CONTEMPORARY SEXISM

Previous research has examined the relationship between the Modern Sexism Scale (Swim, Aikin, Hall & Hunter, 1995) and the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI; Glick & Fiske, 1996) or the relationship between the Modern Sexism Scale and the Neosexism Scale (Campbell, Schellenberg, & Senn, 1997; Tougas, Brown, Beaton, & Joly, 1995). The present study examined the relationship between the ASI and the Neosexism Scale. Across three samples ( N = 907), neosexism was found to be associated primarily with the hostile rather than the benevolent component of ambivalent sexism. Hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, and neosexism were all significantly associated with attitudes toward lesbians' and gay men's rights, and both hostile sexism and neosexism were significantly associated with attitudes toward women's rights. Neosexism and hostile sexism were negatively associated with a humanitarian-egalitarian orientation, whereas benevolent sexism was positively associated with a Protestant-ethic orientation. It is concluded that, although both the Neosexism Scale and ASI measure contemporary sexism, only the Benevolent Sexism subscale of the ASI taps the subjectively positive side of contemporary sexism.     

Do processes of change predict smoking stage movements? A prospective analysis of the transtheoretical model.

The transtheoretical model (TTM) posits that processes of change and the pros and cons of smoking predict progressive movement through the stages of change. This study provides both a cross-sectional replication and a prospective test of this hypothesis. As part of a larger study of worksite cancer prevention (the Working Well Trial), employees of 26 manufacturing worksites completed a baseline and 2 annual follow-up surveys. Of the 63% of employees completing baseline surveys, 27.7% were smokers (N = 1,535), and a cohort of these smokers completed the 2-year follow-up. Cross-sectional results replicated previous studies with virtually all the processes of change and the cons of smoking increasing in linear fashion from precontemplation to preparation (all ps < .00001), and the pros of smoking decreasing (p < .01). However, contrary to the hypothesis, the baseline processes of change and the pros and cons of smoking failed to predict progressive stage movements at either the 1- or the 2-year follow-ups. Possible explanations for these findings and concerns about the conceptual internal consistency of the TTM are discussed.     

The role of cognitive abilities in children's inferences about social atypicality and peer exclusion and inclusion in intergroup contexts

Children aged 6–7 years judged a loyal and a partially disloyal member of a school in terms of how typical they are within the school group and their likely acceptance by peers from the same school and a different school. Second‐order mental‐state understanding (SOMSU) predicted whether children thought atypical members would be included differently in the two groups. Counterfactual reasoning ability, multiple classification ability, and working memory ability did not predict children's judgements of group members. Moreover, as predicted by the developmental subjective group dynamics model, only children with higher levels of SOMSU and who discerned differences in the typicality of normative and deviant ingroup members inferred that peers would differently include atypical individuals from the same and different groups.     

Children's responses to social atypicality among group members – advantages of a contextualized social developmental account

Abrams, Rutland, Palmer, Ferrell, and Pelletier (2014) showed that better second‐order mental state understanding facilitates 6–7‐year‐olds' ability to link a partially disloyal child's atypicality to inclusive or exclusive reactions by in‐group or outgroup members. This finding is interpreted in terms of predictions from the developmental subjective group dynamics model. We respond to thoughtful commentaries by Rhodes and Chalik, Patterson, and Rakoczy. Children face a significant developmental challenge in becoming able to recognize and interpret social atypicality in intergroup contexts. Researching that ability to contextualize judgements raises new questions about the nature of peer inclusion and exclusion, about children's social cognition, and about the way that social cognitive development and social experience combine. Rather than individual‐focused cognition taking priority over category‐based cognition, we argue the two become more systematically integrated during development. We note that loyalty is but one example of typicality, and we also consider the role of more advanced perspective taking among older children, and the role of multiple classification skill among younger children, as well as potential implications for intervention to reduce peer victimization and prejudice.     

Children's prosocial behavioural intentions towards outgroup members

When will children decide to help outgroup peers? We examined how intergroup competition, social perspective taking (SPT), and empathy influence children's (5–10 years, N = 287) prosocial intentions towards outgroup members. Study 1 showed that, in a minimal group situation, prosociality was lower in an intergroup competitive than in a non‐competitive or interpersonal context. Study 2 revealed that, in a real groups situation involving intergroup competition, prosociality was associated with higher empathy and lower competitive motivation. In a subsequent non‐competitive context, there were age differences in the impact of SPT and competitive motivation. With age, relationships strengthened between SPT and prosociality (positively) and between competitiveness and prosociality (negatively). Among older children, there was a carry‐over effect whereby feelings of intergroup competitiveness aroused by the intergroup competitive context suppressed outgroup prosociality in the following non‐competitive context. Theoretical and practical implications for improving children's intergroup relationships are discussed.     

The story of this special issue on critical perspectives in work and organizational psychology

In this editorial, we tell the story of how the Special Issue on Critical Perspectives in Work and Organizational Psychology (CWOP) came about, how it fits within the broader agenda of building a critical community within Work and Organizational Psychology, and how future research and thought may be inspired by the collection of critical papers related to work and organizational psychology. We introduce the term “criticalizing” as a key concept in how the Special Issue was developed by the editorial team and the authors. Criticalizing moves beyond fixed static notions of “critical” scholarship toward a process of engaging in more fluid, expansive, and creative perspectives on the scholarship within work and organizational psychology. We illustrate how the set of papers within the Special Issue engages in such criticalizing of the field and offer new ways of thinking about and researching relevant topics in work and organizational psychology.