Racial groups and test fairness, considering history and construct validity

According to Helms, "test fairness" is defined as "removal from test scores of systematic variance attributable to experiences of racial or cultural socialization." Some of Helms's reasoning is based on earlier work, which recommended that racial group or category variables be replaced entirely with individual-level constructs, to reflect racial socialization experiences that vary within racial groups. Treatment of the test fairness issue--a social and political issue--will benefit from explicitly considering historical events that contributed to group-level race differences. In light of this history, D. A. Newman et al suggest (a) retaining a group-level conceptualization of race/racial socialization and also (b) focusing on criterion-irrelevant variance in test scores that is attributable to race.     

Fairness is not validity or cultural bias in racial-group assessment: a quantitative perspective

When test scores that differ by racial groups are used for assessment purposes, resulting decisions regarding members of the lower scoring group are potentially unfair. Fairness is defined as the removal from test scores of systematic variance attributable to experiences of racial or cultural socialization, and it is differentiated from test-score validity and cultural bias. Two fairness models for identifying, quantifying, and removing from test scores construct-irrelevant variance attributable to racial or cultural psychological attributes are presented. ((c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).     

Procedural fairness and self-esteem

We argue that people's self-esteem is affected by the fairness of procedures to which they are subjected; unfair treatment will lower self-esteem. Moreover, since this influence on self-esteem is presumably due to the implicit evaluation expressed by the choice of procedure and hence by the evaluation expressed by the person implementing the procedure, people's concern with the fairness of treatment will be focused on the interactional aspects of the procedure. In two experiments designed to test these hypotheses subjects received either a high or a low grade on an ability test on the basis of either fair or unfair grading procedures. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that subjects' self-esteem was lower after unfair treatment, and this influence was only apparent when subjects received high test feedback. Additionally, ratings of the fairness of the interaction were lower following unfair grading procedures. Experiment 2 also manipulated level of involvement with the test. Self-esteem was affected by procedural fairness and procedural fairness influenced perceived fairness of the interaction only in the high involvement condition.     

Implementing fairness in racial-group assessment requires assessment of individuals

Replies to comments by R. J. Griffore and D. A. Newman et al on the author's original article on test validity and cultural bias in racial-group assessment. Helms notes that, given that within-group variance exceeds between-groups variance, racial groups are probably simulating a psychological construct that is more strongly related to individuals' test scores than to their respective racial group's mean test scores. Therefore, models of individual differences, such as her Helms individual-differences (HID) model, that remove construct-irrelevant racial variance, are needed to make the testing process fair at the level of individual African American, Latino/Latina American, and Native American test takers. Her HID model is intended to focus attention on identifying the factors responsible for the racial-group-level differences and, thereby, assist test users to look beyond presumed physical appearance (e.g., racial-group designations) for explanations of individuals' cognitive abilities, knowledge, or skills test scores.     

THE VALIDITY and FAIRNESS OF EMPLOYMENT and EDUCATIONAL TESTS FOR HISPANIC AMERICANS: A REVIEW and ANALYSIS

This study examined the questions of whether employment and educational tests demonstrate either differential validity or test unfairness to Hispanic Americans relative to the majority group. Relevant data from 19 published and unpublished studies formed the basis of the review and analysis. Results for employment tests, based on a very large amount of data, indicated that differential validity occurs no more frequently than would be expected on the basis of chance plus the operation of various statistical artifacts. The frequencies of slope and intercept differences between Hispanic and majority regressions were also within the chance range. A similar pattern of results obtained for the more limited amount of data available on educational tests. Taken together, the results provide strong evidence that tests are neither differentially valid for, nor unfair to, Hispanics. These findings are consistent with the results of previous studies of test validity and fairness for blacks.     

