Search

This study examined the relationship of prejudicial attitudes to psychological, social, and physical well-being among 495 college students in the Northeast region of the United States. Prejudicial attitudes included racism, sexism, homophobia, physical disability bias, weight/body-size bias, and anti-immigrant sentiment. As a secondary objective, we examined the associations among the various forms of prejudice and their relationship to key demographic and personal characteristics. We also examined the associations between psychological, social, and physical well-being. The results indicated that specific forms of prejudice, especially racism and sexism, were negative correlates of psychological, social, and/or physical well-being. The results also indicated that there may exist a prejudicial syndrome, linking diverse forms of prejudice. Furthermore, poor functioning in one area of well-being (e.g., psychological health) is related to poor functioning in other areas of well-being (social and physical health). Overall, this study provides important implications for future research and prevention programs in the area of prejudice and well-being.

We investigated the tendency of women to undervalue their contributions in collaborative contexts. Participants, who believed they were working with another study participant on a male sex-typed task, received positive feedback about the team's performance. Results indicated that women and men allocated credit for the joint success very differently. Women gave more credit to their male teammates and took less credit themselves unless their role in bringing about the performance outcome was irrefutably clear (Studies 1 and 2) or they were given explicit information about their likely task competence (Study 4). However, women did not credit themselves less when their teammate was female (Study 3). Together these studies demonstrate that women devalue their contributions to collaborative work, and that they do so by engaging in attributional rationalization, a process sparked by women's negative performance expectations and facilitated by source ambiguity and a satisfactory "other" to whom to allocate credit.

In 3 experimental studies, the authors explored how ambiguity about the source of a successful joint performance outcome promotes attributional rationalization, negatively affecting evaluations of women. Participants read descriptions of a mixed-sex dyad's work and were asked to evaluate its male and female members. Results indicated that unless the ambiguity about individual contribution to the dyad's successful joint outcome was constrained by providing feedback about individual team member performance (Study 1) or by the way in which the task was said to have been structured (Study 2) or unless the negative expectations about women's performance were challenged by clear evidence of prior work competence (Study 3), female members were devalued as compared with their male counterparts-they were rated as being less competent, less influential, and less likely to have played a leadership role in work on the task. Implications of these results, both theoretical and practical, are discussed., (Copyright 2005 APA, all rights reserved.)

Because informed consent for prostate cancer screening with prostate specific antigen (PSA) is recommended, we determined how African Americans, Hispanics, and Caucasians want information about screening with PSA and the digital rectal exam (DRE) presented in culturally sensitive brochures specific for each group. We analyzed focus group discussions using content analysis and compared themes across groups in a university outpatient internal medicine practice setting. The participants were twenty couples with men age 50 and older who participated in four focus groups. Main outcome measures were participants' views on the content and graphic design of culturally sensitive brochures promoting informed decision making about prostate cancer screening. There were content and graphic design differences in the way ethnic groups wanted information presented about the prostate, prostate cancer, risk, and screening. Caucasians likened the size of the prostate to a walnut; Hispanics, to a small lime. Hispanics emphasized how advanced prostate cancer can be symptomatic; Caucasians, how early prostate cancer can be asymptomatic. African Americans wanted risk information specific for them and the advantages and disadvantages of a PSA and DRE; Hispanics, did not. Caucasians and African Americans sought a more active role for men in informed decision making than Hispanics. Differences in the way African Americans, Hispanics, and Caucasians want information presented about prostate cancer screening suggest there may be cultural differences in the reasonable person standard of informed consent, in attitudes toward the physician-patient relationship, screening, and informed decision making. Physicians promoting informed decision making about controversial screening tests should take cultural sensitivity into account when designing educational interventions and using them.

Objective: To determine physicians' rating of the importance of key facts men ought to know about prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and whether there are differences by specialty., Participants: A nationwide random sample of internists, family physicians, and urologists stratified by physician specialty from The Official ABMS Directory of Board-Certified Medical Specialists 2000 Edition., Measurements: Internists (N = 139), family physicians (N = 160), and urologists (N = 151) were asked to rate how important it is for men to know 17 facts about PSA screening using a 5-point Likert scale., Main Results: Of 769 eligible physicians, 450 responded, for an overall response rate of 59%. Urologists and nonurologists differed in rating how important it was for men to know 9 of the 17 key facts. Eight of the nine statements that urologists and nonurologists disagreed upon concerned facts reflecting uncertainty. Nonurologists were more likely than urologists to rate facts reflecting uncertainty as highly important for men to know. These included statements about prostate cancer risk, screening with PSA, and treatment., Conclusions: Despite professional guidelines supporting informed decision making, the importance of facts men ought to know about PSA testing differ by physician specialty. Systematic differences may reflect differences in professional guidelines about PSA testing.