Patients' interactions with health providers - A linguistic category model approach

Two studies investigated interactions between health providers and patients, using Semin and Fiedler's linguistic category model. In Study 1 the linguistic category model was used to examine perceptions of the levels of linguistic intergroup bias in descriptions of conversations with health professionals in hospitals. Results indicated a favourable linguistic bias toward health professionals in satisfactory conversations but low levels of linguistic intergroup bias in unsatisfactory conversations. In Study 2, the language of patients and health professionals in videotaped interactions was examined for levels of linguistic intergroup bias. Interpersonally salient interactions showed less linguistic intergroup bias than did intergroup ones. Results also indicate that health professionals have high levels of control in all types of medical encounters with patients. Nevertheless, the extent to which patients are able to interact with health professionals as individuals, rather than only as professionals is a key determinant of satisfaction with the interaction.

The effects of status on subgroup relations

Two experiments were conducted to assess the impact of status differentials on subgroup attitudes and behaviours. In Experiment 1, 73 maths-science students were led to believe they had higher or lower status than humanities students. They then performed a non-interactive decision-making task during which they were categorized exclusively as a university student (superordinate condition), or as a university student and maths-science student simultaneously (subgroups condition). Experiment 2 (N = 98) differed from Experiment I in that perceptions of relative subgroup status were measured rather than manipulated. Consistent with social identity theory, subgroup members tended to categorize themselves more at the superordinate (university) level the lower status they considered their subgroup to be. In Experiment 2, a series of interactions also emerged, showing that status and inter-subgroup bias were positively related when the participants had been categorized exclusively at the superordinate level. When superordinate and subgroup identities were activated simultaneously, perceptions of status had no effect on levels of bias. The results were interpreted in terms of participants' needs for identity enhancement and identity distinctiveness.

"It's OK if we say it, but you can't": responses to intergroup and intragroup criticism

Three experiments were conducted examining group members' responses to criticism from ingroup and outgroup members. In Experiment I a, Australians read scripts of a person making either negative or positive comments about Australia. The speaker was identified as coming from either Australia (ingroup member) or another country (outgroup member). Responses indicated an intergroup sensitivity effect; that is, while ingroup criticisms were tolerated surprisingly well, outgroup criticisms were met with sensitivity and defensiveness. This pattern was replicated using the identity of,university student' (Experiment 1b). Experiment 2 demonstrated that the intergroup sensitivity effect is driven by perceptions that ingroup criticisms are seen to be more legitimate and more constructive than are outgroup criticisms. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for intragroup and intergroup relations. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

Improving attitude-behavior correspondence through exposure to normative support from a salient ingroup

Two experiments were conducted to test predictions derived from social identity/self-categorization theory concerning the role of group norms in attitude-behavior consistency. In Experiment 1, 160 students who could be classified as having a more or less certain target attitude were exposed to attitude congruent versus incongruent normative support from a relevant reference group (own university) under conditions of low versus high group salience. Experiment 2 was very similar in design and methodology (N=180), but a different correlate of attitude accessibility was used (an experimental manipulation of repeated expression), the target attitude was changed, and the reference group was gender. Across the 2 experiments there was consistent support for the hypothesis that participants would behave more in accordance with their attitudes when they received normative support for, rather than opposition to, their original attitude from a relevant reference group (i.e., their ingroup, not an outgroup). There was slightly weaker support for the second hypothesis that this effect would be stronger under high-than low-salience conditions. The third hypothesis (see Fazio, 1986), that attitude certainty and repeated expression of the attitude would strengthen attitude-behavior consistency, was well supported, as was the expectation that accessibility effects would be independent of reference group norm effects on attitude-behavior consistency.