共情关怀对公平决策的影响——来自ERP的证据

本研究运用事件相关电位技术(event-related potential, ERP)和最后通牒博弈范式(ultimatum game, UG)考察了共情关怀对公平决策的影响。实验采用2 (状态共情关怀: 有共情关怀vs.无共情关怀) × 3 (分配公平性: 公平vs.劣势不公平vs.优势不公平)被试内设计, 共37名被试参与实验, 被试作为响应者选择是否接受提议者的分配提议。行为结果显示劣势不公平条件下, 有共情情境的接受率高于无共情情境; 优势不公平条件下呈现相反的结果。ERP结果显示: 对于他人提出的优势不公平提议, 无共情情境较有共情情境下诱发了更负的前部N1 (anterior N1, AN1), 有共情情境比无共情情境下诱发了更大的P2波幅; 有共情情境下, 他人提出的劣势不公平提议较优势不公平和公平提议诱发了更负的内侧额叶负波(medial frontal negativity, MFN); P3在公平条件下的波幅较劣势不公平条件下更大, 并未受到共情关怀的调节。这些结果表明共情关怀不仅调节了公平决策行为, 还调节了公平加工的早期注意和动机及之后的认知和情绪加工, 但由P3表征的高级认知过程仅受到公平性的调节而不受共情水平的影响。     

Shaping cooperation behavior: The role of accessibility experiences and uncertainty

The present research investigates the influence on cooperative behavior of accessibility experiences associated with the retrieval of fairness‐relevant information from memory. We argue that the decision whether to cooperate in negotiations depends not only on information about the appropriateness of the negotiation procedure, but also on the experience of how difficult or easy it is to come up with this information. Supporting this hypothesis, it is shown that in the context of a bargaining experiment, participants' experiences of ease or difficulty in retrieving unfair aspects of the respective negotiation procedure strongly influence their cooperation behavior. In addition, we hypothesize and empirically substantiate that the influence of accessibility experiences on cooperation behavior occurs particularly in situations of certainty salience. Implications for future research on cooperation and on accessibility experiences are discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Liberal Egalitarianism and Workfare

abstract In this paper we ask whether liberal egalitarians can endorse workfare policies that require that welfare recipients should work in return for their welfare benefits. In particular, we focus on the fairness‐based case for workfare, which holds that people should be responsible for their own welfare since they would otherwise impose unfair costs on others. Two versions of the fairness‐based case are considered. The first defends workfare on the grounds that it would form part of an unemployment insurance scheme that individuals would endorse under certain hypothetical conditions that are salient for the purposes of determining just public policy. The second appeals to the notion of reciprocity in order to justify the requirement that people work for their benefits. We cast doubt on both of these arguments for workfare. Neither argument shows that the unconditional provision of welfare benefits is unjust; hence, the fairness case for workfare is inconclusive.     

公平行为的认知神经机制

大量研究采用最后通牒博弈发现人们愿意牺牲自身利益来维护公平,普遍具有不公平厌恶倾向。本文基于行为博弈任务对个体处于不同角色时的公平行为,从神经学层面做出新的解释,并对现存理论模型做了梳理。脑成像的研究发现,公平行为的相关脑区主要有负责情绪加工的脑岛和与认知控制相关的背外侧前额叶,内侧眶额皮层。前脑岛激活越大,个体拒绝不公平方案的可能性越大,而腹外侧前额叶可以调节前脑岛的活动,使个体采取更理性的方式,接受不公平分配方案。另外,睾酮素和催产素作为神经调节的激素,可以对公平行为起到调节作用,睾酮素通过抑制内侧眶额皮层的激活,增加对不公平方案的拒绝率,相反,催产素可以降低个体对于不公平方案的拒绝率,并增加个体的公平行为。     

Psychological group memberships as outcomes of resource distributions

We propose that people can and will infer group memberships from resource distributions, and that these distributions have implications for people's understandings of the groups themselves and their own associations with these groups. We derive hypotheses from social identity and self‐categorization theories, and test them in three experiments. In Experiment 1, participants systematically rated specific patterns of group memberships as more likely than others in light of specific resource distributions in a manner consistent with our predictions. In Experiment 2, intragroup distributive fairness led to greater perceived self‐in‐group similarity than intra‐group distributive unfairness, while distributively unfair, in‐group favouritism led to greater perceived self‐in‐group similarity than intergroup fairness. In Experiment 3, social identification dropped following unfair, out‐group favouritism and intragroup unfairness, but not unfair, in‐group favouritism, or intragroup and intergroup fairness. The current data provide support for our hypotheses and clear evidence that resource distributions can be providers of group membership information. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

