Does intergenerational contact reduce Ageism: When and How Contact Interventions Actually Work?

Although the past two decades have seen concrete attempts to reduce ethnic and racial prejudice, relatively little has been done to diminish age related prejudice. In this paper, we review intergenerational contact interventions have been applied in a real world setting, the results are mixed. While contact interventions are not a panacea, they do constitute a main plank in efforts to redress ageism. We, therefore, examine the types of interventions that are effective, the processes underlying their enhanced impact, and clarifying when and how intergenerational contact can predict more positive attitudes towards the elderly. Finally, we highlight ways in which findings might be applied to the development of more effective interventions aimed at combating a pervasive stereotype of aging, drawing out lessons for theory and implications for practice.

Qualitative methods in the study of children's racial attitudes and identities

This article examines the role that qualitative methods can play in the study of children's racial attitudes and behaviour. It does this by discussing a number of examples taken from a qualitative, ethnographic study of five- and six-year-old children in an English multi-ethnic, inner-city primary school. The examples are used to highlight the limitations of research that relies solely on quantitative methods and the potential that qualitative methods have for addressing these limitations. Within this context the article contrasts the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative methods in the study of children's racial attitudes and identities. The article concludes by arguing that a much more integrated multi-method approach is needed in this area and sets out some of the most effective ways this could be achieved.

The influence of aetiology and blame on prejudice towards survivors of brain injury.

The purpose of the present work was to investigate if a hierarchy of aetiology exists which would influence attitudes towards survivors of brain injury. An independent groups design utilised four independent variables; aetiology (measured at five levels: ‘Road Traffic Accident’ (RTA), ‘Alcohol’, ‘Drug Use’, ‘Aneurism’ and ‘Recreation’), blame (blame and no-blame), group (psychology students and members of the public) and gender to explore attitudes towards survivors of brain injury. The dependent variables were measured using the Prejudicial Evaluation Scale (PES) and Social Interaction Scale (SIS). Three hundred and twenty-five participants (173 students and 152 members of the public) were randomly allocated to one of ten possible conditions. Among individuals who contributed to receiving their injury greater prejudice was displayed towards those in the ‘Drugs’ condition followed by ‘Recreation’, ‘RTA’, ‘Alcohol’ and ‘Aneurism’. Findings suggest that a hierarchy of aetiology exists, which results in prejudicial attitudes, and is influenced by issues of blame. Key words: prejudice, blame, brain injury

Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice against threatening and competitive ethnic groups

This research rests on the assumption that individual differences approaches to prejudice benefit from all integration of intergroup factors. Following Duckitt (2001), we assumed that two prominent individual differences variables, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), would differentially predict majority members' levels of ethnic prejudice depending on specific factors of the intergroup context: RWA as all index of motivational concerns about social cohesion, stability and security should drive prejudice against outgroups perceived as socially threatening, and SDO as an index of concerns about ingroup superiority and dominance should predict prejudice against outgroups perceived as potential competitors for power-status. Across two studies (Ns = 82, 176), using between-participants and within-participants experimental designs, the effects of RWA on prejudice were particularly powerful when the outgroup was manipulated to be socially threatening, but the effects of SDO on prejudice appeared not to increase when the outgroup was manipulated to be competitive. In Study 2, presenting the outgroup as having low status also increased the effect of RWA, but not the effect of SDO. These results support the differential prediction assumption for RWA, but not for SDO. Implications for the conceptualisation of RWA and SDO are discussed. Copyright (C) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authoritarianism, threat, and prejudice: An analysis of mediation and moderation

Right-wing authoritarianism is a central construct in individual differences approaches to prejudice. Its power to predict prejudice is often attributed to perceived threat. However, the exact moderating and mediating processes involved are little understood. In two studies (Ns=53, 84), exposure to threatening versus nonthreatening information about an ethnic out-group had reliable indirect effects on prejudice in authoritarians, but not in nonauthoritarians, largely because authoritarians were more likely to perceive actual threat when they interpreted the information received to represent a threatening argument. Additionally, in Study 2, authoritarians reacted more strongly with negative emotions when they perceived actual threat.