Matching Items (3)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

151106-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
In response to the recent publication and media coverage of several books that support educating boys and girls separately, more public schools in the United States are beginning to offer same-sex schooling options. Indeed, students may be more comfortable interacting solely with same-sex peers, as boys and girls often have

In response to the recent publication and media coverage of several books that support educating boys and girls separately, more public schools in the United States are beginning to offer same-sex schooling options. Indeed, students may be more comfortable interacting solely with same-sex peers, as boys and girls often have difficulty in their interactions with each other; however, given that boys and girls often interact beyond the classroom, researchers must discover why boys and girls suffer difficult other-sex interactions and determine what can be done to improve them. We present two studies aimed at examining such processes. Both studies were conducted from a dynamical systems perspective that highlights the role of variability in dyadic social interactions to capture temporal changes in interpersonal coordination. The first focused on the utility of applying dynamics to the study of same- and mixed-sex interactions and examined the relation of the quality of those interactions to participants' perceptions of their interaction partners. The second study was an extension of the first, examining how dynamical dyadic coordination affected students' self-perceived abilities and beliefs in science, with the intention of examining social predictors of girls' and women's under-representation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
ContributorsDiDonato, Matthew D (Author) / Martin, Carol L (Thesis advisor) / Amazeen, Polemnia G (Committee member) / Hanish, Laura D. (Committee member) / Updegraff, Kimberly A (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
156754-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
In an affordance management approach, stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination are conceptualized as tools to manage the potential opportunities and threats afforded by others in highly interdependent social living. This approach suggests a distinction between two “kinds” of stereotypes. “Base” stereotypes are relatively factual, stable beliefs about the capacities and inclinations

In an affordance management approach, stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination are conceptualized as tools to manage the potential opportunities and threats afforded by others in highly interdependent social living. This approach suggests a distinction between two “kinds” of stereotypes. “Base” stereotypes are relatively factual, stable beliefs about the capacities and inclinations of groups and their members, whereas “affordance stereotypes” are beliefs about potential threats and opportunities posed by groups and their members. Two experiments test the hypothesized implications of this distinction: (1) People may hold identical base stereotypes about a target group but hold very different affordance stereotypes. (2) Affordance stereotypes, but not base stereotypes, are shaped by perceiver goals and felt vulnerabilities. (3) Prejudices and (4) discrimination are more heavily influenced by affordance stereotypes than by base stereotypes. I endeavored to manipulate participants’ felt vulnerabilities to measure the predicted corresponding shifts in affordance (but not base) stereotype endorsement, prejudices, and discriminatory inclinations toward a novel target group (Sidanians). In Study 1 (N = 600), the manipulation was unsuccessful. In Study 2 (N = 338), the manipulation had a partial effect, allowing for preliminary causal tests of the proposed model. In both studies, I predicted and found high endorsement of the base stereotypes that Sidanians try to share their values and actively participate in the community, with low variability. I also predicted and found more variation in affordance (vs. base) stereotype endorsement, which was systematically related to participants’ felt vulnerabilities in Study 2. Taken together, these findings support my hypothesized distinction between base stereotypes and affordance stereotypes. Finally, I modeled the proposed correlational relationships between felt vulnerabilities, base stereotypes, affordance stereotypes, prejudices, and discriminatory inclinations in the model. Although these relationships were predominantly significant in the predicted directions, overall fit of the model was poor. These studies further our critical understanding of the relationship between stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination. This has implications for how we devise interventions to reduce the deleterious effects of such processes on their targets, perhaps focusing on changing perceiver vulnerabilities and perceived affordance (rather than base) stereotypes to more effectively reduce prejudices and discrimination.
ContributorsPick, Cari Marie (Author) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Thesis advisor) / Kenrick, Douglas T. (Committee member) / Martin, Carol L (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
158449-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Prejudice and discrimination toward gender non-conforming individuals is prevalent and extreme in today’s society. This prejudice can manifest in social exclusion, bullying, and victimization, or physical and sexual assault, and can result in negative social, psychological, academic, and physical health outcomes (e.g., depression, anxiety, suicidality). Thus, it is important to

Prejudice and discrimination toward gender non-conforming individuals is prevalent and extreme in today’s society. This prejudice can manifest in social exclusion, bullying, and victimization, or physical and sexual assault, and can result in negative social, psychological, academic, and physical health outcomes (e.g., depression, anxiety, suicidality). Thus, it is important to understand the perpetrators of gender expression-based aggression and discrimination. In two studies, I addressed how and why people experience prejudice toward gender non-conforming individuals. Using an affordance management theoretical framework, Study 1 identified threats young adults perceived from gender non-conforming peers. There were differences in perceived threats to personal freedoms, social coordination, and values for gender conforming and non-conforming peers, and these perceptions differed by the political ideology of the perceiver. Study 2 explored children’s threat perceptions associated with gender non-conformity. Children perceived threats to social coordination from gender non-conforming peers but not threats to moral values. Results from both studies supported the use of this theoretical framework for studying prejudice toward gender non-conformity. Together, these studies provide unique information about adults’ and children’s reasons for prejudice toward gender non-conforming peers.
ContributorsCook, Rachel (Author) / Martin, Carol L (Thesis advisor) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Committee member) / DeLay, Dawn (Committee member) / Ghavami, Negin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020