公平偏好的电生理测量：来自脑电、皮肤电和心电的证据

研究发现,人们普遍具有追求公平的偏好,即人们在追求个人收益时也会关注收益分配的公平性。随着电生理技术的发展,越来越多的研究者采用电生理技术对公平偏好进行深入探讨。本研究从脑电、皮肤电、心电等方面梳理公平偏好的电生理机制。脑电的研究发现,公平偏好相关的脑电主要涉及反馈相关负波和P300;皮肤电的研究发现,相比于公平分配,个体在不公平分配情况下其皮肤电的激活水平更高;心率的研究发现,相比于公平分配,个体遭遇不公平分配时其心率降低。研究公平偏好电生理机制有助于更深入地揭示公平偏好的产生根源与形成过程。未来可从公平偏好电生理的整合研究、公平偏好的脑成像与电生理的整合性探索,以及拓展公平偏好电生理的外部效度和研究范式等方面展开进一步探究。     

Pioneers of Multicultural Counseling: An Interview With Janet E. Helms

This article presents an interview with Dr. Janet E. Helms, scholar, researcher, and mentor in the fields of multicultural counseling and psychology. In this interview, Dr. Helms reflects on her educational and professional development and gives her thoughts about multiculturalism as it relates to her own work.     

群体身份调节最后通牒博弈的公平关注

群际互动是社会互动的一种重要形式, 在人类社会发展中起着重要作用。已有的行为研究表明个体参与群际互动时, 互动对象的群体身份会影响其心理加工和行为决策。但目前关于群体身份如何影响公平加工的动态时间过程尚不清楚。为了研究群体身份对最后通牒任务(Ultimatum Game, UG)中反应者公平关注的影响, 15名健康成人作为反应者与组内和组外提议者进行UG博弈, 提议包括极端不公平、中等不公平或公平提议三种。事件相关电位结果发现, 组外互动时公平提议和中等不公平提议比极端不公平提议诱发更负的AN1, 组内互动时不同提议诱发的AN1无显著差异。来自组内成员的中等和极端不公平提议比公平提议引起更负的内侧额叶负波(MFN), 但来自组外成员的不同提议则没有导致MFN波幅的变化。这些结果表明在群体互动情境下, 互动成员的群体身份能够影响个体的早期注意资源分配和公平关注加工。     

诚实-谦逊性和人际亲密性对公平规范执行的影响

采用2（诚实-谦逊性：高分组、低分组）×3（人际亲密性：家人、朋友、路人）×2（提议不公性：高不公提议、低不公提议）的混合实验设计,考察人际冲突情境下诚实-谦逊性与公平规范执行中人情效应的关系。研究结果发现,随着人际亲密性的增强,人们对互动同伴的互惠预期越高,更倾向于接受不公提议;高、低诚实-谦逊者付诸公平规范执行时均会考量双方彼此的人际亲密性,但高诚实-谦逊者存在更强的人情效应。结果表明,高诚实-谦逊者更在意维持有价值的人际关系,愿意宽容重要他人的违规行为。     

人情与公正的抉择:社会距离对第三方干预的影响

第三方干预(third-party intervention)是一种重要的利他行为,它包括惩罚和补偿两种措施。本研究结合情境性问卷与实验法,采用修改后的独裁者博弈范式(Dictator Game,DG),让被试作为第三方对朋友或者陌生人的不公平行为进行干预,考察社会距离对第三方干预的影响。研究发现:(1)对于朋友提出的不公平方案,个体对其的惩罚轻于陌生人,而对第二方(无权者)的补偿没有显著差异。(2)个体对朋友的不公平提议的公平性判断高于陌生人,但提议引发的情绪体验没有显著差异。上述结果表明,社会距离可能通过影响个体对不公平行为的公平感知,进而影响其第三方干预行为。     

