Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Diversity training continues to be an important research domain because of its practical application in modern organizations. However, research regarding best methods remains inconclusive, and little work has investigated non-demographic trainee characteristics as boundary conditions of diversity training effectiveness. The goal of this study is to test the efficacy of integrating two diversity training methods, perspective taking and media contact, specifically for resistant trainees who are high in social dominance orientation (SDO). In a sample of 373 participants, I test a proposed three-way interaction between these variables such that the effect of perspective taking on racial bias and intergroup anxiety will be enhanced by a media contact video condition, and this integration of training methods will be particularly beneficial for high SDO individuals. This hypothesis was largely unsupported, as integrating perspective taking and media interventions did not lead to lower racial bias or intergroup anxiety. Counter to expectations, the media contact video revealed a harmful effect on racial bias for those low in SDO. However, when combined with a perspective taking writing task, this harmful effect was mitigated. Supplemental analyses reveal that in the media contact video condition, the effect of SDO on racial bias was explained by a mediating mechanism, parasocial connection. Trainees high in SDO formed more negative parasocial connections with the speaker in the media contact video condition. However, those low in SDO formed strong positive parasocial connections with the speaker, and in turn, this positive parasocial connection led to lower racial bias. Implications, future research, and limitations are discussed.

The purpose of this research project was to explore differences in perceptions of organizational justice and related attitudes. Through the use of a 3 x 2 experimental design, participants were randomly assigned to groups in which they were exposed to a fictitious organization’s mock recruitment document publicizing different types of affirmative action programs and varying levels of information regarding the mechanics of such programs. Results did not demonstrate statistically significant differences across groups. Project implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Master of Science / Department of Psychology / Donald A. Saucier / Research has demonstrated that negative perceptions of rape victims may vary based on characteristics such as the victims’ race (e.g., Estrich, 1987; Wyatt, 1992). This study examined rape from feminist (e.g., Collins, 1991; hooks, 2003) and Social Dominance Theory (SDT; e.g., Pratto, 1996; Sidanius, 1993) perspectives to assess the relationship between individuals’ social dominance orientation (SDO) and differences in their attitudes toward rape victims of differing races. After reading newspaper-style vignettes describing the rape of either a White or Black victim, participants (N = 83) completed measures assessing their levels of rape myth acceptance (RMA), gender role beliefs, SDO, racism, and social desirability. Results indicated that participants’ SDO scores significantly predicted their perceptions of the triviality of the rape. Specifically, when participants’ SDO scores were higher, they perceived the rape as less trivial for White victims. However, participants higher in SDO did not perceive the rape of Black victims as being either more or less trivial. Consistent with previous research, this study also found that negative attitudes toward women significantly predicted overall negative perceptions of both the Black and White rape victims (e.g., Hockett, Saucier, Hoffman, Smith, & Craig, in press) and that individuals perceived the Black rape victims as less credible than the White rape victims (Wyatt, 1992). These results contribute to our understanding of the relationships among individuals’ attitudes about power, race, and rape by offering support for feminist theories about the relationship between rape and power, as well as for SDT and feminist theories regarding the structure of dominance.

No description available.

Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) suggests there are five distinct moral dimensions, which define morality as a whole. MFT can be broken down into two groups binding: in group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity-which encompass group morality. Harm/Care, fairness/reciprocity are individualizing dimensions, which highlight individual morality. Recent work has found MFT predicts sociopolitical ideologies, as well as sociopolitical attitudes. In an effort to better understand the existing relationships we investigate MFT as a predictor of sociopolitical parties, and attitudes Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). We also draw on similarities between Individualism/Collectivism and MFT. Specifically we demonstrate individualizing foundations, and dimensions of individualism predict SDO, where as Binding dimensions and dimensions of Collectivism relate to RWA.

Workplace bullying is a recently recognized problem within organizations. Two personalities may be theoretically related, and may be able to predict this aggressive behavior: right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. However, it is still unclear how to measure right-wing authoritarianism as a construct. Two surveys were distributed. The first was to assess the factor structure inconsistency among the literature. A three-factor operationalization was supported. Analysis of the second survey examined the relationship between the aggression dimension of right-wing authoritarianism, dangerous worldview and workplace bullying; as well as the relationship between social dominance orientation and competitive worldview on workplace bullying. No significant relationship was found between authoritarian aggression and workplace bullying, however, social dominance orientation fully mediated competitive worldview and workplace bullying. Theoretical implications, limitations, and practical applications are discussed.

