Attitudes towards unions through a generational cohort lens

ABSTRACT

Studying a large American union, we report on findings from two studies investigating perceptions of and attitudes towards unions through a generational cohort lens. Study one explores the link between generational cohort and members’ perceptions of unions, employing qualitative analysis of 100 interviews: 30 Millennials, 35 Gen X, and 35 Baby Boomers. Analysis determined that union members focus on either ideological or instrumental explanations to support perceptions that their generation was either pro-union or anti-union. Themes identified in study one were further explored in a quantitative study which involved statistical analysis of survey data (n = 4717) to identify possible differences in pro and anti-union attitudes across three generational cohorts: baby boomer (n = 2857), Gen X (n = 1256), and millennials (n = 304). Data from both studies support the idea that pro-union perceptions and attitudes are more prevalent among those in the baby boomer cohort than Gen Xers, and millennials.     

Can (elaborated) imagined contact interventions reduce prejudice among those higher in intergroup disgust sensitivity (ITG‐DS)?

Intergroup disgust sensitivity (ITG‐DS) reflects an affect‐laden revulsion toward out‐groups. Previous attempts to weaken its prediction of prejudice have failed. Given that clinical approaches to disgust sensitivity successfully utilize mental imagery, we consider contact simulation interventions. Participants were randomly assigned to control, standard imagined contact, or an elaborated contact condition (elaborated imagined contact [EIC]; detailed imagination involving physical contact with a homeless person, with relaxation instructions). Both contact conditions (vs. control) significantly weakened the link between ITG‐DS and prejudice, yet only EIC weakened the relation between ITG‐DS and out‐group trust. Mediated moderation analysis confirmed that EIC significantly attenuated the link between ITG‐DS and prejudice through increasing trust. Clinically relevant treatments are thus valuable in severing the association between (a) ITG‐DS and (b) lower out‐group trust and greater out‐group prejudice.     

Book reviews

Horowitz, M. J. (Ed.) (1988). Psychodynamics and cognition. Chicago: University of Chicago press. Pp. 389. ISBN 0226-35368-0. £ 21.95

Ellis A. W. & Young, A. W. (1988). Human cognitive neuropsychology. Hove: Lawrencve erlbaum Associates Ltd. Pp. 358. ISBN 0-86377-033-9, £ 21.95 9 (hardback), 0-86377-034-7, £ 11.95 (paperback).

Humphreys, G. W., & Bruce, V.(1989). Visual cognition: Computational, experimental and neuropsychological perspectives. Hove & London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ltd. Pp. 330. ISBN 0-86277-124-6, £ 19.95 (hardback), 0-86377-125-4, £ 9.95 (paperback)     

On the Control Over Stereotype Activation and Stereotype Inhibition

Stereotypes are known to influence how we think about (judge, feel, plan, attend to, remember), and act toward, others. Stereotyping is typically described as pervasive in society for a variety of reasons, one of which being that the cognitive processes that initiate stereotyping occur effortlessly, without conscious intent, and without awareness. That is, upon encountering members of stereotyped groups, we ‘uncontrollably’ have stereotypes of those groups retrieved and held accessible in a state of perceptual readiness. This occurs without our knowledge or awareness of the stereotype’s ‘primed’ status, and thus our lacking awareness of its potential to influence how we respond. The current article explores various ways this implicit process of stereotype activation is controlled. Despite the fact that stereotype activation happens with ease, and outside of awareness, control processes also operate with ease, and outside of awareness. The review illustrates a variety of ways in which a stereotype may not be triggered (and thus downstream stereotyping of a person controlled) upon encountering a person. The dominant response to a person, stereotypic or not, is determined by the goals the individual perceiver has upon entering the interpersonal encounter. Many goals relevant to interpersonal interaction promote stereotyping. However, stereotype promotion is a form of stereotype control, and if control can be exhibited in the form of promotion, it should also be demonstrable in the form of prevention. Indeed, goals that are incompatible with stereotyping yield dominant responses to having encountered a member of a stereotyped group that does not involve activation of, and may involve inhibition of, stereotypes.