Search

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00569.x Byline: Walter G Stephan (1) Abstract: This article employs Allport's (1954) lens model of the causes of prejudice to analyze the articles in this issue of the Journal of Social Issues. The lens model specifies that historical, socio cultural, personality, and situational factors contribute to prejudice. The articles in this issue examine a number of variables at each of these levels of analysis, and many employ multilevel designs in which variables at more than one level are examined within the same study. Suggestions for future research on intergroup relations in Europe are offered including conducting more comparative and multilevel studies and creating comprehensive theories that integrate different levels of analysis. Some implications of the findings of these studies for intergroup relations programs are also discussed. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Hawaii Article note: (*) Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Walter G. Stephan, 2097 Aliali Place, Honolulu, HI 96821 [e-mail: gstepha@nmsu.edu].

This study examined affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses to members of a stigmatized group--homosexual men. Male participants were placed in a situation in which they anticipated interacting with a gray or a non-stigmatized conversation partner. The topic of the impending conversation was either potentially threatening or non-threatening. Participants in the gay conversation partner condition sat either farther away from the conversation partner (in the threat condition) or closer to the conversation partner (in the no-threat condition) than they did from non-stigmatized conversation partners. There were no differences in attitudes toward the conversation partner as a function of experimental condition. The results were interpreted in terms of predictions based on ambivalence-amplification theory, aversive racism theory, and the integrated threat theory.

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00475.x Byline: Walter G. Stephan (1) Abstract: Editors' introduction: Walter Stephan's interest in intergroup relations grew from his early involvement in intercultural relations. He spent substantial time in Latin America as well as Vietnam during his college years. These experiences influenced his choice to study social psychology at the University of Minnesota. His first foray into intergroup relations came with his move to Austin, Texas, in 1971. A Court mandate ordered schools to be desegregated, and Stephan examined the effects of school desegregation there on students' self-esteem and intergroup attitudes. His field research on the effects of desegregation as well as classroom interventions to improve intergroup relations was complemented by his laboratory research on intergroup biases, intergroup threat, intergroup anxiety, and empathy. Stephan brings this lifetime of involvement in both basic and applied research, and deep concern for effective practice and humanistic philosophy, to his commentary. He opens the commentaries with an elucidation of the difficulties in, and benefits of, the central thrust of this volume: the researcher-practitioner collaboration. He paints portraits of practitioners, researchers, and practitioner-researchers, and classifies articles in this issue accordingly. He notes the difficulties among the various parties interested in improving intergroup relations, spanning from simple lack of knowledge to lack of contact to lack of meaningful ways to interact. However, potential benefits of collaboration are abundant for all parties, and Stephan proposes a number of ways in which such partnerships could be actualized. Author Affiliation: (1)New Mexico State University Article note: (*) Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Walter G. Stephan, 2097 Aliali Pl. Honolulu, HI 96821 [e-mail: wstephan@crl.nmsu.edu].

This set of two studies employed the integrated threat theory to examine attitudes toward affirmative action (AA). The first study found that opposition to the policy of AA was predicted by realistic threats, symbolic threats, and personal relevance; while attitudes toward the beneficiaries of AA were predicted by three of the four threat variables (symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes), and in-group identity. The second study replicated and expanded on the first study and found that the effects of several individual-difference variables (racism, anti-Black affect, and political conservatism) on opposition to AA were mediated by three of the threats in the integrated threat theory (realistic threats, symbolic threats, and negative stereotypes). The implications of the results are discussed.

Israeli Jewish and Arab experts within Israel have developed innovative intergroup relations programs, educational efforts designed to improve relations between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. Social scientists, educators, and practitioners on both sides of the Arab-Jewish conflict have dedicated themselves to lessening the hostility between these two groups within Israel through coexistence educational training. This issue presents theory, methods, and data from these coexistence educational programs. The introductory article presents a brief history of this conflict; the groups' differing perceptions regarding the dispute; some information about the role of culture, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity in the discord; and some of the social psychological processes that perpetuate and recreate the hostilities. Last, it provides a brief preface of this issue's articles.

