Examining awareness of privilege among midwestern college students: An analysis of race/ethnicity,gender, and religion

Dominant group members often are not aware of the privileges they benefit from due to their dominant group membership. Yet individuals are members of multiple groups and may simultaneously occupy multiple categories of dominance and marginality, raising the question of how different group memberships work in concert to facilitate or inhibit awareness of multiple forms of privilege. Examining awareness of privilege is important as awareness may be linked to action to dismantle systems of privilege that maintain oppression and inequality. Grounded in intersectional scholarship, in this study we examined how occupying intersecting categories of race/ethnicity, gender, and religion corresponded to an awareness of White, male, and Christian privilege. In a sample of 2321 Midwestern college students, we demonstrated that students from marginalized groups broadly reported greater awareness of all forms of privilege than students from dominant groups, and the difference between marginalized and dominant groups was most pronounced when the specific group category (e.g., gender) aligned with the type of privilege (e.g., male privilege). We also tested interactions among race/ethnicity, gender, and religion, only finding an interaction between race/ethnicity and religion for awareness of White and male privilege. These findings helped to clarify that multiple group memberships tended to contribute to awareness as multiple main effects rather than as multiplicative. Finally, we examined mean differences among the eight intersected groups to explore similarities and differences among groups in awareness of all types of privilege. Taken together, these findings quantitatively demonstrate the ways in which group memberships work together to contribute to awareness of multiple forms of privilege. We discuss study limitations and implications for community psychology research and practice.     

Political Ideology Outdoes Personal Experience in Predicting Support for Gender Equality

Indices of gender equality provide an inconsistent picture of current gender inequality in countries with relatively high equality. We examined women's and men's subjectively perceived gender inequality and their support for gender equality in the general population and in politicians, respectively, in three countries with relatively high gender equality: the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany (total N = 1,612). In both women's and men's perceptions, women were treated more unequally than men. However, the inequality that women perceived was larger than the inequality men perceived. Additionally, women reported they personally experience less inequality than women as a group (person-group discrepancy). Finally, women's and men's left/liberal (vs. right/conservative) political ideology turned out to be a relatively more powerful predictor of support for gender equality than perceived personal and societal inequality. We discuss reasons for why political ideology emerged as the strongest predictor of equality support and sketch out implications for policy efforts toward promoting gender equality.     

So you think you are an ally? Effects of (in)congruence between men's self-perceptions and women's perceptions of men's values and allyship on women's inclusion and vitality

As public consciousness of sexism is increasing in the workplace (e.g., #MeToo movement), labelling oneself as an ally (e.g., UN HeforShe campaign) is becoming more socially desirable for men. However, do women agree with such men in their assessments of being allies? Importantly, how does women's agreement (or not) with men's self-assessments of allyship affect women's inclusion-relevant outcomes? Using a multi-informant design and data from 101 men–women colleague pairs, this study considered men's self-perceptions and women's other-reports of men's key allyship-relevant characteristics—justice, moral courage, civility and allyship. Polynomial regression and response surface analyses revealed differential impacts of (in)congruence between men's and women's perceptions on women's sense of inclusion and vitality. Simply, when women perceived men as higher (or the same) in justice, moral courage and civility than men reported themselves, it positively predicted women's outcomes. This suggests that humble self-presentation by men on characteristics that are parallel to allyship (but not allyship) may be ideal. Yet, both under- and overestimation by men on allyship itself predicted poorer outcomes for women, suggesting that the ideal is for men to have an accurate assessment of their own strengths and weaknesses as an ally.     

