Wiley InterScience : Social and Personality Psychology Compasshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2F17519004John Wiley & Sons, IncenJournal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd2009-11-201751-90041751-9004http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2009.00229.xGary W. Lewandowski Jr, David B. Strohmetz2009-09-23T04:20:00Z10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00229.xJournal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.It has been argued that there is a growing trend in personality and social psychological science concerning the preference of self-report measures over the use of direct observations of behavior for the outcome variables of interest. Augmenting the use of self-reports with measures of behavior helps achieve methodological pluralism that allows researchers to triangulate on the phenomenon of interest and have increased confidence in understanding the phenomenon. To facilitate this process, we discuss a sample of social psychological and personality studies published during APA's 'Decade of Behavior' that use straightforward and innovative ways of measuring behavioral outcome variables. Specifically, we identify three different strategies for incorporating behavior in a study: behavioral traces, behavioral observations, and behavioral choice. In each case, we show how measures of behavior complement self-report measures. By making a conscientious effort to include more behavior measures in our research, we can broaden the appeal of psychological science by enhancing our understanding of the causes and antecedents of human behavior.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2009.00227.xAdam R. Pearson, John F. Dovidio, Samuel L. Gaertner2009-09-23T04:19:00Z10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00227.xJournal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.Intergroup bias is one of the most actively researched topics in the field of social psychology. Hundreds of books and thousands of research articles have addressed this issue over more than half a century. Although the psychological roots of blatant prejudices are well documented, the development of more subtle and often unintentional forms in societies in which its expression is discouraged poses new and unique challenges to the pursuit of justice and equality in contemporary society. Our interests in the psychological underpinnings of prejudice as researchers and educators are both practical and conceptual. On the practical side, understanding the nature of contemporary forms of prejudice has clear implications for developing effective techniques for combating bias and discrimination. In 1967, nearly 3 years after the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, race riots in the United States prompted the Kerner Commission to investigate the sources of racial tension. Upon the conclusion of its investigation, the commission cited White America's failure to assist Blacks in need, rather than actively trying to harm Blacks, as a primary cause of racial disparities and, ultimately, civil unrest (Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968). Indeed, it was research on the differential helping behavior of politically liberal Whites toward Black and White motorists who were stranded on a highway that represented the first empirical work on aversive racism (Gaertner, 1973). Considerable subsequent research on aversive racism has revealed that the consequences of subtle bias can be as severe and pernicious as those of blatant prejudice. Conceptually, the complexities of contemporary forms of prejudice and recent advances in techniques and tools for studying non-conscious biases make this research area an exciting and challenging one. We hope that this guide can help orient educators to the many excellent resources that exist and convey our enthusiasm for exploring what psychological methods and theories can contribute to understanding one of the most challenging social issues faced in contemporary society. Allport, G. W. (1954/1979). The Nature of Prejudice (25th anniversary edition). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. A classic text by one of the most influential prejudice scholars of the 20th century. Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P., & Rudman, L. A. (Eds.). (2005). On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Organized around Allport's central themes, this edited volume commemorates the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Gordon Allport's classic work by examining the current state of knowledge in the field. Renowned international scholars review recent developments and share their insights into where the next few decades may take us. Certain to be a future classic! Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,56, 5[ndash]18. A seminal article that demonstrates both automatic and controlled components of stereotyping. The first series of studies to show that racial stereotypes are activated automatically upon perceiving a person's group membership. Also one of the first papers to use indirect cognitive methods (e.g., subliminal priming) to assess stereotypic group judgments. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1[ndash]51). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. A comprehensive review of research on aversive racism, detailing historical trends and over three decades of theoretical and empirical work on the causes, consequences, and challenges of contemporary racial prejudice. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109[ndash]118. An engaging review of research on contemporary sexism, distinguishing benevolent and hostile forms of sexism and their complementary contributions to gender inequality within the United States and internationally. