Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1999. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 108-124).

Thesis (M.A.) - Carleton University, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 59-68). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Dissertation(DPhil)--University of Stellenbosch, 2008. / Bibliography. Also available via the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Carleton University, 2000. / Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Delaware, 2005. / Principal faculty advisor: Samuel L. Gaertner, Dept. of Psychology. Includes bibliographical references.

According to realistic conflict theory (RCT), people develop negative attitudes towards others as a result of competition with those others over limited resources. I hypothesized that participants would change their opinions of others in a greater negative direction if those others were competitive in resource use than if those others are cooperative. Additionally, I hypothesized that the participants' own resource use would influence how they changed their opinions of the others. Participants were asked to complete a ten-item trait-rating questionnaire before and after competing in a simulated fishing environment against a simulated group that fished either a little (cooperative opponent) or a lot (competitive opponent). As predicted, when fishing against competitive opponents, participants changed their ratings in a more negative direction than when fishing against cooperative opponents. In addition, participants' own fishing behaviour influenced some of their rating shifts. I discuss an alternative explanation of the results as based on group identity processes (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), and suggest that the effects of such processes should be directly compared with competition over resources in the same study. Limitations of the study are discussed along with potential solutions.

abstract: Existing work suggests that intergroup negativity is caused by dissimilarities of values between groups. In contrast, I propose that incompatible values--regardless of whether they are similar or dissimilar--cause intergroup negativities. Because values act as cues to tangible goals and interests, groups' values suggest desired outcomes that may conflict with our own (i.e., incompatible values). The current study conceptually and empirically disentangles value-dissimilarity and value-incompatibility, which were confounded in previous research. Results indicated that intergroup negativities were strongly predicted by value-incompatibility, and only weakly and inconsistently predicted by value-dissimilarity. I further predicted that groups' values cue specific threats and opportunities to perceivers and that, in reaction to these inferred affordances, people will experience threat-relevant, specific emotional reactions (e.g., anger, disgust); however, results did not support this prediction. I also predicted that, because the inferred threats that groups pose to one another are not always symmetric, the negativities between groups may sometimes be asymmetric (i.e., Group A feels negatively toward Group B, but Group B feels neutral or positively toward Group A). This prediction received strong support. In sum, reframing our understanding of values as cues to conflicts-of-interest between groups provides principles for understanding intergroup prejudices in more nuanced ways. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Psychology 2017

Regardless of numerous accomplishments and appreciable rewards of the collaboration in cross-functional teams, the impacts of cross-functional teams has deteriorated in the eyes of business, its ability to deliver having been questioned - businesses often fail to reap the promised benefits. While previous research has concentrated on collaboration in cross-functional teams of new product development, it neglected the outcomes of collaboration in crossfunctional teams and the leader behaviours that impacts and maintains the collaboration in cross-functional teams. This research aimed to understand the perspectives of leaders and subordinates on how leader behaviours could improve the impacts of collaboration in cross-functional teams. First by exploring the outcomes of collaboration in cross-functional teams, confirming importance to business, and then exploring current failures; secondly, by identifying the key leader behaviours that impacts collaboration in cross-functional teams. Preceding initiatives have been ineffective in reviving the value of collaboration in cross-functional teams, due to focal point being new product development collaboration of cross-functional teams and failed to focus on leader behaviours in cross-functional teams. This research, therefore, probed the necessities for collaboration entered into and maintained, looking particularly at leader behaviours which is effective in encouraging collaboration and involvement of stakeholders in cross-functional teams. From the research outcomes, the Leader behaviours Impact Model was designed to set out how collaboration can be established and maintained, optimising the impacts of the leader behaviours while also diminishing its many failures of collaboration in crossfunctional team. / Dissertation (MBA)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / pagibs2014 / Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS) / MBA / Unrestricted

Master of Science / Department of Psychological Sciences / Donald A. Saucier / The current research examined whether participants’ levels of racial prejudice impact their perceptions of a Black racial slur (“nigga”) used by a Black individual toward a White individual. The “racism justification hypothesis” predicts racial prejudice will be negatively related to perceptions of offensiveness due to motivations to trivialize racial slurs which allows for increased use of the slur by individuals higher in prejudice. The “hierarchy defense hypothesis” predicts racial prejudice will be positively related to more negative perceptions of the slur due to White individuals seeking to resist affiliation with Black individuals and perceiving affiliative attempts as threatening. Consistent with the hierarchy defense hypothesis, the results showed racial prejudice predicted greater offensive and negatively expressive perceptions, and lower positively expressive perceptions following “nigga” being used by a Black individual toward a White individual (Study 1). In Study 2, the current research examined whether motivations to trivialize racial slurs (i.e., racism justification) versus participants’ experiences of threat (i.e., hierarchy defense) mediated the relationships between racial prejudice and perceptions of “nigga” used by a Black individual toward a White individual. Consistent with the hierarchy defense hypothesis, racial prejudice, through status hierarchy threat, predicted greater offensive and negatively expressive perceptions, and lower positively expressive perceptions. The racism justification hypothesis was also supported. Participants’ levels of racial prejudice, through racism trivialization, were generally related to lower perceptions of the slur as offensive and greater perceptions of the slur as positively expressive. The current research then examined participants’ perceptions of “nigga” reciprocated by the White individual toward the Black individual. Interestingly, racial prejudice, through status hierarchy threat, predicted greater offensive and negatively expressive perceptions and lower positively expressive perceptions. Racial prejudice, through racism trivialization, predicted generally lower offensive perceptions and greater positively expressive perceptions. Thus, participants may have used their experiences of threat as justification for explicit prejudice toward the Black individual (i.e., perceiving the slur as more offensive and negative), while individuals who experienced trivialization motivations attempted to decrease their experiences of suppression factors by perceiving the slur as less offensive, allowing for increased use of the slur. Implications for these findings are discussed.

Intergroup conflicts are rife in public schools and often the bone of contention is promotional posts. These conflicts can affect the quality of teaching and learning if the focus of the teachers moves from the primary purpose of teaching to contesting senior posts. In addition, such contestation often splits the teaching staff into groups or factions. One such split is between the group made up of teachers belonging to the politically-aligned union and the group of teachers from non-politically aligned teacher unions or those not unionised at all. The School Governing Body parent-wing is often caught in conflict between these two groups as it has the legislative power to recommend appointment to the District Director. It is within this context that this study explores the perceptions of stakeholders in selected schools in Diepkloof with regard to intergroup conflict and investigates whether cadre deployment plays a role in this conflict. The findings of this study reveal stakeholders' perceptions that politically-aligned unions tend to exert influence to have their members promoted and, in the process, often overlook better qualified educators.