Two studies examined people's beliefs about the relative disconfirmability of out-group and in-group stereotypes. In Study 1 (n = 56), Hispanics and White non-Hispanics judged the in-group and out-group stereotypes in terms of the ease with which they could be disconfirmed. The results indicated that strongly, ethnically identified participants believed the out-group stereotype to be more difficult to disconfirm than the in-group stereotype. The second study with 73 White participants examined their beliefs about the disconfirmability of the White and African American stereotypes. The results indicated that participants higher in prejudice believed the African American stereotype is more difficult to disconfirm than the White stereotype to a greater degree than participants lower in prejudice. The results suggest that disconfirmability beliefs comprise a distinct construct that may contribute to the difficulty of changing out-group stereotypes.

Three studies were conducted to measure the antecedents of women's attitudes toward men using the integrated threat model. Four types of threats were hypothesized to produce negative attitudes toward men: (1) realistic threat based on threats to women's political and economic power, (2) symbolic threat based on value differences, (3) intergroup anxiety experienced during social interaction with outgroup members, and (4) negative stereotypes of men. Negative contact was hypothesized to increase the perception of all four threats as well as to affect attitudes directly. The findings suggest that symbolic threat, intergroup anxiety, and negative contact are the strongest predictors of negative attitudes toward men. Contrary to expectation, realistic threat may not be important to women's attitudes toward men.

In the present study, 4 variables (realistic threats, symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes) were used to predict prejudice toward immigrants from Cuba, Mexico, and Asia in samples of students from states in the United States that are affected by immigration from these areas (Florida, New Mexico, and Hawaii, respectively). All 4 variables were significant (or marginally significant) predictors of attitudes toward these immigrant groups. Evidence is presented that the predictor variables are conceptually and empirically distinct. However; these variables do appear to be tied together by an underlying theme: They all concern threats to the in-group or its members. Some of the implications of the results for intergroup relations are discussed.

Two studies were designed to test hypotheses concerning self-disclosure during initial interactions with ingroup or outgroup strangers. Based on intergroup anxiety theory it was predicted that ingroup members would disclose less to outgroup strangers than to ingroup strangers. One study involved interaction with handicapped and nonhandicapped confederates and one involved interaction with Caucasian and Black confederates. It was found that on some dimensions there was less self-disclosure to outgroup than ingroup strangers during initial interactions. Additional data suggested that high levels of public self-awareness and perceived dissimilarity also reduced some aspects of self-disclosure.

Prior research indicates that information-based intergroup relations programs are only moderately successful (McGregor, 1993; Stephan & Stephan, 1984). In order to explore a means of increasing the effectiveness of techniques used to change attitudes toward outgroups, the current study examined the effects of giving Anglo American students information about everyday incidents of discrimination against African Americans either with or without empathy-inducing instructions. The results indicate that reading about discrimination against African Americans or inducing empathy reduces in-group--out-group bias in attitudes toward African Americans vs. Anglo Americans. The implications of these findings for models of the effects of empathy on intergroup relations are discussed.

Students interacted with a White or a Black partner on an achievement task. It was predicted that the anxiety elicited by interacting with an outgroup member would lead to amplified emotional reactions to achievement outcomes. Consistent with this prediction, emotional reactions to success were more positive with a Black partner than with a White partner, whereas emotional reactions to failure were more negative with a Black partner than with a White partner. In addition, under conditions of low public self-awareness, Black partners wer given less credit for success and blamed more for failure than White partners. This prejudicial pattern of attributions disappeared under conditions of high public self-awareness.

In an investigation of supervisor perceptions and subordinate responses to performance appraisals, a 242 university employee sample is studied. Factor analysis demonstrates three dimensions of performance appraisals; two are concerned with support and job improvement, and one is related to administrative concerns. Results indicate that support during the performance review is linked to greater degrees of employee motivation, and the administrative dimension concerning pay and advancement is linked to higher degrees of employee satisfaction.