Changing Versus Protecting the Status Quo: Why Men and Women Engage in Different Types of Action on Behalf of Women

We investigate women’s and men’s willingness to engage in action on behalf of women, and we identify two distinct categories of behavior: action that aims to challenge gender inequality (feminist action) and action that aims to protect women from violence (protective action). Three online studies were conducted. For each study, a U.S. community sample was recruited. In Study 1 (n?=?602), women reported greater intentions to engage in feminist action than men did. Men, however, were just as willing as women to participate in protective action. In Study 2 (n?=?726), we replicated these gender differences and found that protective action was positively predicted by benevolent sexism among men. In Study 3 (N?=?582), we investigated why women reported greater intentions to engage in feminist action compared to men. We found that women were more aware of gender inequality, which was associated with identification as a feminist, and through this, intentions to engage in feminist action. Awareness of gender inequality also predicted intentions to engage in protective action among women. Men, however, were less aware of gender inequality, which was associated with the belief that feminist action leads to women having more rights than men do and subsequently greater willingness to participate in protective action. Our results can assist social policymakers and activists to develop appropriate campaigns for gender equality if their goal is to challenge, rather than protect women from, the status quo.     

The utility of the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule (ADIS) in the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in Vietnam veterans

The ability of a novice interviewer utilizing the ADIS to make diagnoses of PTSD in Vietnam veterans with combat experience was tested in a sample of 43 cases. Agreement between ADIS diagnosis and a criterion diagnosis was found in 93.0% of cases (κ = 0.857), suggesting that the diagnostic category can be reliably identified and demonstrating the utility of the ADIS for ascertaining this diagnosis.     

Book reviews

Jacknedoff, R. (1985). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, Pp. 283. ISBN 0-262-60013-7. £ 9.95.

Lakoff, g. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things : What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL.: Chicago University Press. Pp. 624. ISBN 0-266-46803-8. £19.95.

Longuet-Higgins, H. C. (1987). Mental processes : Studies in cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Pp. 424. ISBN 0-262-12119-0. £22.50.

Nowakowska, M. (1986). Cognitive sciences: Basic problems, new perspectives, and implications for artificial intelligence. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Pp. 379. ISBN 0-12-522620-9. £44.50.

Winograd, T. & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: A new foundation for design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Pp. 207. ISBN 0-89391-050-3. £23.

Weisberg, R. W. (1986). Creativity: Genius and other myths. New York:W. H.Freeman and company. Pp. 169. ISBN 0-1767-1769-7. £9.95.

Bosshardt, H. R. S. G (1986). Perspektiven auf Sprache. Berlin : Walter de Gruyter. Pp. 326. ISBN 3-11-010068-1. DM134.00.     

Generalized and specific components of prejudice: The decomposition of intergroup context effects

Although different types of prejudice tend to be highly correlated, target‐specific and more generalized components can nevertheless be distinguished. Here, we analyze whether indicators of the intergroup context—threat, contact, and neighborhood composition—predict the target‐specific and/or generalized components of prejudice. Using data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (N = 4629), we build a multilevel model that captures the relationship between social dominance orientation, general levels of neighborhood heterogeneity, symbolic and realistic threat and cross‐group friendship (averaged across target groups), and generalized prejudice. Our model simultaneously estimates the relationship between target‐specific levels of these intergroup context indicators and target‐specific prejudice. Results indicated that social dominance orientation remained the strongest predictor of generalized prejudice when adjusting for other variables and that indicators of the intergroup context primarily explain differences between target group ratings. Aggregate levels of cross‐group friendship also had a small effect on generalized prejudice.