Cultural Variation in Australia: Ethnicity, Host Community Residence, and Power-Distance Values

Effective communication within a multicultural society necessitates an understanding of how people’s values might vary according to their cultural background and immigration history. Etic approaches to the study of culture have indicated that national cultures are differentiated on the dimension of power-distance. Power-distance refers to the degree of inequality or hierarchy that people believe to be appropriate in societal and organisational authority structures. Recently, researchers have begun to investigate power-distance at an individual level. However, psychologists have not yet investigated systematic variation in power-distance within multicultural communities. This study examined whether power-distance varies within Australian society according to race/ethnicity. Based on previous research, we hypothesised that systematic variation in power-distance values would emerge within a university sample surveyed in Sydney, Australia. Results indicated that participants’ power-distance values varied across ethnic groups, but did not always correspond with power-distance indices of participants’ reported racial/ethnic backgrounds, qualified by length of residence in Australia. The power-distance variations described in this paper are discussed in terms of their implications for multicultural communities, and in particular, the way that people of different ethnic backgrounds within Australian society comprehend and evaluate their interactions with authority figures, such as employers

Occupational violence and aggression in urgent and critical care in rural health service settings : a systematic review of mixed studies

Rural/remote health services are vulnerable to occupational violence and aggression due to factors such as weapon accessibility, poor network coverage and distance to backup. This systematic review investigated (1) the nature of occupational violence and aggression perpetrated in rural/remote health service urgent care settings and (2) the availability and effectiveness of policies/interventions/recommendations that address occupational violence and aggression in this context. We searched Business Source Complete, CINAHL Complete, Health & Society, APAIS Health, Health Collection, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, SocIndex and Web of Science. Included articles (peer-reviewed, no grey literature and English language) addressed occupational violence and aggression in rural health service urgent care settings. Fifteen articles matched these criteria (total [rural/remote only, where specified] N ~ 2555) and were included in the final analysis. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was applied to assess the risk of bias. A data extraction table and narrative synthesis are presented. The most common occupational violence and aggression type was verbal aggression. The primary perpetrator was patients. Risk factors reflected practitioner age, remoteness, sector, staffing, shift type and area of practice. Precipitating factors were alcohol/drugs, dissatisfaction and mental health conditions. Policy content and limitations and education/training programme effectiveness were not addressed. Community collaboration supported occupational violence and aggression prevention/management. Organisational culture should promote reporting, debriefing and post-incident care for staff well-being. Work environment and job/task design are priorities for safety, but with possible limitations for traumatised clients. Occupational violence and aggression policies/interventions in rural health settings must be systematically evaluated to inform best practices. Co-funded by Swinburne Social Innovation Research Institute Interdisciplinary Seed Funding Scheme and SMART Rural Health Network. © 2022 The Authors. Health and Social Care in the Community published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Court Review: Volume 44, Issue 1/2 – Decision Makers and Decision Recipients: Understanding Disparities in the Meaning of Fairness

Since World War II, psychologists have devoted considerable attention to understanding the factors that shape people’s satisfaction with the outcomes of social or economic exchanges—outcomes of events not unlike the encounters occurring between judges and litigants in civil and criminal courtrooms, encounters between police officers and civilians, or encounters between mediators and disputants in alternative dispute resolution centers throughout the United States every day. In one classic early study, it came as somewhat of a surprise when it was discovered that satisfaction was not easily explained by economic theories of human behavior. This finding launched an inquiry guided by theories and empirical research that has continued to this day. In this article, we offer an overview of the major developments in these theories and the accompanying research with an eye toward their implications for understanding the factors that shape citizens’ satisfaction with the U.S. legal system. Then, we note that the vast majority of this research has focused primarily on only a portion of the individuals who are engaged in the legal encounters that are taking place—the subordinates (the litigants, civilians, and disputants whose outcomes are being decided) rather than the authorities (the judges, police officers, and mediators who are deciding the cases), and we describe some recent research suggesting that the satisfaction of decision makers might be guided by different principles than the satisfaction of those who receive their decisions

Crime and security decisions by authorities (DataBlitz 2013)

This presentation describes an experimental study that was conducted to investigate how authorities reason about justice. Research shows an increased concern by authorities with outcomes, in contrast to subordinates' focus on treatment-related concerns. DataBlitz on Crime and Security was held on 31 May 2013

Cultural variation in Australia: ethnicity, host community residence, and power-distance values

Effective communication within a multicultural society necessitates an understanding of how people's values might vary according to their cultural background and immigration history. Etic approaches to the study of culture have indicated that national cultures are differentiated on the dimension of power-distance. Power-distance refers to the degree of inequality or hierarchy that people believe to be appropriate in societal and organisational authority structures. Recently, researchers have begun to investigate power-distance at an individual level. However, psychologists have not yet investigated systematic variation in power-distance within multicultural communities. This study examined whether power-distance varies within Australian society according to race/ethnicity. Based on previous research, we hypothesised that systematic variation in power-distance values would emerge within a university sample surveyed in Sydney, Australia. Results indicated that participants' power-distance values varied across ethnic groups, but did not always correspond with power-distance indices of participants' reported racial/ethnic backgrounds, qualified by length of residence in Australia. The power-distance variations described in this paper are discussed in terms of their implications for multicultural communities, and in particular, the way that people of different ethnic backgrounds within Australian society comprehend and evaluate their interactions with authority figures, such as employers

Procedural justice

Abstract not available

Law

Abstract not available

Reflections on tutoring: the advantages of youth and inexperience in interactions with students

When I began tutoring in the Psychology 1A and 1B courses in 2002, I did so with a downright terror of public speaking. My teaching qualifications consisted of one three-hour tutoring workshop, and at 23, I was younger than many students in my classes. I was worried that this would translate into a lack of authority and an inability to teach effectively. It took me some time to realise that these factors, counter-intuitively, worked as a natural advantage in my interactions with students. The key to this advantage, however, lay in responding to students’ expectations of me, and recognising differences in the roles of tutors and full-time academic staff

Terms K-M

Abstract not available