage often used in court rulings to depict harmful consequences of same-sex marriage (e.g., that children raised by same-sex parents are at risk for developmental problems) are not empirically substantiated (Patterson, 2009). Both the American Psychological Association (2004) and the American Psychiatric Association (2005) endorse legalization of same-sex marriages. The struggle to legalize same-sex marriage has been met with fierce opposition because many people perceive the policy as threatening (Schmitt, Lenmiller,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Contact Hypothesis Reevaluated1
    The Contact Hypothesis Reevaluated1 Elizabeth Levy Paluck2, Seth A. Green3, and Donald P. Green4 Abstract This paper evaluates the state of contact hypothesis research from a policy perspective. Building on Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) influential meta-analysis, we assemble all intergroup contact studies that feature random assignment and delayed outcome measures, of which there are 27 in total, nearly two-thirds of which were published following the original review. We find the evidence from this updated dataset to be consistent with Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) conclusion that contact “typically reduces prejudice." At the same time, our meta-analysis suggests that contact’s effects vary, with interventions directed at ethnic or racial prejudice generating substantially weaker effects. Moreover, our inventory of relevant studies reveals important gaps, most notably the absence of studies addressing adults’ racial or ethnic prejudice, an important limitation for both theory and policy. We also call attention to the lack of research that systematically investigates the scope conditions suggested by Allport (1954) under which contact is most influential. We conclude that these gaps in contact research must be addressed empirically before this hypothesis can reliably guide policy. What we have learned since Pettigrew and Tropp: A 10-year retrospective and update For more than a century, researchers have sought to understand what causes people to harbor and express prejudice against outgroups. Sustained attention to the topic of prejudice reflects the fact that in every era and region, stereotyping, discrimination, and 1 For invaluable research contributions, the authors thank Jason Chin and Kulani Dias. For detailed comments on their meta-analyses, we thank Linda Tropp, Thomas Pettigrew, Gunnar Lemmer, and Ulrich Wagner.
    [Show full text]
  • The Psychology of Cultural Contact
    1 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CULTURAL CONTACT Deborah A. Prentice and Dale T. Miller thnic diversity currently preoccupies a sizable segment of U.S. society, from employers and school administrators, who must E manage diversity within institutional settings, to politicians and social scientists, who must formulate policies for addressing the com- peting claims of different ethnic groups. The issue of diversity is fraught with anxiety. Ethnic conflicts in many countries around the world attest to the potential for relations across cultural boundaries to go seriously and destructively awry. Moreover, Americans' own struggles with race have left many pessimistic about the prospects for achieving positive, stable relations between ethnic groups. With new waves of immigrants coming from Asia and Latin America and higher birth rates among mi- nority than majority groups, the U.S. population is becoming, and will continue to become, ethnically and culturally more diverse. Thus, how to promote positive relations across group boundaries is a question of paramount importance. Thirty or forty years ago, psychologists thought they had an answer to this question. The contact hypothesis posited that if members of dif- ferent ethnic groups interact with each other on an equal-status basis in pursuit of common goals, positive intergroup relations will result (Allport 1954). This hypothesis was so appealing that it spawned hun- dreds of studies designed to test and refine its claims. The results have been less than encouraging. Yes, equal-status contact can have positive results, but only if many conditions obtain: the contact should be mean- ingful and have the potential to extend beyond the immediate situation; the individuals should be as similar as possible on all dimensions be- sides group membership; the contact should be voluntary, extended in duration, and varied across contexts; and so on (for a more complete list, see Stephan 1985).
    [Show full text]
  • Intergroup Threat Theory Walter G. Stephan University of Hawaii Oscar
    Intergroup Threat Theory Walter G. Stephan University of Hawaii Oscar Ybarra University of Michigan Kimberly Rios Morrison Stanford University To be published T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of Prejudice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Address correspondence to: Walter G. Stephan, 2097 Aliali Pl. Hononlulu, HI 96821. Email: [email protected] Intergroup Threat Theory We live in a world polarized by religion, nationality, political ideology, race, ethnicity, sex, social class, and so many more divisions they are too numerous to mention. These social groups shape our identities and our lives. All of these social groups are characterized by membership criteria and boundaries – they include some people and exclude others. Although it is not logically necessary for these boundaries to imply any tension between groups, in practice relations between groups are far more likely to be antagonistic than complementary. Social identity theorists argue that one reason for intergroup antagonism is the psychological benefits conferred on group members, particularly those associated with identification with ingroups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). These benefits include acceptance, belonging, and social support, as well as a system of roles, rules, norms, values, and beliefs to guide behavior. Groups also provide our lives with meaning by boosting our self-esteem (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990), increasing our sense of distinctiveness from others (Turner, 1987), and making us more certain of the social world and our place within it (Abrams & Hogg, 1988). Because of the needs they fill, groups are as dear to us as life itself, and we fear their destruction almost as much as we fear our own. As a result, we tend to favor our own group and exhibit hostility toward other groups, especially during dangerous or contentious times (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1986).
