Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups

Considerable research has shown that greater intergroup contact corresponds with lower intergroup prejudice, yet little is known regarding how the relationships between contact and prejudice may vary for members of minority and majority status groups. The present research examined differences in contact-prejudice relationships among members of minority and majority status groups, using data from a larger meta-analytic study of the effects of intergroup contact. Results indicate that the relationships between contact and prejudice tend to be weaker among members of minority status groups than among members of majority status groups. Moreover, establishing Allport's (1954) proposed conditions for optimal intergroup contact significantly predicts stronger contact-prejudice relationships among members of majority status groups, but not among members of minority status groups. Implications of these findings for future research on contact between minority and majority status groups are discussed.     

Effects of Ethnic Diversity: The Position of Minority Workers in Two Dutch Organizations1

This research compares the position of workers of majority and minority ethnic backgrounds in two Dutch organizations (the police force and health care). Both quantitative and qualitative data were gathered. The data do not indicate a consistent difference between majority and minority workers on performance and well-being. This does not mean that they have the same experiences: Most minority workers are confronted with discrimination and negative expectations, and many are in a solo position. Their majority colleagues do not have to face these challenges. The diversity in the group is liked by most respondents, and they see a positive effect of ethnic diversity on the quality of their work. Research findings are compared with the findings of experimental research on ethnically diverse groups.     

Effectiveness of family therapy: a meta-analysis

The effectiveness of family therapy is assessed in a meta-analysis of 19 studies. At post-treatment, the average patient with family therapy is better off than 76% of the patients with an alternative treatment, a minimal treatment or no treatment. This effect is comparable to that assessed of other psycho-therapies at post-treatment. Our data suggest, that the effect of family therapy increases during the first year after treatment, but that the effect may diminish sharply 18 months after the end of therapy. However, more studies with extended follow-ups will be needed before firm conclusions about the long-term effectiveness of family therapy can be advanced.     

On the Expected Utility Objection to the Dutch Book Argument for Probabilism*

The Dutch Book Argument for Probabilism assumes Ramsey's Thesis (RT), which determines the prices an agent is rationally required to pay for a bet. Hedden (2013) argues that Ramsey's Thesis is wrong. He claims that Maximise Subjective Expected Utility (MSEU) determines those prices, and it often disagrees with Ramsey's Thesis. I suggest two responses to Hedden's objection. First, we might be permissive: agents are permitted to pay any price that is required or permitted by RT, and they are permitted to pay any price that is required or permitted by MSEU. This allows us to give a revised version of the Dutch Book Argument for Probabilism, which I call the Permissive Dutch Book Argument. Second, I suggest that even Hedden should admit that RT gives the correct answer in certain very limited cases, and I show that, together with MSEU, this very restricted version of RT gives a new pragmatic argument for Probabilism, which I call the Bookless Pragmatic Argument.     

The Population Ethics of Belief: In Search of an Epistemic Theory X

Consider Phoebe and Daphne. Phoebe has credences in 1 million propositions. Daphne, on the other hand, has credences in all of these propositions, but she's also got credences in 999 million other propositions. Phoebe's credences are all very accurate. Each of Daphne's credences, in contrast, are not very accurate at all; each is a little more accurate than it is inaccurate, but not by much. Whose doxastic state is better, Phoebe's or Daphne's? It is clear that this question is analogous to a question that has exercised ethicists over the past thirty years. How do we weigh a population consisting of some number of exceptionally happy and satisfied individuals against another population consisting of a much greater number of people whose lives are only just worth living? This is the question that occasions population ethics. In this paper, I go in search of the correct population ethics for credal states.     

Role of perceived importance in intergroup contact

Furthering G. W. Allport's contentions for optimal contact, the authors introduce a new construct: the perceived importance of contact. They propose that perceived importance is the best proximal predictor of contact's reduction of prejudice. If individuals have opportunities for contact at work or in the neighborhood, their chances to have intergroup acquaintances and friends increase. Intergroup contact among acquaintances and friends can be perceived as more or less important, which in turn determines intergroup evaluations. A 1st study shows that the new measure of perceived importance is indeed distinct from established quantity and quality indicators. The results are cross-validated in a 2nd study that also sheds light on the meaning of importance. In 3rd and 4th studies, structural equation analyses and a meta-analysis support the hypotheses.     

The Subjective Interpretation of Inequality: A Model of the Relative Deprivation Experience

Relative deprivation (RD) is the product of an upward comparison that indicates that one's disadvantaged situation is undeserved coupled with anger and resentment. RD is associated with reduced psychological and physical health, individual deviance, and collective action, but empirical tests of RD are inconsistent. Closer attention to three central features of the RD experience – comparisons, discrete emotions, and the type of outcome – will improve the predictive value of RD. If social scientists measure RD correctly, they can answer the questions about people's surprising tolerance of large inequities in some contexts and unexpected sensitivity to small inequities in other contexts that first motivated RD research.     

What is conditionalization,and why should we do it?

Philosophical Studies - Conditionalization is one of the central norms of Bayesian epistemology. But there are a number of competing formulations, and a number of arguments that purport to...