Cette recherche s’inscrit dans la lignée des travaux de psychologie sociale du travail consacrés à la compréhension du comportement organisationnel des individus à travers le prisme de la justice et de la discrimination. Dans un premier temps, nous nous sommes intéressés aux pratiques organisationnelles inhérentes à la justice distributive. Dans un second temps, aux mécanismes psychosociaux individuels et inter-individuels engendrant de la discrimination. Enfin, aux environnements normatifs de travail orientés ou non vers la justice sociale.Dans une première étude, nous avons étudié l’influence respective de différents critères de justice organisationnelle susceptibles d’orienter les décisions de distribution de primes financières ; soit les critères d’égalité, de besoin des subordonnés, et, en termes d’équité, la performance individuelle, la performance collective et l’allégeance. Nous avons observé (sur N = 1135) que chacune des trois variables d’équité prime sur l’égalité et sur le besoin. Nos analyses ont également démontré l’existence d’effets d’interaction entre les divers critères de distribution.Nous avons ensuite examiné (par 7 études) la nature des relations entretenues par divers facteurs psychosociaux que sont l’Orientation à la Dominance Sociale (ODS), la Croyance en un Monde du Travail Juste (CMTJ), la norme d’Allégeance et la Propension à Discriminer (PAD). Nos résultats (sur (N = 975) nous ont permis d’observer leur influence mutuelle ainsi que de déterminer le rôle médiateur de l’Allégeance entre l’Egalitarisme et la PAD, celui de la CMTJ entre l’Egalitarisme et la PAD et entre l’Allégeance et l’ODS, mais également le rôle médiateur de l’ODS entre la CMTJ et la PAD.Enfin, au niveau de l’environnement de travail, il nous a semblé opportun d’évaluer le pouvoir exercé par l’environnement normatif sur les concepts précités. Nous avons, dans ce but, conceptualisé une Matrice Cognitivo-Comportementale de Perpétuation du Système (MCCPS) dont nous avons ensuite, dans une étude, testé la validité. Nos résultats (sur N = 457) démontrent que les salariés travaillant dans un environnement de type AH (i.e. accentuant la hiérarchisation sociale) adhérent davantage à la MCCPS que les salariés travaillant dans un environnement de type RH (i.e. réduisant la hiérarchisation sociale). / This research is in line with the studies of social psychology of work dedicated to the understanding of individuals' organizational behavior through the prism of justice and discrimination. In the first instance, we were interested in the organizational practices related to the distributive justice. In the second part, to the individual and interpersonal psychosocial mechanisms which generate discrimination. Finally, to the normative environments of work oriented or not towards the social justice.In the first study, we analyzed the respective influence of various criteria of organizational justice susceptible to direct the decisions regarding the distribution of financial bonus ; either the equality criteria, subordinates' needs, and, in terms of equity, the individual performance, the collective performance and the allegiance. We have observed (by N = 1135) that each of the three equity variables outweighs the equality and the need.Our analysis have also showed the existence of interaction effects between the various distribution criteria.Then, we examined (by 7 studies) the nature of the relationships maintained by various psychosocial factors that are the Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), the Belief in a Just World of Work (BJWW), the Allegiance norm and the propensity to discriminate (PTD). Our results (on (N = 975) have allowed us to observe their mutual influence and also to determinate the mediator role of the Allegiance between the Egalitarianism and the PTD, the one of BJWW between the Egalitarianism and the PTD and between the Allegiance and the SDO, and also the mediator role of the SDO between the BJWW and the PTD.Finally, regarding the work environment, it seemed appropriate to us to assess the power exercised by the normative environment on the concepts aforesaid. We have, for this purpose, conceptualized a Matrix Cognitive-Behavioural of the Perpetuation of the System (MCBPS) about which we then tested its validity in a study. Our results (on N=457) demonstrate that employees who work in a type AH environment (i.e. that accentuate the social hierarchy) adhere more to the MCBPS that the employees who work in a type RH environment (i.e. that decrease the social hierarchy).

