Can ingroup affirmation relieve outgroup derogation?

Intergroup hostilities are an important social concern in multicultural societies and the global community. Individuals with dispositionally high Personal Need for Structure (PNS) are particularly inclined toward outgroup derogation [Schaller, M., Boyd, C., Yohannes, J., O’Brien, M. (1995). The prejudiced personality revisited: Personal need for structure and formation of erroneous group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 544-555]. The present research demonstrates that ingroup affirmation can eliminate high PNS individuals’ tendency toward outgroup derogation. Spontaneous (Study 1) and experimentally manipulated affirmations (Study 2) of consensual, positive ingroups eliminated the high PNS tendency to derogate outgroup targets. Study 3 experimentally manipulated the two key elements that are presumably bolstered by ingroup affirmations—self-certainty and self-worth—independent of the group context. The high PNS tendency to derogate outgroups was relieved only in the combined certainty and worth affirmation condition, just as it had been relieved in Study 2 by the ingroup affirmation. Results suggest a paradoxical strategy for relieving derogation of outgroups by affirming ingroups.     

On the role of theoretical inquiry in psychology: A double-edged sword

Wachtel's article is as relevant today as it was over a quarter century ago, especially as public support for higher education has declined, and increased pressure to obtain external research funding is needed in order to support universities. Although Wachtel's observation that research and grant funding are more likely to be reinforced then theoretical inquiry, there is a serious question regarding whether theory can be effective in advancing the field of psychology and psychotherapy. Some of problems that typically have been associated with theory in our field are discussed, and the argument is made that theoretical inquiry be directed to the formulation of less abstract and more focal principles of human behavior and the therapy change process.     

Aggregating preference rankings: An AHP-based approach

The problem considered here involves the selection of an alternative by a group of decision makers in a context that involves the aggregating of votes from a preferential ballot. A popular approach for solving such problems is the well-known weighting problem formulation. However, with such a formulation two issues become of critical importance: (a) the weights should reflect the decision-making group's belief on the importance of each rank position and (b) the weights should accord each alternative a fair (if not its best) assessment. Many researchers have studied this problem and proposed various solution strategies. None of these strategies, however, appears to have adequately addressed both issues. The objective of this research is to develop a group decision-making model that solves the problem in a manner that adequately addresses the two critical issues identified, as well as allows for sensitivity analysis and is fairly robust with respect to the various paradoxes identified in voting systems.