The structure of social substitutions: a test of relational models theory

People often select a substitute to replace an intended interactant, thereby revealing how they represent their social intentions. Naturally-occurring substitutions preserved the relational model governing the interaction but not the characteristics of individual participants, indicating that social intentions are formulated in terms of relational rather than individual characteristics. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

System-justifying ideologies moderate status = competence stereotypes: roles for belief in a just world and social dominance orientation

High-status outgroups tend to be stereotyped as competent, while low-status groups tend to be stereotyped as incompetent. These stereotypes provide legitimacy to hierarchical social systems. However, research to date has tended to focus on the socio-structural correlates and cross-cultural stability of these stereotypes, emphasising universality over malleability. The current research demonstrates that, although strong, the association between status and competence, but not status and warmth, is moderated by ideological beliefs and attitudes towards inequality. In two studies, participants high in belief in a just world (BJW) or social dominance orientation (SDO) were more likely than those low in BJW or SDO to view a high-status target as more competent than a low-status target. Findings support the view that status stereotypes justify social inequalities, and demonstrate that they are sensitive to ideological orientations. Implications for theory and research on status and power stereotypes are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Effects of Magnitude-Based Differential Reinforcement on the Skill Acquisition of Children with Autism

A common recommendation for teaching skills to children with autism is to apply differential reinforcement by reserving high-quality reinforcement for unprompted responses (Sundberg and Partington in Teaching language to children with autism or other developmental disabilities, Behavior Analysts Inc., Pleasant Hill, 1998). Earlier research focuses primarily on schedules or quality of reinforcement, rather than magnitude of reinforcement, when evaluating the use of differential reinforcement in practice. The utility of magnitude-based differential reinforcement may be dependent upon evidence that a learner responds differentially to large and small amounts of reinforcement such that he or she selects the large amount of reinforcement over the small amount of reinforcement and engages in more responses that produce the relatively larger magnitude reinforcement. Three individuals with autism participated in a treatment comparison of differential reinforcement. The manipulation of magnitude of differential reinforcement in a skill acquisition program did not have an appreciable effect on the rate of acquisition for any of the three participants.     

Assessing the Role of Active Student Response During Error Correction in Discrete Trial Instruction

Research generally supports the use of error-correction procedures that require active student responses (ASRs). However, some recent research suggests that requiring ASRs after errors is not always advantageous for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We examined acquisition in a receptive identification task for two learners with ASD under three error-correction conditions: required ASRs, model, and modified model that minimized spontaneous ASR. In the model condition, both individuals emitted spontaneous responses to the model even though none was required, extending previous research to the receptive domain. For both learners, the model error-correction was effective; however, minimizing the spontaneous ASR in the modified model condition impacted its efficacy compared to the required ASR condition for one learner. For the other learner, error-correction procedures that required ASRs were not effective. Results are discussed in terms of empirical evaluation of error-correction procedures and suggest that imitative behavior (e.g., emitting an ASR when none is required) might function as a prerequisite skill that predicts the efficacy of model-based error-correction procedures for learners with ASD.     

A self-help book is better than sleep hygiene advice for insomnia: a randomized controlled comparative study

The objective was to compare the effects of two types of written material for insomnia in a randomized trial with follow-up after three months. Insomniacs were recruited through newspaper advertisements to a web-based survey with validated questionnaires about sleep, anxiety, depression, and use of sleep medications. A self-help book focusing on cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia was compared to standard sleep hygiene advice; 77 and 78 participants were randomized to self-help book or sleep hygiene advice, respectively. The response rate was 81.9%. The self-help book gave significantly better scores on the sleep questionnaires compared to sleep hygiene advice. The proportion using sleep medications was reduced in the self-help book group, whereas it was increased in the sleep hygiene group. Compared to pre-treatment, the self-help book improved scores on the sleep (effect sizes 0.61-0.62) and depression (effect size 0.18) scales, whereas the sleep hygiene advice improved scores on some sleep scales (effect sizes 0.24-0.28), but worsened another (effect size -0.36). In addition, sleep hygiene advice increased the number of days per week where they took sleep medications (effect size -0.50). To conclude, in this randomized controlled trial, the self-help book improved sleep and reduced the proportion using sleep medications compared to sleep hygiene advice. The self-help book is an efficient low-threshold intervention, which is cheap and easily available for patients suffering from insomnia. Sleep hygiene advice also improved sleep at follow-up, but increased sleep medication use. Thus, caution is warranted when sleep hygiene advice are given as a single treatment.     

The specificity of behaviors and measurements

This essay examines the fundamental fact of specificity in behaviors both outside and inside the testing room. Two tests of the same construct typically have a moderate to low correlation between them, the level of relationship depending on whether the mode, the situation, the task, and the stimuli for one test are similar to or different from those for the other. The great majority of psychological tests have considerable specificity. Their scores tend to correlate far less than perfectly with other tests of the same variable. Even when an ability is defined within a model such as Guilford's Structure-of-Intellect, each test of that ability will usually have some specific determinants not shared by other tests of that aspect of intelligence. Moreover, such a test is likely to correlate almost as well with tests of other similar abilities as with tests of its particular one.     

An ambivalent alliance. Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality

The equation of prejudice with antipathy is challenged by recent research on sexism. Benevolent sexism (a subjectively favorable, chivalrous ideology that offers protection and affection to women who embrace conventional roles) coexists with hostile sexism (antipathy toward women who are viewed as usurping men's power). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, first validated in U.S. samples, has been administered to over 15,000 men and women in 19 nations. Hostile and benevolent sexism are complementary, cross-culturally prevalent ideologies, both of which predict gender inequality. Women, as compared with men, consistently reject hostile sexism but often endorse benevolent sexism (especially in the most sexist cultures). By rewarding women for conforming to a patriarchal status quo, benevolent sexism inhibits gender equality. More generally, affect toward minority groups is often ambivalent, but subjectively positive stereotypes are not necessarily benign.     

Stereotype content model explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: Scale of anti-Asian American Stereotypes

The Stereotype Content Model hypothesizes anti-Asian American stereotypes differentiating two dimensions: (excessive) competence and (deficient) sociability. The Scale of Anti-Asian American Stereotypes (SAAAS) shows this envious mixed prejudice in six studies. Study 1 began with 131 racial attitude items. Studies 2 and 3 tested 684 respondents on a focused 25-item version. Studies 4 and 5 tested the final 25-item SAAAS on 222 respondents at three campuses; scores predicted outgroup friendships, cultural experiences, and (over)estimated campus presence. Study 6 showed that allegedly low sociability, rather than excessively high competence, drives rejection of Asian Americans, consistent with system justification theory. The SAAAS demonstrates mixed, envious anti-Asian American prejudice, contrasting with more-often-studied contemptuous racial prejudices (i.e., against Blacks).