Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1974. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 1972. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 133-136). Available online via OhioLINK's ETD Center.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1972. / Title from title screen (viewed Sept. 20, 2007). Includes bibliographical references. Online version of the print original.

Thesis (D. Min.)--Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004. / Includes prospectus. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 223-234).

Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

Lun Miu-chi. / Thesis (M.Phil.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 37-42). / Abstracts in English and Chinese. / Acknowledgment --- p.i / Table of contents --- p.ii / Abstract --- p.iv / Chapter Chapter 1: --- Introduction / Relationship Harmony --- p.1 / Previous Research on Relationship Harmony --- p.1 / Relationship Harmony in Groups --- p.3 / The Five-Factor Model of Personality and Relationship Harmony --- p.5 / "Relationship Harmony, Interpersonal Attraction, and Group Cohesiveness" --- p.8 / "Relational Experiences, Group Cohesiveness, and Group Performance" --- p.11 / The Nonindependence Issue --- p.12 / Chapter Chapter 2: --- Method / Participants --- p.14 / Measures --- p.14 / Analytical Strategy --- p.17 / Chapter Chapter 3: --- Results / Table 1: Descriptive statistics of the variables Self-report RH --- p.18 / Table 2: Correlation matrix of the variables --- p.19 / Table 3: Results regarding self-report RH Other-given RH --- p.20 / Table 4: Results regarding other-given RH Self-report Liking --- p.22 / Table 5: Results regarding self-report liking Other-given Liking --- p.24 / Table 6: Results regarding other-given liking Individual's Attraction to Group --- p.24 / Table 7: Results regarding individual's attraction to the group Perception of Group Integration --- p.26 / Table 8: Results regarding perception of group integration Group Performance Outcome --- p.27 / Table 9: Results regarding the mediating role of group integration between group relationship harmony and group performance --- p.29 / Chapter Chapter 4: --- Discussion / Personality Correlates of Relationship Harmony and Interpersonal Attraction --- p.30 / "Relationship Harmony, Interpersonal Attraction, and Group Cohesiveness" --- p.33 / "Relational Constructs, Group Cohesiveness, and Group Performance" --- p.34 / Future Research Direction --- p.35 / Reference --- p.37 / Appendixes / Chapter Appendix 1: --- The Interpersonal Liking Scale --- p.43 / Chapter Appendix 2: --- The Group Interaction Measure --- p.44

Ingroup bias, which refers to people???s tendency to evaluate and treat members of their ingroups better than members of outgroups, is a central feature of intergroup relations. Conceptually, ingroup bias can be comprised of ingroup positivity, outgroup negativity, or both. However, research has often confounded these components on the assumption that they are reciprocally related. The aim of this research project was to examine the relative dominance of ingroup positivity versus outgroup negativity in ingroup bias and the relationship between them. Two approaches were employed. First, a series of laboratory studies examined the effect of threat on implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. In Study 1, ingroup positivity and outgroup negativity were assessed in the domains of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination in a context where threat appeared to be salient. Analyses within and across measures revealed that ingroup positivity was more dominant than outgroup negativity, and that ingroup and outgroup attitudes were unrelated or positively related. Experiments that manipulated the salience of realistic threat (Studies 2 and 3), symbolic threat, (Studies 6 and 7), or both (Studies 4 and 5) similarly produced nonsignificant or positive correlations between ingroup and outgroup attitudes. However, in Studies 4, 5, and 7, perceptions of symbolic threat significantly influenced intergroup attitudes. Overall, the findings of the laboratory studies suggest that although threat can shift outgroup attitudes, it does not necessarily lead to reciprocity between ingroup positivity and outgroup negativity. The second approach employed in this dissertation involved content analysis of messages posted on an Internet hate site. In contrast to the laboratory experiments, Studies 8 and 9 found that ingroup positivity significantly predicted outgroup negativity. Implications of these findings are discussed, including the possibility that ingroup positivity will be linked to outgroup hostility when people are highly identified with their ingroup and when the outgroup defines the ingroup. This dissertation contributes to the intergroup relations literature by providing a more detailed account of implicit and explicit ingroup bias, and by identifying potential conditions leading to a negative relationship between ingroup and outgroup attitudes.

