Political Partisan Prejudice: Selective Distortion and Weighting of Evaluative Categories in College Admissions Applications

Two methods by which people make prejudicial yet justifiable judgments were assessed in a simulated college admissions paradigm in which participants evaluated 2 applications. In the preference condition, the stronger applicant was described as a member of a different political party than the participant. In the control condition, no political party was indicated. Supporting a political partisan prejudice effect, among strong partisans, the stronger applicant was favored in the control condition, but the weaker applicant was favored in the preference condition. No effect was found for weak partisans. Additionally, participants supported their biases by altering the importance of (Study 1) and distorting the strength of (Study 2) different types of application information.     

Hypermasculinity and academic goal-setting: an exploratory study

The relation between gender-role percepts and academic goal-setting was explored. An inventory examining the aspects of masculinity that would facilitate or inhibit academic goal-setting was developed based on a literature review of how masculinity relates to academic behaviors. A diverse sample of students (120 male, 147 female, 14 not indicating sex) was measured on three aspects of sex and academic goal-setting behavior. Factor analysis confirmed the content validity of masculine factors having facilitative (Mastery Competitiveness) and inhibitory (Antisocial Competitiveness) academic properties. Regression analyses indicated that sex-role orientations (Competitiveness and Hypermasculinity) significantly predicted academic goal-setting behaviors (R2 = .136). Finally, men scored higher than women on the subscales measuring Hypermasculinity and Antisocial or Competitiveness, while there were no sex differences on the Mastery Competitiveness subscale. The implications of these findings and suggestions for research are discussed.