Social competence and peer interactions of students with intellectual disability in an inclusive high school

This paper reports descriptive information on the relationship between social competence and the amount and type of peer interaction for nine adolescents with intellectual disability attending a regular high school. Each adolescent's social competence was assessed using the AAMR Adaptive Behavior Scale-School (2nd edn) (ABS-S:2). Naturalistic observations were conducted to obtain information on the amount and type of peer interaction. Data were analysed to determine the relationship between social competence and peer interactions. Social competence was not consistently correlated with the amount of peer interaction. Results from the naturalistic observations showed individual differences in patterns of peer interaction with a tendency towards more frequent interactions with peers who also had intellectual disabilities. These data suggest that social competence did not significantly influence the amount and type of peer interaction. Implications for facilitating peer interactions between adolescents with and without intellectual disability are discussed.

Paid employment of mothers and fathers of an adult child with multiple disabilities

Background Paid employment is increasingly undertaken by mothers as their children age, with the majority of women being in employment by the time their offspring are adult. Opportunities to engage in employment appear to be reduced for mothers of children with disabilities; however, little is known about the employment of mothers or fathers of adults with disabilities. Method Data were collected regarding the employment decisions of parents of a young adult with multiple disabilities and contrasted with those of parents whose children were all developing normally. Twenty-five mothers and 12 fathers of a young adult with multiple disabilities were interviewed, as were 25 comparison mothers and 19 comparison fathers. Data collected included hours of work, reasons for employment status, attitudes towards work and child care, and psychological well-being. Results Clear differences were found between the two groups. Mothers and fathers of a child with multiple disabilities showed different engagement patterns with the paid workforce from comparison parents. Hours of work for fathers of a young adult with multiple disabilities showed a bi-modal distribution, with some fathers working fewer hours than usual and others working very long hours. For mothers in both groups, the number of hours in paid employment was negatively associated with reports of psychological problems. Conclusions Increased attention needs to be given to the employment opportunities of parents of children with disabilities since employment appears to play a protective role for mothers, in particular. Services provided to adults with disabilities will need to change if parents are to have the same life chances as parents without adult offspring with a disability.

When social psychology became less social: Prasad and the history of rumor research

Rumor research, in general, and its delayed incorporation of the work, of rumor researcher Jamuna Prasad, in particular, exemplify how the intellectual climate of American social psychology discouraged the development of social approaches. In the present paper, we explain his conceptualization of how rumors start and spread, and explore findings from subsequent research supporting or negating his propositions. It is our contention that, although Prasad had identified the basic variables involved in rumor generation and transmission correctly, mainstream social psychological research in the 1940s did not incorporate his contributions. Instead, mirroring the Zeitgeist of American social psychology, rumor research was approached from a predominantly individual level of analysis. In the present paper, the authors have tried to resurrect some of the group-level variables from Prasad's treatment of rumor and to suggest that social psychology adopt a more 'social' approach to rumor.

Levels of consensus and majority and minority influence

Three experiments are reported which examine the effects of consensus information on majority and minority influence. In all experiments two levels of consensus difference were examined; large (82% versus 18%) and small (52% versus 48%). Experiment 1 showed that a majority source had more influence than a minority source, irrespective of consensus level. Experiment 2 examined the cause of this effect by presenting only the source label ('majority' versus 'minority'), only the consensus information (percentages) or both. The superior influence of the majority was again found when either (a) both source label and consensus information were given (replicating Experiment 1) and (b) only consensus information was given, but not when (c) only the source label was given. The results showed majority influence was due to the consensus information indicating more than 50% of the population supported that position. Experiment 3 also manipulated message quality (strong versus weak arguments) to identify whether systematic processing had occurred. Message quality only had an impact with the minority of 18%. These studies show that consensus information has different effects' for majority and minority influence. For majority influence, having over 50% support is sufficient to cause compliance while for a minority there are advantages to being numerically small, in terms of leading to detailed processing of its message. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

Social rules for managing attempted interpersonal domination in the workplace: Influence of status and gender.

