Physiological markers of challenge and threat mediate the effects of performance-based goals on performance

We predicted that adopting a performance-approach vs. performance-avoidance goal would lead to physiological responses characteristic of psychological states of challenge vs. threat appraisals, respectively. Furthermore, we predicted that these states would mediate the effects of goals on performance. Twenty-seven undergraduate females performed a task described as identifying either exceptionally strong performers (performance-approach goal) or exceptionally weak performers (performance-avoidance goal). Participants’ cardiovascular reactivity (CVR) was recorded while they performed the task. As predicted, participants in the performance-approach goal condition performed better on the task than did those in the performance-avoidance goal condition. Also as predicted, those in the former condition exhibited a challenge pattern of CVR whereas those in the latter condition exhibited a threat pattern of CVR. Furthermore, physiological responses mediated the effects of performance-based goals on performance.     

Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity

This study examined group identification and situational ambiguity as moderators of attributions to discrimination and self-esteem following negative feedback. As predicted, high gender-identified women made more discrimination attributions than low identified women when situational prejudice cues were ambiguous, but not when prejudice cues were absent or overt. Also as predicted, women exposed to overt prejudice cues had higher self-esteem than those exposed to ambiguous cues or no prejudice cues. The relationship between discrimination attributions and self-esteem was positive among women exposed to overt prejudice but negative among those exposed to no prejudice. Across conditions, however, the more that women discounted ability as a cause of their negative feedback (i.e., blamed discrimination more than ability), the higher their self-esteem. Results qualify and extend prior research and demonstrate that personal and situational factors moderate both the tendency to make attributions to discrimination and the consequences of those attributions for self-esteem.     

How attributional ambiguity shapes physiological and emotional responses to social rejection and acceptance

The authors examined White and Black participants' emotional, physiological, and behavioral responses to same-race or different-race evaluators, following rejecting social feedback or accepting social feedback. As expected, in ingroup interactions, the authors observed deleterious responses to social rejection and benign responses to social acceptance. Deleterious responses included cardiovascular (CV) reactivity consistent with threat states and poorer performance, whereas benign responses included CV reactivity consistent with challenge states and better performance. In intergroup interactions, however, a more complex pattern of responses emerged. Social rejection from different-race evaluators engendered more anger and activational responses, regardless of participants' race. In contrast, social acceptance produced an asymmetrical race pattern--White participants responded more positively than did Black participants. The latter appeared vigilant and exhibited threat responses. Discussion centers on implications for attributional ambiguity theory and potential pathways from discrimination to health outcomes.     

Perceived discrimination as worldview threat or worldview confirmation: implications for self-esteem

In 3 studies, the authors tested the hypothesis that discrimination targets' worldview moderates the impact of perceived discrimination on self-esteem among devalued groups. In Study 1, perceiving discrimination against the ingroup was negatively associated with self-esteem among Latino Americans who endorsed a meritocracy worldview (e.g., believed that individuals of any group can get ahead in America and that success stems from hard work) but was positively associated with self-esteem among those who rejected this worldview. Study 2 showed that exposure to discrimination against their ingroup (vs. a non-self-relevant group) led to lower self-esteem, greater feelings of personal vulnerability, and ingroup blame among Latino Americans who endorsed a meritocracy worldview but to higher self-esteem and decreased ingroup blame among Latino Americans who rejected it. Study 3 showed that compared with women informed that prejudice against their ingroup is pervasive, women informed that prejudice against their ingroup is rare had higher self-esteem if they endorsed a meritocracy worldview but lower self-esteem if they rejected this worldview. Findings support the idea that perceiving discrimination against one's ingroup threatens the worldview of individuals who believe that status in society is earned but confirms the worldview of individuals who do not.     

