Religious Motivation, Priming and Their Effects on Sexist Language

This experiment delves into the potential effects of sexist language used in the Christian religious context on increased use of sexist language, and endorsement of sexism on an individual level. In order to demonstrate a relationship between these two variables, an experiment was designed. Participants were exposed to either a religious or neutral priming session and were then immediately asked to complete several scales and measures of sexist language, sexism, and their level of intrinsic religious motivation. The hypothesis was that participants who ranked lower on intrinsic religious motivation, and who received a religious prime, would generate increased sexist language and sexism than the neutrally primed, higher ranking intrinsically motivated participants. The results demonstrated opposite effects of the religious prime on the behavior of the participants. The religiously primed participants expressed less sexism and sexist language, and a significant interaction was found between exposure to a religious prime and intrinsic religious motivation level. Exposure to a religious prime affected intrinsic religious motivation, in that those ranking higher in intrinsic religious motivation expressed less sexism and sexist language than those lower in intrinsic religious motivation with a religious prime

The influence of harasser-victim dyads and observer sex on perceived sexual harassment

This study investigated how sex of an observer, harasser, and victim may influence perceptions of sexual harassment (SH). We hypothesized that (1) women would perceive more sexual harassment than men, across all study conditions, (2) the most sexual harassment would be perceived in male harasser-female victim vignettes, (3) the least sexual harassment would be perceived in female harasser-male victim vignettes, (4) Men in the no definition control group would report the most perceived SH, those in the MacKinnon (more inclusive) definition condition would perceive slightly less SH than those in the control condition, but more than those in the EEOC. Four hundred and thirteen participants, 186 males and 227 females, age 18-25, were recruited via MTURK. Participants were invited to complete an electronic questionnaire asking them to rate the extent to which different vignettes qualified as SH. The vignettes differed in the level of their SH, from superficial, verbal comments to derogatory attitudes. Univariate ANOVAs indicate that that female participants were more likely to perceive SH than male participants across the vignettes. Additionally, more SH was perceived when the harasser was male and when the victim was female. Interactions were found between harasser sex and victim sex, between harasser sex, victim sex, and participant sex, and between definition condition, participant sex, and victim sex. The results help to further understanding of how individuals think of and perceive SH in a variety of work settings and situations. Applications range from legal proceedings to SH training in the workplac

Universities should lead on the plant-based dietary transition

National audienc

Horizontal hostility among non-meat eaters.

The present study examined intergroup judgments made between four groups of non-meat eaters: health vegetarians; ethical vegetarians; health vegans, and ethical vegans. Consistent with hypotheses based on horizontal hostility and the need to maintain ingroup distinctiveness, ethical vegetarians gave unfavorable evaluations to health vegetarians relative to vegans, especially when the mainstream omnivore group was made salient. Contrary to expectations, vegans gave relatively more favorable evaluations to ethical vegetarians than health vegetarians when mainstream salience was low. This was especially true for vegans who were motivated primarily by ethical concerns. When mainstream salience was high, vegans did not distinguish between the vegetarian subgroups. Results suggest that one's motives for abstaining from meat often play a larger role in this type of intergroup perceptions than one's dietary practices

Data from: Horizontal hostility among non-meat eaters

The present study examined intergroup judgments made between four groups of non-meat eaters: health vegetarians; ethical vegetarians; health vegans, and ethical vegans. Consistent with hypotheses based on horizontal hostility and the need to maintain ingroup distinctiveness, ethical vegetarians gave unfavorable evaluations to health vegetarians relative to vegans, especially when the mainstream omnivore group was made salient. Contrary to expectations, vegans gave relatively more favorable evaluations to ethical vegetarians than health vegetarians when mainstream salience was low. This was especially true for vegans who were motivated primarily by ethical concerns. When mainstream salience was high, vegans did not distinguish between the vegetarian subgroups. Results suggest that one’s motives for abstaining from meat often play a larger role in this type of intergroup perceptions than one’s dietary practices

The relation between disadvantaged groups: a social psychological approach

Due to the character of the original source materials and the nature of batch digitization, quality control issues may be present in this document. Please report any quality issues you encounter to [email protected], referencing the URI of the item.Includes bibliographical references.Issued also on microfiche from Lange Micrographics.This study examined how members of a disadvantaged group would relate to a disadvantaged outgroup as well as to an advantaged outgroup. An experiment was conducted in which disadvantaged subjects were exposed to a disadvantaged outgroup varying in position and to an advantaged outgroup always high in position, and then subjects were given a chance to aggress against either the disadvantaged outgroup or the advantaged outgroup. Results supported hypotheses derived from social identity theory that the disadvantaged outgroup would be the target of greatest aggression when their position was the same as or higher than the subject's ingroup. Conversely, the advantaged outgroup was aggressed against the most when the disadvantaged outgroup was in a low position. Results also supported the hypothesis that greatest homogeneity would be perceived in threatening outgroups. These findings are discussed in terms of the implications for improving the relations between disadvantaged groups

hh - hh.sav

spss fil

Vegetarians’ and Vegans’ Ingroup and Outgroup Evaluations under Low and High Mainstream Salience.

<p>Note. Higher means represent more favorable evaluations.</p