高中生物理和化学学科中同伴学业支持与学业情绪的关系:学习效能感的中介作用和性别的调节作用

研究发现学习效能感会受到同伴支持的影响,同时它又是影响学生学业状况的重要前因变量。根据控制价值理论,本研究通过对3329名高一和高二学生的调查,考察在物理和化学学科中,学习效能感是否会在同伴学业支持和学业情绪中起到中介作用。发现：(1)同伴学业支持和学习效能感呈显著正相关;两者与高兴学业情绪显著正相关,与厌倦学业情绪显著负相关;(2)在控制了年龄、年级、性别和地域后,学习效能感在同伴学业支持和高兴学业情绪中起部分中介作用,在同伴学业支持和厌倦学业情绪中起完全中介作用;(3)在物理学科中,性别调节了学习效能感和学业情绪的关系。本研究验证并拓展了控制价值理论,对于如何提高中学生物理和化学学习的积极情绪有借鉴意义。     

Heterogeneous heterogeneity by default: Testing categorical moderators in mixed-effects meta-analysis

Categorical moderators are often included in mixed-effects meta-analysis to explain heterogeneity in effect sizes. An assumption in tests of categorical moderator effects is that of a constant between-study variance across all levels of the moderator. Although it rarely receives serious thought, there can be statistical ramifications to upholding this assumption. We propose that researchers should instead default to assuming unequal between-study variances when analysing categorical moderators. To achieve this, we suggest using a mixed-effects location-scale model (MELSM) to allow group-specific estimates for the between-study variance. In two extensive simulation studies, we show that in terms of Type I error and statistical power, little is lost by using the MELSM for moderator tests, but there can be serious costs when an equal variance mixed-effects model (MEM) is used. Most notably, in scenarios with balanced sample sizes or equal between-study variance, the Type I error and power rates are nearly identical between the MEM and the MELSM. On the other hand, with imbalanced sample sizes and unequal variances, the Type I error rate under the MEM can be grossly inflated or overly conservative, whereas the MELSM does comparatively well in controlling the Type I error across the majority of cases. A notable exception where the MELSM did not clearly outperform the MEM was in the case of few studies (e.g., 5). With respect to power, the MELSM had similar or higher power than the MEM in conditions where the latter produced non-inflated Type 1 error rates. Together, our results support the idea that assuming unequal between-study variances is preferred as a default strategy when testing categorical moderators.     

亲子依恋与儿童抑郁症状的关系：儿童对环境的生物敏感性的作用及父母差异

不良的亲子依恋是导致儿童抑郁症状的风险因素,但其对儿童的影响会因儿童对环境的生物敏感性不同而存在差异。为探究家庭中母子、父子依恋对儿童抑郁症状的影响及儿童生物敏感性(本文中采用迷走神经抑制作为指标)在其中的作用,本研究结合行为任务、问卷报告、生理测量等多种研究手段,招募150名学龄儿童(平均年龄8.64岁,63名女孩)参与研究。结果表明：(1)学龄儿童的母子依恋水平高于父子依恋水平。(2)高水平的母子依恋与父子依恋会同等程度地降低儿童的抑郁症状。(3)儿童对环境的生物敏感性对母子依恋影响儿童抑郁症状路径的调节作用显著,生理上对环境更敏感(高迷走神经抑制)的儿童更易得益于高母子依恋,表现出较低的抑郁水平;但同时,这类儿童在母子依恋较低时也更易表现出较高的抑郁水平。(4)儿童的生物敏感性对父子依恋影响儿童抑郁症状路径的调节作用不显著,高父子依恋对生物敏感性水平不同的儿童均存在有利影响。(5)在不同情境中测量的迷走神经抑制对亲子依恋影响儿童抑郁症状的调节作用模式相似,表现出跨情境一致的特点。本研究率先揭示儿童迷走神经抑制与亲子依恋对儿童抑郁症状的联合作用机制及父母角色差异。     

Order effects in belief updating with consistent and inconsistent evidence

The current study tests for the presence of differential order effects in evaluation tasks with consistent and inconsistent evidence as predicted by the Hogarth and Einhorn (1992) belief-adjustment model. The results, based on both between-subjects and within-subjects experiments, demonstrate that there were significant recency effects with inconsistent evidence as predicted, larger recency effects when the inconsistent evidence was farther apart in subjective value as predicted, and significant recency effects even when subjects were given training designed to both help them understand the task as completely as possible and to be better able to assess the pieces of evidence. By including a within-subjects design, we were able to demonstrate that the difference in subjective value between two pieces of evidence is the primary factor influencing the magnitude of the recency effect, regardless of whether the evidence is consistent or inconsistent. This latter finding is unique and contrary to previous research and theory.