Peering into the “black box” of education interventions and attitude change: Audience characteristics moderate the effectiveness…and then only toward specific targets

To probe the inconsistent link between education and attitude change toward minority social groups, we conducted a field study that focused on audience characteristics and education about lesbian, gay, and transgender (LGT) targets. Participants enrolled in a sexuality course were compared to those in a neurology course, both taught by the same professor. Multiple regression analyses predicted attitude change toward LGT targets from social dominance orientation (SDO), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), ratings of professor’s characteristics, SDO by course interaction, and RWA by course interaction. Only the SDO by course interaction significantly predicted attitude change. Simple slopes analyses indicated that high-SDO participants in the sexuality course showed the most positive attitude change. These findings suggest that education may reduce prejudice for certain audience characteristics.     

Understanding maladaptive responses to rejection: Aggression with an audience

Logically, responding aggressively to rejection is maladaptive because one is unlikely to seek a relationship with an aggressor. We predict that when concealed, the illogical aggressive response to rejection is more likely, whereas when the rejected individuals’ aggressive responses are perceived as public, the aggressive acts may be reduced. Participants were rejected by others (Experiment 1) or were either accepted or rejected during an online ball-tossing game (Experiment 2) and were then given an opportunity to aggress publicly or privately. Across experiments, when the opportunity to aggress was made public, rejected participants exhibited less aggressive behavior. When concerned about the perception of their public aggressive responses by others, rejected individuals’ aggressive responses diminished compared with those whose actions were private. Crucially, this extended to aggression visible only to neutral others, suggesting that effects cannot solely be due to fear of retribution.     

Understanding the ‘blind spot’ when children move from foster care into adoption‡

Current social work practice in the UK dictates that when children move from foster care into adoption, the transition takes place within 7 and 14 days, and usually there is no contact between the child and their former carer for several months after the move, if at all. Very little attention or research has been aimed at understanding the rationale for these procedures, or their impact on the children. Joining forces with social work colleagues in a Looked After Children’s team, two child psychotherapists carried out a piece of qualitative research to look at these moves in more detail, and try to tease out how and why these key decisions are made. Analysing data from interviews with foster carers, adopters and social workers, the researchers found that the emotional experience of the child, particularly their experience of losing their foster carer, loses centre stage in people’s minds during this transition, leading to what is described as a ‘blind spot’ across the network. A significant reason for this emerged, in that the children tended to be very compliant both during and after the move and lacking in any obvious distress at losing their former carers, despite having previously been described as passionately attached to them. The research showed that adults across the network, all struggling with intense anxieties of their own, tended to interpret this as evidence that the children were ‘fine’ rather than questioning what might be going on at a deeper level. These research findings are explored in the light of a knowledge base accumulated from a working understanding of attachment and loss in early childhood, and of the psychoanalytical phenomena of individual and organisational defences against loss. Implications for future practice are suggested.     

Are the ethnically tolerant free of discrimination,prejudice and political intolerance?

We hypothesized that the ethnically tolerant (i.e., people who are anti‐ethnocentric and score very low on a measure of ethnocentrism) would perceive people with extremely incompatible values and beliefs as out‐groups and would engage in discrimination, prejudice and political intolerance against them. Experiments among Australian citizens in Studies 1 (N = 224) and 2 (N = 283) showed that the ethnically tolerant perceived supporters of a message in favour of mandatory detention of asylum seekers as out‐groups and consequently exhibited discrimination, prejudice and political intolerance against them. Study 3 with 265 U.S. citizens showed that, controlling for liberalism, ethnic tolerance led to prejudice against out‐groups. This was replicated with 522 UK citizens in Study 4, which also showed that social identity, and not moral conviction, mediated the link between ethnic tolerance and prejudice. The findings suggest that the ethnically tolerant can be discriminatory, prejudiced and politically intolerant against fellow humans.     

A realist social ontology of religion

Jonathan Z. Smith famously pointed out that the concept of ‘religion’ is not universal but emerged only in the modern West. Several scholars have drawn from Smith the non-realist implication that the existence of religion apart from that concept is an illusion. The word ‘religion,’ they say, does not refer to something out there in the world. In this article, the author argues that Smith’s point is open to a realist interpretation according to which religion exists in the world, as a transhistorical and transcultural reality, even apart from the concept. To make this case, the author outlines and responds to non-realist positions that draw on genealogical, deconstructive, and linguistic arguments, as well as to the alternative proposal that ‘religion’ is simply a heuristic device. In short, the goal of this article is to argue that a realist social ontology provides the better understanding of the central theoretical term in our field.     

Subjective Social Standing and Conflict Tactics Among Young Kenyan Men

Efforts to reduce intimate partner violence in sub‐Saharan Africa generally approach the issue through the lens of women's empowerment. These efforts include foci on women's relative power in the relationship, educational background, and earning potential. The social status of men has largely been ignored, reducing the potential to involve them in efforts to demote intimate partner violence. In this study we consider whether a man's perceived social status predicts conflict tactics, and whether these tactics are mediated by loneliness and collective self‐esteem from a community‐based sample in semi‐rural Kenya (n = 263). We find that men who reported lower perceived social status also reported significantly more frequent violent conflicts with their intimate partners. This association was significantly, and completely, mediated by lower collective self‐esteem and higher loneliness. There was no direct association between subjective social status and negotiation‐based conflict tactics, although there was an indirect association. Men with higher perceived social status reported higher collective self‐esteem, and men with higher collective self‐esteem reported more negotiation‐based conflict tactics. These findings inform efforts to reduce intimate partner violence by involving men, showing potential to reduce violence by building self‐esteem among men—particularly those with lower perceived social status.     

Social Norms and Egalitarian Values Mitigate Authoritarian Intolerance Toward Sexual Minorities

In the United States, acceptance of sexual minorities (e.g., gay men and lesbians) has increased substantially since the early 1990s. This study examined whether authoritarians' attitudes have been influenced by the societal shift toward greater acceptance of sexual minorities. Using data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) collected between 1992 and 2012, we tested a model in which authoritarianism, endorsement of egalitarian values, and social norms shifting in the direction of tolerance predict individual attitudes toward sexual minorities and LGBT rights issues. Results indicated that (1) there was a subset of authoritarians who endorsed egalitarian values, (2) authoritarians in general became more tolerant (i.e., held less negative attitudes) toward sexual minorities between 1992 and 2012, and (3) “egalitarian authoritarians” held more positive attitudes toward sexual minorities than other authoritarians. The findings contribute to contemporary theory and research on authoritarianism, which is moving from a monolithic view of authoritarianism to one in which culture and core values activate and shape manifestations of authoritarian tendencies.