    [Show full text]
  • Mckeown, S., & Dixon, J. (2017). the 'Contact Hypothesis': Critical
    McKeown, S., & Dixon, J. (2017). The ‘contact hypothesis’: Critical reflections and future directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(1), [e12295]. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12295 Peer reviewed version Link to published version (if available): 10.1111/spc3.12295 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the accepted author manuscript (AAM). The final published version (version of record) is available online via Wiley at http://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12295. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ 1 The ‘contact hypothesis’: Critical reflections and future directions Research on intergroup contact has grown exponentially over the past decade. Such research has typically extolled the benefits of positive interaction between members of historically divided communities, particularly on outcomes related to prejudice reduction. Emerging work in the field, however, has qualified this optimistic picture by identifying three gaps in the existing literature. First, in everyday life, contact may be construed as a negative experience that increases rather than decreases responses such as prejudice, anxiety, and avoidance. Second, in real life settings, contact is often circumscribed by informal practices of (re)segregation that are easily overlooked if researchers rely primarily on examining structured contact and explicit processes using primarily laboratory and questionnaire methods. Third, positive contact may have ‘ironic’ effects on the political attitudes and behaviours of the historically disadvantaged, undermining their recognition of social injustice and decreasing their willingness to engage in collective action to challenge the status quo.
    [Show full text]
  • Contact, Perspective Taking, and Anxiety As Predictors of Stereotype Endorsement, Explicit Attitudes, and Implicit Attitudes Christopher L
    Contact, Perspective Taking, and Anxiety as Predictors of Stereotype Endorsement, Explicit Attitudes, and Implicit Attitudes Christopher L. Aberson, Sarah C. Haag To cite this version: Christopher L. Aberson, Sarah C. Haag. Contact, Perspective Taking, and Anxiety as Predictors of Stereotype Endorsement, Explicit Attitudes, and Implicit Attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, SAGE Publications, 2007, 10 (2), pp.179-201. 10.1177/1368430207074726. hal-00571645 HAL Id: hal-00571645 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571645 Submitted on 1 Mar 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2007 Vol 10(2) 179–201 Contact, Perspective Taking, and Anxiety as Predictors of Stereotype Endorsement, Explicit Attitudes, and Implicit Attitudes Christopher L. Aberson Humboldt State University Sarah C. Haag University of Iowa 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Intergroup Contact and Prejudice Toward Muslims Before and After The
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Lincoln Institutional Repository TERRORISM, INTERGROUP CONTACT AND PREJUDICE 1 Does Terror Defeat Contact? Intergroup Contact and Prejudice Toward Muslims Before and After the London Bombings Dominic Abramsa, Julie Van de Vyvera, b, Diane M. Houstona, & Milica Vasiljevica, c aCentre for the Study of Group Processes, School of Psychology, University of Kent, UK bSchool of Psychology, University of Lincoln, UK cBehaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, UK Corresponding Author: Dominic Abrams, Centre for the Study of Group Processes (CSGP), School of Psychology, University of Kent, UK. Email: [email protected]. Tel: +44 1227 827475. Author Notes: This research was funded by the UK Government Women and Equality Unit, and analyses were further funded by ESRC grant ES/J500148/1. This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record. http://www.apa.org. TERRORISM, INTERGROUP CONTACT AND PREJUDICE 2 Abstract Allport (1954) proposed a series of preconditions that have subsequently been shown to facilitate effects of intergroup contact on attitudes toward outgroups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). The present study examines whether objective threat, in the form of the 2005 London 7/7 terror attack, can inhibit the positive effects of contact. We tested hypotheses that contact would affect prejudice toward Muslims regardless of the bombings (contact prevails), or that the bombings would reduce or inhibit the effects of contact on prejudice (threat inhibits). Data were collected through representative national surveys one month before and again one month after the attacks in London on 7th July 2005 (pre7-7 N = 931; post7-7 N = 1100), which represent relatively low and relatively high salience of ‘objective threat’.