The present study utilized a social rules approach to investigate the relative influence of gender and status on managers' self-evaluations of their effectiveness in handling a dominating subordinate. In the first study 84 White middle-class participants identified the prescriptive and proscriptive rules for socially appropriate responding to a stimulus situation involving a pushy subordinate. Four rule sets were identified for female and male managers and subordinates, respectively. Rule-sets shared a number of common rules and showed some variation according to gender roles. In the second study, 91 White middle-class participants rated the individual rules for importance and also rated their personal and managerial effectiveness when responding to the stimulus situation using gender- and status-consistent and gender-and status-inconsistent response strategies. Both men and women rated the female gender and status- consistent strategy as most effective, and rated the status-inconsistent strategy as less effective than a gender-inconsistent response. Results were interpreted as providing more support for a situational gender-related theory of workplace behavior, rather than a traditional gender role perspective.

Relations between high and low power groups: The importance of legitimacy

Using a social identity perspective, two experiments examined the effects of power and the legitimacy of power differentials on intergroup bias. In Experiment 1, 125 math-science students were led to believe that they had high or low representation in a university decision-making body relative to social-science students and that this power position was either legitimate or illegitimate. Power did not have an independent effect on bias; rather, members of both high and low power groups showed more bias when the power hierarchy was illegitimate than when it was legitimate. This effect was replicated in Experiment 2 (N =105). In addition, Experiment 2 showed that groups located within an unfair power hierarchy expected the superordinate power body to be more discriminatory than did those who had legitimately high or low power. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for group relations.

Putting the group back into unions: A social psychological contribution to understanding union support

Industrial relations research that attempts to grapple with individuals' union-related sentiments and activities often draws on one of two traditions of psychological research—the individual-level factors tradition (for example, personality and attitude-behaviour relations) and the social context tradition (for example, frustration-aggression and relative deprivation). This paper provides an overview of research conducted from within these traditions to explain union-related phenomena and identifies some of the limitations that arise as a consequence of a shared tendency to treat people in an atomistic fashion. The paper argues for an understanding of the psychological processes that underpin group-based action. To this end, it elaborates a theoretical framework based on social identity theory and self-categorisation theory that would allow us to examine the dynamic interplay between the individual, their cognitions and their environment. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of a specific case of union mobilisation, to indicate how this theoretical framework might aid empirical analysis.

Believing is not enough: Predicting support for the NTEU on an Australian campus

Asurvey-based field study was conducted with 232 members and nonmembers of the National Tertiary Education Union to investigate the psychological processes underpinning union support. Drawing on value-expectancy models and social identity/self-categorisation theory, this study investigated the role that both individual and grouprelated factors play in predicting attitudinal and behavioural support for the union. Variables investigated included instrumental and ideological attitudes, perceptions of a normative climate of union-support, and perceptions of higher education being under threat. Further to support for previous findings for the role of instrumental and ideological attitudes it was found that the perceived workplace norm had the anticipated direct effect on behaviour and evaluation and also moderated the behavioural expression of ideological and instrumental attitudes. The perception of threat to employment and higher education also directly impacted on behaviour and moderated the behavioural expression of ideological beliefs. The implications of these findings for collective action research will he discussed.

"What do other people think?" - The role of prejudice and social norms in the expression of opinions against gay men

It is generally acknowledged that it is no longer socially acceptable to espouse prejudiced beliefs, yet prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviours still occur. The present study sought to determine when and by whom prejudiced attitudes would be expressed. Specifically, an experiment was conducted to examine the impact of injunctive social norms emanating from a social group with which participants identified and participants' level of homophobia on the expression of opinions about gay men. Participants were presented with information indicating that the majority of group members agreed with a number of prejudiced injunctive statements (pro-prejudice norm), that the majority disagreed with the statements (anti-prejudice norm), or they were given no information about other group members' opinions (control). Participants then reported their own responses to the same injunctive statements. Participants' levels of homophobia were assessed either before or after they were given the normative information. The results indicated that activation of a pro-prejudice injunctive norm for those higher in homophobia resulted in more prejudiced opinions being expressed in comparison to those who received no normative information or those who had a nonprejudiced norm activated. Those lower in homophobia expressed less prejudiced opinions than those higher in homophobia and this did not differ as a function of social norm. The results demonstrate how prejudice can come to be expressed even in the presence of a broad societal norm that suggests that is it wrong to express such opinions.