“PROPAGANDISTS FOR THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES”: THE OVERLOOKED PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE CARNEGIE CORPORATION AND SSRC IN THE MID‐TWENTIETH CENTURY

The Carnegie Corporation's role as a patron of the behavioral sciences has been overlooked; its support for the behavioral sciences not only began earlier than the Ford Foundation's but was also at least equally important to their success. I show how the close postwar collaboration between the Carnegie Corporation and the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) to promote the behavioral sciences emerged after a strugglebetween Carnegie and the Rockefeller Foundation over the direction and leadership of the SSRC. I then focus on three postwar projects Carnegie helped conceive and fund that were publicized as the work of the SSRC: Chase's The Proper Study of Mankind (1948), Stouffer et al.'s The American Soldier ( 1949, 1950 ), and the Michigan's Survey Research Center 1952 election study. In each of these projects, Carnegie deliberately muted its own role and promoted the remade SSRC as a major advocate for the behavioral sciences.     

Religious Life-Styles and Mental Health: A Follow-Up Study

This study is part of a longitudinal research project designed to discover more about the relations between religious involvement and mental health. It represents a 3-year follow-up on a group of religious young adults. Data were collected through semistructured interviews and by means of a psychological test battery. The results are discussed.     

Experiencing Incivility in Organizations: The Buffering Effects of Emotional and Organizational Support1

Research shows that being a target of organizational incivility is associated with negative outcomes, including declines in job satisfaction, physical health, and psychological well‐being. Two studies (90 property management company employees; 210 undergraduate students) were conducted to examine whether 2 types of social support—emotional and organizational—act as buffers of the relationship between incivility and outcomes in workplace and academic contexts. Two types of incivility were also examined: general workplace incivility and gendered incivility. Consistent with the hypotheses, the results of both studies indicated that employees and students who experienced higher levels of incivility reported better outcomes when they felt organizationally and emotionally supported. Implications for organizations are discussed.     

Bridging the Social and the Symbolic: Toward a Feminist Politics of Sexual Difference

By clarifying the psychoanalytic notion of sexual difference (and contrasting it with a feminist analysis of gender as social reality), I argue that the symbolic dimension of psychical life cannot be discarded in developing political accounts of identity formation and the status of women in the public sphere. I discuss various bridges between social reality and symbolic structure, bridges such as body, language, law, and family. I conclude that feminist attention must be redirected to the unconscious since the political cannot be localized in, or segregated to, the sphere of social reality; sexual difference is an indispensable concept for a feminist politics.     

GROUP DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY: META‐ANALYSES COMPARING FIVE U.S. RACIAL GROUPS

This research poses 2 applied questions: How large are racial group differences on personality scales and are these differences likely to cause adverse impact in personnel selection? We examined the extent to which racial groups differ across Big 5 personality factors and facets. Large‐scale, quantitative estimates based on over 700 effect sizes were meta‐analytically summarized. Multiple personality instruments and understudied racial groups, particularly Asian Americans and American Indians, were included in the meta‐analyses. Most group comparisons and personality scales yielded negligible differences and are not likely to cause adverse impact in selection. However, facet‐level analyses produced different d‐values, with some group comparisons showing moderate differences, suggesting that the use of personality measures in selection does not uniformly circumvent adverse impact concerns. The veracity of this conclusion depends on (a) the particular trait in question, (b) the composition of the applicant pool (i.e., which groups are to be compared with one another), (c) the effect size (i.e., d‐value), and (d) the selection ratio. For practitioners, we present a quantitatively informed summary of when and where to expect adverse impact to result from personality measures used in personnel selection.