The effects of social category norms and stereotypes on explanations for intergroup differences

A 2-stage model of the construction of explanations for differences between groups is presented. Category norms affect which of 2 groups becomes "the effect to be explained," and stereotypes shape attributions about that group. In 3 experiments, 288 participants wrote explanations for differences between gay and straight men. Explanations focused on gay men who were also judged to have more mutable attributes. However, these effects were not correlated. Participants focused explanations on straight men when explicitly instructed to do so (Experiment 1). Explanations focused on both groups equally when the gay men constituted the numerically larger sample, when gay men were more typical of the overarching category (i.e., people with AIDS) than straight men, or when more straight men were described as performing the behavior (Experiment 2). Stereotype-consistent information prompted more essentialist references and fewer reconstructive references to gay men than did stereotype-inconsistent information (Experiment 3). The relevance of this model for theories of norms, stereotypes, and for the conduct of social science is discussed.     

Framing gender differences: Linguistic normativity affects perceptions of power and gender stereotypes

When unknown groups and equal status groups are compared by contrasting one group (“the effect to be explained”) against another (“the linguistic norm”), the group positioned as the norm is sometimes perceived as more powerful, more agentic, and as less communal. Such perceptions may contribute to status‐linked stereotypes, as group differences are spontaneously described by positioning higher‐status groups as the linguistic norm. Here, 103 participants considered gender differences in status to be larger and more legitimate and applied gender stereotypes more readily upon reading about gender differences in leadership that were framed around a male rather than a female linguistic norm. These effects did not generalize to 113 participants who read about gender differences in leisure time preferences framed around either norm. Jointly, these results suggest that the effects of linguistic framing on perceived group status and power and on group stereotypes generalize to domains where there are real differences in status, and contexts in which higher‐status groups are the default standard for comparison. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Optimising daily diary questionnaires about fatigue,psychological flexibility and well-being: perspectives of people with rheumatic disease

Objectives: The aim of this study was to understand the perspectives of people with rheumatic disease have about completing a pilot daily diary questionnaire on fatigue and well-being, with the objective of incorporating these perspectives into future daily studies.

Methods: Twenty-two participants with experience of rheumatic disease-related fatigue attended a focus group and/or an individual interview. Before the focus group or interview, participants completed a one-off quantitative diary about their fatigue and well-being that day. In the focus groups and interviews, participants were asked about their experience completing the questionnaire. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results: Three themes were identified. ‘Concerns about Misinterpretation and Ambiguity’ addressed the elements of the diary questionnaire that were confusing or unclear to participants. ‘Desire to Provide Useful and Accurate Information’ outlined participants’ uncertainty about how to report complex daily experiences. ‘Gaining Personal Insight through Diaries’ revealed the personal benefits participants gained, particularly the development of insight into their fatigue.

Conclusions: People with rheumatic disease are willing to complete a daily diary questionnaire, but emphasise it is important for diary questionnaires to have clear instructions, questionnaire items and response scales. Addressing these concerns will ensure the reliability and validity of quantitative diary data.     

Is avoidance of illness uncertainty associated with distress during oncology treatment? A daily diary study

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the daily relationship between illness uncertainty, avoidance of uncertainty, well-being and treatment-related distress among patients with cancer receiving treatment with curative intent. It was hypothesised that daily illness uncertainty, daily avoidance of uncertainty and daily treatment-related distress would be negatively associated with daily well-being. It was also hypothesised that daily illness uncertainty and daily avoidance of uncertainty would be positively associated with daily treatment-related distress.

Design: Thirty-one patients receiving oncology treatment with curative intent completed a daily diary for seven consecutive days. Data were analysed using multilevel modelling.

Main outcome measures: Daily illness uncertainty, avoidance of illness uncertainty, treatment-related distress and well-being.

Results: As hypothesised, on days when patients with cancer reported heightened treatment-related distress they experienced diminished well-being. And on days when patients reported more experiential avoidance of illness uncertainty, they also experienced heightened levels of treatment-related distress. No other daily associations were significant.

Conclusion: These findings indicate that patients with cancer experience day-to-day fluctuations in distress and well-being throughout oncology treatment. Avoidance of illness uncertainty-related thoughts and/or emotions are associated with daily distress, but not daily well-being.