“A Golly was simply a toy. End of”: Inoculation,attention deflection,and attempted puzzle-resolution in contesting racism in online discussions

In producing arguments against minority groups that are designed to avoid accusations of prejudice, speakers routinely deploy two discursive strategies. One strategy of “inoculation” seeks to ward off such accusations, while the other strategy of “attention deflection” directs attention away from the potential target group. Where despite use of one or both strategies accusations arise, the result is a puzzle that needs to be resolved through explanation. Here, in a discourse analysis of online discussions as to whether “blacking up” is to count as racism, we see contributors contest (a) whether absence of intention to offend inoculates individuals from accountability for potentially racist actions, (b) whether “blacking up” depicts toys/characters rather than people, and (c) whether attempted explanations of accusations of racism work to resolve the apparent puzzle that has arisen. Contributors do not reach any consensus. These findings point to the difficulties in attempting to challenge potential racism.     

Imaging the future: Does a qualitative analysis add to the picture?

Various studies report that patients with dense amnesia experience difficulties in simulating future events. It is argued that this resembles an inability to remember past episodes in that both indicate a deficit in mental scene construction. Such findings, however, rely upon quantitative content-based analyses of participants' verbal reports. Here, samples of verbal reports produced by participants with hippocampal lesions are subjected to a qualitative, discourse analysis of how participants and researchers negotiated the status of these reports. This shows that failure in mental scene construction can be viewed as an interactional achievement rather than the mere reporting of mental events. A multidisciplinary perspective which combines qualitative analysis with other forms of analytic technique may explain subtle differences between participants with hippocampal lesions and control participants.     

Gender and History of Suicidality: Are These Factors Related to U.S. College Students’ Current Suicidal Thoughts,Feelings, and Actions?

Gender and history of suicidality (HS vs. NoHS) were related to current symptoms of depression, reasons for living, and reports of self-destructive and life-threatening behavior in a college student sample. Overall, college men reported engaging in more life-threatening and potentially suicidal behavior than college women on the Life Attitudes Schedule (LAS). No gender effects were obtained on the symptoms of depression and reasons for living measures. Results suggest that the LAS may be a particularly effective way to identify college students at risk for self-destructive and suicidal behavior. As expected, HS individuals were more depressed, had fewer reasons for living, and reported engaging in more current suicidal and life-threatening behavior than NoHS participants. However, gender and history of suicidality were found to interact. NoHS women reported avoiding a variety of injury-producing and health-diminishing behaviors that were common for all other groups of college students. Meanwhile, HS women endorsed fewer current reasons for living than did NoHS women, NoHS men, and NoHS men. These findings were interpreted both with regard to cultural and gender-specific expectations for the expression of self-destructive, suicidal, and life-threatening behavior. Implications for the prevention of college women's and men's suicidal behavior were also noted.