阶段转移事件对公平稳定性的影响

摘要：目前,组织公平的研究多集中于组织公平与组织结果变量之间关系,较少关注组织公平的稳定性。本文采取4（公平模式：公平控制/初始公平/不公平控制/初始不公平）×2（实验阶段：阶段1/阶段2）混合实验设计,探讨阶段转移事件对被试公平反应稳定性的影响。研究结果显示,公平对待导致积极的公平反应,不公平对待导致消极的公平反应;公平程序向不公平程序的转移导致对实验者信任和组织公民行为意向的评价显著降低;而不公平程序向公平程序的转移并没有导致对实验者信任和组织公民行为意向评价的显著增加,从而说明了公平反应的有限稳定性。     

Why we are fairer than others

Subjects wrote lists of either fair or unfair things that they or others did. A pervasive tendency was found for subjects to associate themselves with fair behaviors and others with unfair behaviors. When different subjects rated samples of the written behaviors for fairness and frequency we found that fair behaviors were rated as more frequent than unfair behaviors and self-ascribed behaviors were rated as fairer than behaviors ascribed to others. These findings and others are shown to result from a tendency for subjects to perceive a stronger link between the fairness and frequency of their own behavior than between the fairness and frequency of the behavior of other people. A final analysis showed that the subcategories of unfair behavior that subjects associated with others were different from those associated with themselves.     

Reputational Implications of Procedural Fairness for Personal and Relational Self-Esteem

Four studies showed that procedural fairness (fair vs. unfair treatment by an authority figure) has reputational implications for personal and relational self-esteem. Participants relied on procedural fairness to infer their reputation, especially when they were identifiable (Study 1). Furthermore, concern for reputation moderated the influence of procedural fairness on self-esteem: Variations in procedural fairness were more strongly associated with the personal self-esteem of individuals high rather than low in concern for reputation (Studies 2–3). Finally, violations in procedural fairness (i.e., unfair treatment) led to a more substantial reduction in the relational self-esteem of positive-reputation than negative-reputation participants: The former felt more relationally devalued than the latter, when they were denied voice (Study 4).     

Responses to exclusion are moderated by its perceived fairness

Experimental exclusion manipulations may induce exclusion in a way that participants perceive as unfair. Groups often use exclusion punitively to correct inappropriate behavior, however, which may lead to perceptions that it is potentially justified or fair. The current studies examined if individuals' perceptions of fairness with respect to an exclusion experience moderated their reactions. Participants wrote about or imagined a time in which they were excluded after they did something wrong (fair exclusion) or excluded even though they did nothing wrong (unfair exclusion) or about a mundane experience unrelated to exclusion (control). Compared with fair exclusion, unfair exclusion resulted in significantly weaker efficacy needs satisfaction (Studies 1, 2, and 4), greater antisocial intent (Study 3), and greater sensitivity to signs of interpersonal acceptance and rejection in a visual search task (Study 4). These results suggest that it is important to consider the role of perceived fairness in shaping responses to exclusion.     

The effects of social context,source fairness,and perceived self‐source similarity on social influence: a self‐categorisation analysis

Based upon a self‐categorisation analysis of social influence (Turner, 1991), we predicted that individuals who self‐categorise with the source of a communication would align their own private attitudes more closely with the source when that source was distributively fair rather than unfair in an intragroup context. We expected this pattern to reverse in an intergroup context when the unfairness was ingroup favouring. These expectations were confirmed in a laboratory experiment (N=101). The data suggest that neither source similarity nor source fairness serve simply as persuasion cues to which individuals thoughtlessly conform. We argue, instead that, once self‐categorised, individuals: (1) actively attend to an ingroup member's behaviours and the context in which they occur, and (2) are influenced only by a source who provides some form of social identity enhancement, either by being fair in an intragroup context (Lind & Tyler, 1988) or ingroup favouring in an intergroup context (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.