    [Show full text]
  • The Parasocial Contact Hypothesis Edward Schiappa, Peter B
    Communication Monographs Vol. 72, No. 1, March 2005, pp. 92–115 The Parasocial Contact Hypothesis Edward Schiappa, Peter B. Gregg, & Dean E. Hewes We propose a communication analogue to Allport’s (1954) Contact Hypothesis called the Parasocial Contact Hypothesis (PCH). If people process mass-mediated parasocial interaction in a manner similar to interpersonal interaction, then the socially beneficial functions of intergroup contact may result from parasocial contact. We describe and test the PCH with respect to majority group members’ level of prejudice in three studies, two involving parasocial contact with gay men (Six Feet Under and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy) and one involving parasocial contact with comedian and male transvestite Eddie Izzard. In all three studies, parasocial contact was associated with lower levels of prejudice. Moreover, tests of the underlying mechanisms of PCH were generally supported, suggesting that parasocial contact facilitates positive parasocial responses and changes in beliefs about the attributes of minority group categories. Keywords: Parasocial; Contact Hypothesis; Prejudice; Television Studies One of the most important and enduring contributions of social psychology in the past 50 years is known as the Contact Hypothesis (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003). Credited to Gordon W. Allport (1954), the Contact Hypothesis, or Intergroup Contact Theory, states that under appropriate conditions interpersonal contact is one of the most effective ways to reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members. Coincidentally, two years after Allport’s book, The Nature of Prejudice, was published, Horton and Wohl (1956) argued for studying what they dubbed para-social interaction: “One of the most striking characteristics of the new mass media—radio, Edward Schiappa (Ph.
    [Show full text]
  • “Contact” Sports: Competitive Athletic Experience, Racial Attitudes, and Intergroup Contact
    University of Nebraska at Omaha DigitalCommons@UNO Theses/Capstones/Creative Projects University Honors Program 5-2020 “Contact” Sports: Competitive Athletic Experience, Racial Attitudes, and Intergroup Contact Savana Nawojski [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/university_honors_program Part of the Gender and Sexuality Commons, Race and Ethnicity Commons, and the Sports Studies Commons Recommended Citation Nawojski, Savana, "“Contact” Sports: Competitive Athletic Experience, Racial Attitudes, and Intergroup Contact" (2020). Theses/Capstones/Creative Projects. 87. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/university_honors_program/87 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the University Honors Program at DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses/Capstones/Creative Projects by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. “Contact” Sports: Competitive Athletic Experience, Racial Attitudes, and Intergroup Contact An Honors Thesis by Savana Nawojski in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree Bachelor of Science with Honors University of Nebraska at Omaha May 2020 Faculty Mentor: Dr. Daniel Hawkins ABSTRACT Allport’s (1954) Intergroup Contact hypothesis suggests that interaction among people from different racial and ethnic backgrounds can reduce prejudice, particularly in situations that involve cooperation and common goals. Although participation in competitive sports may provide opportunities for cooperative interaction among people from different racial backgrounds, and athletic teams tend to be more diverse at higher levels (NCAA 2019), relatively little work has examined the contact hypothesis in this context. Using a national representative data set (N = 966), we examine whether respondents’ levels of competitive ​ athletic experience are related to their attitudes toward African Americans.
    [Show full text]
  • The Imagined Contact Hypothesis: Prejudice Towards Asylum Seekers in Australia
    International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change. www.ijicc.net . Volume 3, Issue 4, March, 2018. Special Edition: Teaching and Training in Cross Cultural Competencies The Imagined Contact Hypothesis: Prejudice towards asylum seekers in Australia Samuel C. McWaters and Russell Hawkins, Department of Psychology, James Cook University, Cairns, Australiai The present study was prompted by awareness of prejudicial attitudes towards refugees evident in Australian media and politics. It used some innovative measures of prejudice including the distance apart in chair placements made by respondents prior to sitting next to a refugee and estimates of the hypothetical dollar value of resources to be allocated to refugees in comparison with the amount to be allocated to indigenous Australians and other social groups. More conventional attitude scale measures were also used (the Attitudes Towards Asylum Seekers Scale, an infrahumanisation measure, an empathy measure, a measure of perspective taking). In an attempt to reduce prejudice levels, the social psychology technique of imagined contact with an outgroup (asylum seekers who travel to Australia by boat) was used. The experimental design used randomised, independent groups (imagined contact and control conditions) with repeated measures for time (post intervention and follow up). University students (N = 54) who imagined an interaction with an asylum seeker showed higher levels of empathy than did the control group. While measures of prejudice did not differ between experimental conditions, notably low levels of prejudice in this student sample from a north Queensland university were found. The low levels of prejudice found in the present sample were both gratifying and somewhat unexpected. The study needs to be replicated with a community sample comparison group included or one initially shown to hold more strongly prejudicial attitudes.