<p>Intergroup relations are characterised by favourable and unfavourable biases. Towards one’s own group these biases are mostly favourable – ingroup favouritism. Research has, however, shown that outgroup favouritism, that is, the preference for a group to which the person does not belong, also permeates intergroup relations. Several theories such as social identity theory, social dominance theory, and system justification theory offer explanations of the dynamics of intergroup relations and biases. Despite not strictly being a theory of intergroup relations, right-wing authoritarianism also offers an explanation of intergroup bias by accounting for prejudice and ethnocentrism. Likewise, ideological conservatism has been shown to influence intergroup relations. </p><p>Based within these theories, this dissertation attempts to explain the social-psychological mechanisms regulating in- and outgroup favouritism. More specifically, Study I examines issues of power and legitimacy in relation to social perception and gender. Studies II and III examine the relationships between social psychological variables and affirmative action, which is aimed at diminishing inequalities between social groups. Together, the studies showed that gender plays a role in intergroup bias, both as an independent variable and as an object of social discrimination. Conservative ideologies predicted ingroup favouritism, but variably. Attitudes towards affirmative action were influenced by the way this issue is semantically framed. The results are discussed in relation to the theories of intergroup relations exposed above and the pertinent issue of attitude ambivalence in understanding outgroup favouritism.</p>

Intergroup relations are characterised by favourable and unfavourable biases. Towards one’s own group these biases are mostly favourable – ingroup favouritism. Research has, however, shown that outgroup favouritism, that is, the preference for a group to which the person does not belong, also permeates intergroup relations. Several theories such as social identity theory, social dominance theory, and system justification theory offer explanations of the dynamics of intergroup relations and biases. Despite not strictly being a theory of intergroup relations, right-wing authoritarianism also offers an explanation of intergroup bias by accounting for prejudice and ethnocentrism. Likewise, ideological conservatism has been shown to influence intergroup relations. Based within these theories, this dissertation attempts to explain the social-psychological mechanisms regulating in- and outgroup favouritism. More specifically, Study I examines issues of power and legitimacy in relation to social perception and gender. Studies II and III examine the relationships between social psychological variables and affirmative action, which is aimed at diminishing inequalities between social groups. Together, the studies showed that gender plays a role in intergroup bias, both as an independent variable and as an object of social discrimination. Conservative ideologies predicted ingroup favouritism, but variably. Attitudes towards affirmative action were influenced by the way this issue is semantically framed. The results are discussed in relation to the theories of intergroup relations exposed above and the pertinent issue of attitude ambivalence in understanding outgroup favouritism.

While most of the existing research on the topic of workplace incivility has focused upon its consequences on employee and organizational well-being, researchers are recognizing the need for research on predictors, mediators, and moderators of uncivil workplace behavior. The current study contributes to this new wave of workplace incivility research by emphasizing the links among variables not previously explored in incivility research. This nonexperimental correlational study (N = 1027) developed and tested a parallel multiple mediator model of instigated incivility. The model examined the mediation of the emotion regulation strategies – cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression – on the relation of two types of social dominance orientation – intergroup dominance (SDO-D) and intergroup antiegalitarianism (SDO-E) – on the outcome of instigated incivility, and tested the moderating effects of workgroup civility climate on the paths of the proposed model. An Internet-based self-report survey battery was administered to a sample drawn from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk worker population. Hypotheses were tested though structural equation modeling analytic procedures. Findings suggest that intergroup dominance (SDO-D) increases instigated incivility and the relationship is not moderated by workgroup civility climate norms. In contrast, intergroup antiegalitarianism (SDO-E) decreases instigated incivility. Further, this study found that SDO-D had an indirect effect on instigated incivility through the emotion regulation strategy of expressive suppression. Additional findings suggest that the emotion regulation strategy of cognitive reappraisal has the potential to reduce uncivil workplace behavior. Future research was proposed to test the model examined in this study in different cultural settings, with additional mediators and moderators, and longitudinally. The practical findings suggest that HRD practitioners may find emotion regulation and civility trainings useful to reduce the likelihood of uncivil workplace behavior.