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,90, 751[ndash]783. The most comprehensive empirical review, to date, of the effectiveness of intergroup contact for reducing prejudice. Important questions tested in this review include that of whether intergroup contact is associated with less prejudice even when Allport's 'optimal' conditions (e.g., shared goals, equal status between groups) are not met (it is), whether these conditions significantly enhance the degree to which contact promotes positive intergroup relations (it does), and whether the contact[ndash]prejudice link extends to group contexts beyond interracial and interethnic samples (it does). Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62[ndash]68. The first study to examine how implicit and explicit racial attitudes systematically influence verbal and non-verbal behavior and subsequent impressions during interracial interactions. Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M.., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 815[ndash]825. One of the first studies to examine discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and the interpersonal processes involved in such stigmatization in actual employment settings. Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57[ndash]75. A cross-national perspective on subtle and blatant forms of prejudice and their distinction. Son Hing, L. S., Li, W., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Inducing hypocrisy to reduce prejudicial responses among aversive racists. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 71[ndash]78. This study identifies a potent strategy (hypocrisy induction) for reducing aversive racists' prejudicial behavior and employs a new individual difference measure for assessing aversive racism. Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 17[ndash]41. A meta-analysis of judgmental biases and discrimination effects using the Implicit Association Test (IAT) demonstrating the power of indirect measures for predicting modern forms of discrimination. Pearson, A. R., Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2009). The nature of contemporary prejudice: Insights from aversive racism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 314[ndash]338. An overview of theoretical and empirical work on contemporary racism in the United States, detailing its consequences for everyday social interactions and decision-making, techniques for combating subtle forms of bias, and emerging developmental perspectives on its origins and maintenance. 1. Project Implicit http://implicit.harvard.edu An educational and research resource for studies on implicit social cognition, featuring online demonstrations and tests of implicit bias and stereotyping, including assessments of implicit attitudes toward racial and ethnic groups, weight, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and political orientation. 2. UnderstandingPrejudice.org The most comprehensive online resource to date for information on prejudice, discrimination, multiculturalism, and diversity. A wonderful compilation of educational resources, including research summaries on key topics in the field, multimedia links, teaching resources (including in-class exercises, springboard topics for discussions, bibliographies, and suggested assignments), links to relevant organizations, and a directory of experts in the field. 3. ReducingStereotypeThreat.org An excellent resource for educators, researchers, and policy-makers on the nature, causes, and consequences of stereotype threat, including descriptions of situational and personality influences, mechanisms, unresolved questions, and critiques of research on this important phenomenon. The website also includes an extensive collection of research articles, chapters, and books in this research area. 4. A Class Divided http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided http://www.newsreel.org/guides/blueeyed.htm (teaching guide) Two comprehensive web guides to the dramatic 1968 classroom demonstration by elementary school teacher Jane Elliott revealing the power and ease with which intergroup biases can develop, including teaching guides, online readings and links, transcripts of interviews, and free access to a full-length PBS Frontline documentary on the original demonstration. 5. CROW: Course Resources on the Web http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/crow/activities.htm A resource for online demonstrations and class exercises covering a wide variety of introductory topics in prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. 6. What Would You Do? http://abcnews.go.com/WhatWouldYouDo Video clips from a hidden camera television show on ABC showing bystander reactions to racism, sexism, and homophobia. Excellent for generating discussion on variability in bystander responses to prejudice, and personal and situational antecedents and social norms that drive these responses. Course Description This course is a cross-disciplinary seminar on the cultural, biological, and psychological underpinnings of intergroup prejudice, designed for graduate students and advanced undergraduates in psychology, sociology, anthropology, communications, and related disciplines. Although course content will emphasize the causes and consequences of traditional and contemporary forms of racial bias in the United States, other forms of 'isms' will also be explored, both nationally and cross-nationally. Topics will include psychological and behavioral manifestations of blatant and subtle forms of bias, prejudice in everyday interpersonal interactions, techniques for reducing conscious and non-conscious biases, and emerging developmental and neuroscientific perspectives on intergroup bias. Requirements and Grading The primary requirements of the course are to complete assigned readings and actively participate in class discussions, which include posting reading responses to the course bulletin board in advance of class discussions and serving as a co-facilitator of one class discussion. Grading for the course will be based on