    [Show full text]
  • Obstacles to Intergroup Contact
    1 British Journal of Social Psychology (2013) © 2013 The British Psychological Society www.wileyonlinelibrary.com Brief report Obstacles to intergroup contact: When outgroup partner’s anxiety meets perceived ethnic discrimination Luca Andrighetto1*, Federica Durante2, Federica Lugani2, Chiara Volpato2 and Alberto Mirisola3 1University of Genova, Italy 2University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy 3Italian National Research Council, Institute for Educational Technology, Palermo, Italy Emerging research suggests that outgroup partner’s anxiety can disrupt intergroup rapport-building. This study extends previous findings by investigating the interactive effects of anticipated outgroup partner’s anxiety and perceived ethnic discrimination on self-anxiety and intergroup contact avoidance. A sample of immigrant adolescents belonging to different ethnic minorities in Italy (N = 118) was considered. Results showed that when participants expected to interact with an anxious outgroup (Italian) versus in-group partner, self-anxiety increased and, as a consequence, their intentions to avoid future encounters. However, these effects were observed only for participants with higher (vs. lower) perceptions of being discriminated against. The implications of these results for interethnic communication and misunderstandings are discussed. In the last few decades, most European countries have become host to an unprecedented number of immigrants (Stanley, 2008). Consequently, the opportunities for interethnic encounters have constantly increased. Unfortunately,
    [Show full text]
  • Intergroup Anxiety and Willingness to Partner: Heterosexual
    INTERGROUP ANXIETY AND WILLINGNESS TO PARTNER: HETEROSEXUAL RESPONSE TO SEXUAL MINORITY CO-WORKERS by COREY S. MUÑOZ (Under the Direction of Kecia M. Thomas) ABSTRACT The diversification of the workplace is a growing trend in organizations today. Traditionally this diversity has focused on gender and racial diversity. However, this study broadens the definition of diversity to include sexual minority issues in the workplace. More specifically, this research accessed participant’s willingness to partner with a sexual minority coworker. Employee biographical forms have been provided as a means for manipulating variables (job level & sexuality). Previous contact experiences and intergroup anxiety towards sexual minorities were also examined as possible influences on participant’s willingness to partner. The results indicated that the sexuality of the co-workers did play an important part in participant’s willingness to partner as heterosexual employees were rated higher than homosexual. Gender differences were found in intergroup anxiety and previous contact experiences. Job level influenced distancing behaviors as the greatest differences in ratings between heterosexual and homosexual employees were found at the senior manager job level. INDEX WORDS: Gay & lesbian employees, Intergroup anxiety, Interpersonal heterosexism, Job partner, Co-worker attitudes, Employee job level INTERGROUP ANXIETY AND WILLINGNESS TO PARTNER: HETEROSEXUAL RESPONSE TO SEXUAL MINORITY CO-WORKERS by COREY S. MUÑOZ B.A., The Oklahoma State University, 2000 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF SCIENCE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2003 © 2003 Corey S. Muñoz All Rights Reserved INTERGROUP ANXIETY AND WILLINGNESS TO PARTNER: HETEROSEXUAL RESPONSE TO SEXUAL MINORITY CO-WORKERS by COREY S.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumulative Subject Index Volumes 1–25 (Contains Links to Entries) ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
    European Review of Social Psychology Cumulative Subject Index Volumes 1–25 (contains links to entries) ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ Locators in bold refer to figures/tables goal-based explanations (12) 201–235 – Action control, behavioural intentions Ability, praise and criticism (3) 259 283 (12) 21 Abnormal conditions focus model (2) 59–61 – Action control, emotion regulation (23) Aboriginal Peoples, Canada (24) 15 16 146–156 Absentminded relapses (22) 20 Action initiation, implementation intentions Abstract language use (25) see Linguistic (4) 166–171 abstraction Action readiness (22) 116, 117; (22) 153 Abstract modelling, indirect intergroup Action for social change (24) 244 contact (25) 319, 375 Action-oriented personality factors (24) 146, Abstract reasoning (22) 169 146–147 Abstraction, intragroup variability (7) – Action tendencies, conflict resolution (25) 4, 111 113 9–10, 18 Abu Ghraib, prisoners (24) 2 Activation of attitudes (24) 270–273 Academic personnel selection (25) see Actor effects (22) 367, 369 Personnel selection Actor perspective, positive–negative Academic procrastination (24) 155, 156 asymmetry (1) 38–39 Access consciousness (22) 8–9 – – Actor observer bias Access dissociations (22) 4, 10 17 agent vs. recipient (16) 182–184 Acceptance of death, terror management – linguistic category model (LCM) (2) theory (25) 57, 58 59 17–18 Accessible knowledge prediction (6) 13–16 meta-cognition (22) 185–186 – Actor-Partner Interdependence Model priming (22) 183 185 (APIM) (22) 350; (22) 367 Accessibility of thoughts Acute stress
    [Show full text]