Religiosity and Spirituality: A Psychometric Evaluation of the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire

The Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire (SCSORF) was administered to 124 undergraduate college students attending a private Catholic university and the result was compared to measures of spirituality, religious behavior, religious coping, and affect. The present study found that the SCSORF was strongly related to spirituality, in particular, seeking support from one's spirituality. However, the SCSORF was not correlated with an openness to new spiritual experiences. The SCSORF was also related to religious behavior and religious coping. The SCSORF was not related to affect, indicating that scores on the SCSORF were not affect-dependent. Results from this study provide additional evidence that the SCSORF is a reliable and valid measure of religious faith.     

Racial attitudes in response to thoughts of white privilege

Thinking about the benefits gained from a privileged group membership can threaten social identity and evoke justification of the existing status difference between the ingroup and a disadvantaged group. For White Americans, racial privilege may be justified by concurring with modern racist attitudes. In Experiment 1, White Americans randomly assigned to think about White privilege expressed greater modern racism compared to those assigned to think about White disadvantage or a race‐irrelevant topic. In Experiment 2, we found that increased racism in response to thoughts of White privilege was limited to those who highly identified with their racial category. In contrast, when White racial identification was sufficiently low, thoughts of White privilege reliably reduced modern racism. We discuss the implications of these findings for the meaning of modern racism and prejudice reduction. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Group domination and inequality in context: evidence for the unstable meanings of social dominance and authoritarianism

Both social dominance orientation (SDO) and right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) are assumed to be general and relatively stable psychological orientations that individuals ‘carry with them’ from context to context, influencing responses to salient forms of intergroup inequality and domination. In two experimental studies we tested the relative stability of SDO (Studies 1 and 2) and RWA (Study 1). That is, we examined whether people who score relatively high on SDO/RWA in one context tend to support intergroup hierarchy and domination in other contexts. To do so, we manipulated the salience of different intergroup relationships before measuring SDO and RWA, and then observed the associations among these constructs and attitudes toward specific intergroup relationships and legitimizing ideologies (support for war, conservatism, heterosexism, and religious fundamentalism). Contrary to the assumption of relative stability, the extent to which SDO and RWA were related to these specific attitudes and ideologies varied markedly depending on the experimental context. These results highlight the contextual basis and meaning of individuals' expressed support for group‐based dominance. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Human mate poaching: tactics and tempations for infiltrating existing mateships.

The authors explored the psychology of romantically attracting someone who is already in a relationship--what can be called the process of human mate poaching. In Study 1 (N = 236), they found that attempts at poaching were relatively common and were linked with distinctive personality dispositions. Study 2 (N = 220) documented that the perceived costs and benefits of poaching differed somewhat for men and women and depended on whether short-term or long-term poaching outcomes were targeted. Study 3 (N = 453) found support for 5 evolution-based hypotheses about the perceived effectiveness of poaching tactics. Study 4 (N = 333) found that poaching effectiveness was influenced by the type of relationship being encroached on-marital, dating, long distance, highly committed, just beginning, or about to end. Discussion focuses on the importance of placing mate poaching within the broader context of human sexual strategies.     

Interaction of sex role self-concept with relationship quality and relationship beliefs in married, heterosexual cohabiting, gay, and lesbian couples

The relation between sex role self-concept (masculine, feminine, undifferentiated, and androgynous) and both relationship quality and dysfunctional relationship beliefs was examined in 370 monogamous partners who represented four types of couples (married, heterosexual cohabiting, gay, and lesbian). Analyses used both the individual partner and the couple as the unit of analysis. The individual partner analyses revealed that relationship quality and relationship beliefs differed by subjects' sex role self-concept. Androgynous and feminine subjects reported higher relationship quality than masculine and undifferentiated subjects; androgynous subjects had fewer "disagreement is destructive" beliefs than feminine subjects; and androgynous subjects had fewer "partner cannot change" beliefs than undifferentiated subjects. The couple analyses revealed a relation between partners' sex role self-concept only for the heterosexual cohabiting couples. For these couples, masculine men tended to pair with feminine or undifferentiated women, and androgynous partners tended to pair together. Relative to other couples, couples in which one or both partners were androgynous or feminine reported the highest relationship quality, whereas couples in which one or both partners were undifferentiated or masculine reported the lowest relationship quality. These effects did not vary by type of couple. The study concluded that sex role self-concept is a robust factor in appraisals of relationship quality. Relative to masculine and undifferentiated individuals, androgynous and feminine individuals report greater positive relationship functioning.     

Effects of reinforcement rate and reinforcer magnitude on choice behavior of humans

Two experiments with human subjects investigated the effects of rate of reinforcement and reinforcer magnitude upon choice. In Experiment 1, each of five subjects responded on four concurrent variable-interval schedules. In contrast to previous studies using non-human organisms, relative response rate did not closely match relative rate of reinforcement. Discrepancies ranged from 0.03 to 0.43 (mean equal to 0.19). Similar discrepancies were found between relative amount of time spent responding on each schedule and the corresponding relative rates of reinforcement. In Experiment 2, in which reinforcer magnitude was varied for each of five subjects, similar discrepancies ranging from 0.05 to 0.50 (mean equal to 0.21), were found between relative response rate and relative proportion of reinforcers received. In both experiments, changeover rates were lower on the long-interval concurrent schedules than on the short-interval ones. The results suggest that simple application of previous generalizations regarding the effects of reinforcement rate and reinforcer magnitude on choice for variable-interval schedules does not accurately describe human behavior in a simple laboratory situation.     

Construct validity of the bem sex role inventory (BSRI): Does the BSRI distinguish between gender-schematic and gender-aschematic individuals?

Factor analyses were performed on the masculine, feminine, and neutral items of the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) for gender-schematic and gender-aschematic individuals separately. The analyses revealed bipolar masculinity/femininity factors for the gender-schematic group and two unipolar “aschematicity” factors for the gender-aschematic group. The results support gender schema theory's claim that the two types of individuals respond differently to the items of the BSRI. Thus, the BSRI is a valid measure for distinguishing gender-schematic from gender-schematic individuals.