Procedural Justice and Sanctions in Social Dilemmas: The Moderating Effects of Group Feedback and Identification

An experimental study investigated the role of sanctioning systems in shaping individual contributions in step‐level public good dilemmas. It was predicted and found that procedural justice of the sanctioning system (i.e., accurate vs. inaccurate evaluations of contributions) influenced contributions. Specifically, when group members identified strongly with the group, procedural justice exerted influence only when the group failed in establishing the public good. In contrast, when group members did not identify strongly with the group, procedural justice of the sanction only exerted influence if the group succeeded. These findings suggest that integrating the social dilemma and procedural justice literature may be beneficial for understanding the conditions that determine the effectiveness of sanctioning systems.     

Intercultural Effectiveness,Authoritarianism, and Ethnic Prejudice

This study examined the extent to which intercultural effectiveness dimensions (cultural empathy, open‐mindedness, social initiative, emotional stability, flexibility) and right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) predicted the ethnic prejudice of 166 Australian respondents toward Indigenous Australians. Intercultural effectiveness was assessed on the Multicultural Personality Questionnaire, and RWA was assessed on the RWA scale, whereas ethnic prejudice was measured on the Modern Racism Scale. The results revealed that intercultural effectiveness (open‐mindedness, flexibility, cultural empathy) was inversely related to ethnic prejudice, with open‐mindedness being the main predictor. Intercultural effectiveness was also inversely related to RWA, the latter being directly related to ethnic prejudice. The implications of these findings for the potential role of intercultural effectiveness in combating ethnic prejudice are discussed.     

Validity generalization: Some critical remarks on the Schmidt-Hunter procedure*

This article presents some critical comments on the validity generalization procedure which has been presented by Schmidt, Hunter and others. They have put forward a method for testing the hypothesis that the variance in validity coefficients across situations for job-test combinations is due to what they consider to be statistical artifacts. The Schmidt-Hunter approach is criticized on the following points: the compilation of validity data, the use of criterion measures, and the test of the hypothesis of no situational specificity. Further, the relation between the concepts ‘situational specificity’ and ‘validity generalization’ is considered. In addition, it is noted that Schmidt, Hunter and others have defined the concept ‘situation’ in a different way than classical writers. It is concluded that the Schmidt-Hunter approach to validity generalization shows fundamental shortcomings. As a consequence their far-reaching conclusions for the practice of personnel selection should be considered premature.     

Cooperation,ethnic salience and generalization of interethnic attitudes

This study compared the effectiveness of three theoretically-based conditions of intergroup cooperation in bringing about generalization of ethnic outgroup attitudes from a cooperation partner to the outgroup as a whole. Twenty-seven pairs of Dutch secondary school pupils were assigned at random to work together in triads to solve two word puzzles. The triads consisted of one Turkish pupil, always a confederate, and two Dutch pupils. The three conditions varied according to whether reference was made to the ethnic background of the confederate in both an introductory conversation and in the conversation-break between puzzles (High–High salience); only in the later break (Low–High); or not at all (Low–Low). Results show no differences between conditions in attitudes towards the partner, which were quite positive. However, attitude change only generalized in the two conditions in which ethnic membership was made salient (Low–High and High–High, which did not differ). These findings are discussed in terms of different models of intergroup contact, and how contact may actually work.