The Influence of Legitimacy Appraisals on the Determinants of Entitlement Beliefs

We conducted a laboratory experiment to determine whether legitimacy appraisals (i.e., the extent to which an outcome distribution is thought to be fair and just) would influence the extent to which entitlement beliefs about wages were based on in-group wage comparison information and perceptions of one's own performance. To manipulate legitimacy appraisals, participants were led to believe that the wage allocation procedure was unbiased, potentially biased, or biased. In addition, they were exposed to wage comparison information, indicating that in-group members had earned more than out-group members in the past or vice versa. Results show that, when procedures were thought to be unbiased, participants' beliefs about the amounts they deserved to be paid were influenced more by in-group wage comparison information than perceptions of their own performance. In contrast, when participants perceived allocation procedures to be biased, entitlement beliefs were influenced more by perceptions of their own performance than by in-group wage comparison information. These findings are presented in terms of the paradoxical contentment often observed among members of objectively disadvantaged groups.     

Prototypes of Discrimination: How Status Asymmetry and Stereotype Asymmetry Affect Judgments of Racial Discrimination

This research investigated status asymmetry and stereotype asymmetry features of the racial discrimination prototype. Consistent with status asymmetry predictions, Black observers made greater attributions to discrimination when the victim was Black and the perpetrator was White than when the roles were reversed. In contrast, White observers made similar attributions to discrimination, regardless of status asymmetry. In partial support of the stereotype asymmetry hypothesis, Black and White observers made greater attributions to discrimination for Black victims in a domain where Blacks are negatively stereotyped than positively stereotyped. However, attributions to discrimination for White victims were unaffected by the domain.     

Attributional Ambiguity of Affirmative Action

We propose that affirmative action policies that are perceived to give preference to individuals solely or primarily on the basis of their group membership create attributional ambiguity about the personal deserving of individuals affected by these procedures. This ambiguity about the extent to which outcomes are deserved is hypothesized to be self-protective for people who are denied a position, but to have detrimental consequences among beneficiaries, especially if they are members of groups whose competence is doubted (either by themselves or others). Selection procedures that are perceived to be based both on individual merit and group membership, in contrast, are hypothesized to reduce attributional ambiguity about deserving and thus attenuate the effects of group-based preferential selection procedures on those who are benefited and bypassed by these procedures. An experiment was conducted to test these hypotheses. Men and women were randomly selected or rejected for a leadership role under one of three procedures: outcomes based (a) solely on sex, (b) solely on merit, or (c) on both sex and merit. Results provided partial support for our hypotheses.     

NEO PI-R Normative Personality Data That Distinguish U.S. Air Force Female Pilots

Female U.S. Air Force (USAF) pilots represent a unique group of women in a challenging, high-risk, and male-dominated profession. Aside from ability and motivation, personality characteristics are considered to play a key role in succeeding as a military pilot (Paullin, Katz, Bruskiewicz, Houston, & Damos, 2006 Paullin, C., Katz, L., Bruskeiwicz, K. T., Houston, J. and Damos, D. 2006. Review of aviator selection (Tech. Rep. No. 1183) Arlington, VA: United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral Sciences.  [Google Scholar]). This study evaluated psychological baseline test scores from the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO PI-R) on the current inventory of rated USAF female (n = 512) and male (n = 9630) pilots in an effort to (a) provide modern normative data on the personality traits of current USAF female pilots, (b) identify personality traits that distinguish female pilots from male pilots and non-pilot females in the civilian normative sample, and (c) assess for meaningful personality differences within female pilots across specific airframes (e.g., fighter/bomber, reconnaissance/surveillance, tanker/transport, and helicopter). The results of the study aim to shed light on objective personality traits and differences and assist clinical psychologists with the interpretation of NEO PI-R psychological test scores when evaluating USAF female pilots. A case vignette is provided to illustrate practical application of study findings.     

From "in the air" to "under the skin": cortisol responses to social identity threat

The authors examined women's neuroendocrine stress responses associated with sexism. They predicted that, when being evaluated by a man, women who chronically perceive more sexism would experience more stress unless the situation contained overt cues that sexism would not occur. The authors measured stress as the end product of the primary stress system linked to social evaluative threat-the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal cortical axis. In Study 1, female participants were rejected by a male confederate in favor of another male for sexist reasons or in favor of another female for merit-based reasons. In Study 2, female participants interacted with a male confederate who they learned held sexist attitudes or whose attitudes were unknown. Participants with higher chronic perceptions of sexism had higher cortisol, unless the situation contained cues that sexism was not possible. These results illustrate the powerful interactive effects of chronic perceptions of sexism and situational cues on women's stress reactivity.