Thesis (M.A.)--Ohio State University. / Bibliography: leaves 88-89. Available online via OhioLINK's ETD Center.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between a direct group experience, a vicarious group experience, and a control group experience and measures of self-actualization (I scale of the Personal Orientation Inventory) and self-congruence (DOM differences and LOV differences on the Interpersonal Check List).Prior to the group experiences, the sample of 75 subjects was divided into three groups of 25 graduate and undergraduate students per group. On the night of the group experience, 66 of these subjects participated in the study. The direct group (13 females and 7 males) participated in a primarily nonverbal personal growth group microlab lasting for one and one-half hours. The vicarious group (11 females and 10 males) viewed the direct group via closed-circuit television. The control group (10 males and 15 females) spent an equivalent amount of time viewingthree films assumed to be unrelated to moving toward self-actualization and increasing self-congruence.The Interpersonal Check List and the Personal Orientation Inventory were administered to the subjects at the conclusion of the group experiences. The subjects responded to the ICL in two different manners. First, each subject responded to the ICL by indicating which adjectives and/or phrases were applicable to S as he saw himself (real self). Next, each subject responded to the ICL by indicating which adjectives and/or phrases were applicable to S as he would like to be ideally (ideal self).The instruments were scored and three scales (DOM differences of the ICL, LOV differences of the ICL, the I scale of the POI) were subjected to a multivariate analysis of variance. The F value which was obtained (.7670) was not statistically significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the major null hypothesis--There will be no statistically significant difference between mean vectors for the direct group, the vicarious group, and the control group on the I scale of the POI, the DOM differences of the ICL, and the LOV differences of the ICL--was not rejected. As the analysis failed to yield results leading to the rejection of the major null hypothesis, the sub-hypotheses were not investigated and were therefore not rejected.Analysis of the intercorrelations between the I scale of the POI, the DOM differences of the ICL, and the LOV differences of the ICL yielded no statistically significant correlations. Since the three scales used within this study provided essentially uncorrelated, independent measures of self-actualization and self-congruence, using these three scales within one study seems to be statistically sound.Further analysis of the data indicated that there were no statistically significant differences in selfactualization and self-congruence between the direct group, the vicarious group, and the control group as measured by the DOM differences on the ICL, LOV differences on the ICL, and the I scale of the POI. Therefore, a personal growth group microlab leader could expect to achieve no statistically significant change in his group participants based on self-actualization and self-congruence as measured by the instruments and scales used in this study. If leaders continue to present personal growth group microlabs, there is a need to re-examine the goals of such an experience and re-evaluate the microlab in terms of the new redefined goals.

Ingroup bias, which refers to people???s tendency to evaluate and treat members of their ingroups better than members of outgroups, is a central feature of intergroup relations. Conceptually, ingroup bias can be comprised of ingroup positivity, outgroup negativity, or both. However, research has often confounded these components on the assumption that they are reciprocally related. The aim of this research project was to examine the relative dominance of ingroup positivity versus outgroup negativity in ingroup bias and the relationship between them. Two approaches were employed. First, a series of laboratory studies examined the effect of threat on implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes. In Study 1, ingroup positivity and outgroup negativity were assessed in the domains of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination in a context where threat appeared to be salient. Analyses within and across measures revealed that ingroup positivity was more dominant than outgroup negativity, and that ingroup and outgroup attitudes were unrelated or positively related. Experiments that manipulated the salience of realistic threat (Studies 2 and 3), symbolic threat, (Studies 6 and 7), or both (Studies 4 and 5) similarly produced nonsignificant or positive correlations between ingroup and outgroup attitudes. However, in Studies 4, 5, and 7, perceptions of symbolic threat significantly influenced intergroup attitudes. Overall, the findings of the laboratory studies suggest that although threat can shift outgroup attitudes, it does not necessarily lead to reciprocity between ingroup positivity and outgroup negativity. The second approach employed in this dissertation involved content analysis of messages posted on an Internet hate site. In contrast to the laboratory experiments, Studies 8 and 9 found that ingroup positivity significantly predicted outgroup negativity. Implications of these findings are discussed, including the possibility that ingroup positivity will be linked to outgroup hostility when people are highly identified with their ingroup and when the outgroup defines the ingroup. This dissertation contributes to the intergroup relations literature by providing a more detailed account of implicit and explicit ingroup bias, and by identifying potential conditions leading to a negative relationship between ingroup and outgroup attitudes.