Reducing prejudice via direct and extended cross-group friendship

One of the most exciting developments in intergroup contact theory is the idea that a certain type of contact, cross-group friendship, might be particularly effective at reducing prejudice. In this chapter we review research on two types of cross-group friendship. Direct cross-group friendship refers to friendships that develop between members of different groups. Extended cross-group friendship, on the other hand, refers to vicarious experience of cross-group friendship, the mere knowledge that other ingroup members have cross-group friends. We consider the relationship between both types of cross-group friendship and prejudice and the processes that mediate and moderate these relationships. The research highlights the respective strengths and weaknesses of direct and extended cross-group friendship and illustrates how they might be practically combined in efforts to improve intergroup relations.     

Children and Aging: Attitudes,Differentiation Ability,and Quantity and Quality of Contact

The attitudes and age differentiation ability of forty-seven 3- to 5-year-old children toward pictures of older and younger people were assessed. In addition, cognitive performance on a seriation task as well as the quantity and quality of each child's contact with adults over 60 years of age were measured. Chi squares were performed by sex and age of stimulus photograph on the attitudinal questions. One of the chi squares reached signficance on the age comparison and two on the sex comparison. In addition, sign tests were used to assess the direction of the trends on the questions, and both age and sex trends were significant at the .05 level with children being more likely to choose pictures of younger rather than older models and female rather than male models. Ability to correctly order pictures by age was signficantly related (r = .53, p < .001) to the seriation ordering task. Four of the 18 correlations between contact and attitudinal variables were significant and negative.     

Changes in Primary Process Thinking of a Prepsychotic Adolescent in Psychotherapy

The main goal of this study was to measure longitudinally change in thought processes and reality testing of a prepsychotic adolescent undergoing psychotherapy. The Holt scoring system for measuring primary process from Rorschach responses was the main measuring instrument. Four Rorschachs were administered over a period of three years. The results of the latter were compared with the clinical ratings of two psychiatrists. While clinical change in response to treatment was slight, there did appear to be a shift from primary to more secondary forms of formal thought processes as determined by the Rorschach.     

Affective Predictors of Dissociation,III: Affect Balance

The relationship between dissociative tendencies and the balance of affective expression was investigated in a sample of 100 Australian psychology students. Dissociation was positively related to an imbalance of affect in favor of negative affects. Higher levels of dissociation were associated with more frequent experiences of negative affects but were unrelated to the expression of positive affects. The data are consistent with the view that trauma-related affects have a mediating role in the development of dissociative tendencies.     

Kinesthetic Aftereffect and Augmenting/Reducing: A Two-Session Procedure,and Hence Identification of Stimulus-Governed Subjects,is Contraindicated

A few of the recent researchers of kinesthetic aftereffect (KAE) as an index of augmenting/reducing have continued to employ a two-session procedure. Findings that have accrued in the past decade indicate (a) The first administration of KAE is a reliable (internally consistent) and valid index of augmenting-reducing; (b) there are carry-over effects from the first to the second administration that bias the second session's preinduction scores; (c) KAE scores from sessions after the first do not relate to first-session scores (low retest reliability) and do not measure augmenting/reducing; and (d) unless special procedures are undertaken to avoid using the biased second- (or later-) session preinduction scores, a KAE procedure involving more than one session is contraindicated. When we reached a similar conclusion earlier (Baker et al., 1974), Petrie (1974) disagreed, arguing that a two-session procedure was needed to identify and eliminate an atypical subgroup, the “stimulus governed.” The case for determining which subjects are stimulus-governed is assessed and found wanting. Except in special circumstances, a one-session KAE procedure, in which all preinduction trials precede the first exposure to aftereffect induction, is indicated.