discussion participation (25%), weekly reading responses (25%), a mid-term 'exam', which may involve alternative exercises such as debates on key controversies in the field (25%), and a final 12[ndash]15-page research proposal (which should relate to students' personal research interests, 25%). Course Readings Readings for each class will include selected chapters from the recent edited volume by Dovidio, Glick, and Rudman (2005) reflecting on Allport's seminal book, and two to three journal articles illustrating relevant processes. Optional readings are indicated for some topics to provide interested readers with additional information. Class facilitators will also have the flexibility to choose alternative articles for the class to read, with the permission of the instructor. All readings will be made available through the course website. Texts Allport, G. W. (1954/1979). The Nature of Prejudice (25th anniversary edition). Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. (Optional) Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P., & Rudman, L. A. (Eds.). (2005). On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport. Malden, MA: Blackwell. (Selected readings) Assignments Reading responses. Students will be asked to post a two- to three-paragraph reading response to the online course bulletin board by 7 p.m. the evening before class. Reading responses can incorporate a wide range of questions/comments, including (but not limited to) identifying key issues that are confusing or need clarification, highlighting strengths and weaknesses of the research, discussing alternative explanations, possible boundary conditions, discussing theoretical and/or practical implications of the study findings, identifying points of contact with other readings or prior class discussions, and/or describing alternative ways of testing the study hypotheses. Class facilitator. To allow flexibility to accommodate student interests, students will be asked to co-facilitate one class. Students will work with the instructor to organize the class, formulate questions, and highlight key controversies to guide class discussion. In addition, facilitators will identify a 'stump the chump' study from an empirical article. The article should be one that is not covered in the readings and that illustrates a key insight related to the topic. For this exercise, the student facilitator will describe the design of the study and will ask the class to make predictions and formulate a rationale for these predictions before revealing the study results. Research proposal. A short research proposal (12[ndash]15 pages) will be due at the end of the semester. The proposal should build on a topic relevant to the study of prejudice but ideally relate to one's own research interests. The paper should be in APA format and include a thorough introduction (background), a methods section, a proposed results section, and a discussion of the contribution such a project would make to the field. Week 1: Prejudice: Past and Present (DGR Ch. 1) Duckitt, J. H. (1992). Psychology and prejudice: A historical analysis and integrative framework. American Psychologist, 47, 1182[ndash]1193. Pearson, A. R., Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2009). The nature of contemporary prejudice: Insights from aversive racism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 314[ndash]338. Week 2: The Nature of the Problem (DGR Ch. 3) Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 187[ndash]208. Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429[ndash]444. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11, 315[ndash]319. Week 3: Motivational Processes (DGR Chs 6, 15) Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 31[ndash]44. Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 33[ndash]43. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109[ndash]118. Optional: Pratto, F., & Shih, M. (2000). Social dominance orientation and group context in implicit group prejudice. Psychological Science, 11, 521[ndash]524. Week 4: Cognitive Processes (DGR Chs 11, 13) Hamilton, D. L., & Gifford, R. K. (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 392[ndash]407. Nelson, T. E., Biernat, M. R., & Manis, M. (1990). Everyday base rates (sex stereotypes): Potent and resilient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 664[ndash]675. Hodson, G., Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Processes in racial discrimination: Differential weighting of conflicting information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 460[ndash]471. Optional: Bargh, J. (1999). The cognitive monster: The case against the controllability of automatic stereotype effects. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology (pp. 361[ndash]368). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Week 5: Emotion Processes (DGR Ch. 22) DeSteno, D. et al. (2004). Prejudice from thin air: The effect of emotion on automatic intergroup attitude. Psychological Science, 15, 319[ndash]324. Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to "prejudice". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 770[ndash]789. Optional: Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 79, 602[ndash]616. Cuddy, A. J. C., Rock, M., & Norton, M. I. (2007). Aid in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: Inferences of secondary emotions and intergroup helping. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 107[ndash]118. Week 6: Mid-Term Exam (Debates) Week 7: Prejudice in Social Interactions I: Processes Word, C. O., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 109[ndash]120. Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62[ndash]68. Optional: Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 655[ndash]666. Week 8: Prejudice in Social Interactions II: Consequences (DGR Ch. 10) Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 815[ndash]825. Kawakami, K., Dunn, L., Karmali, F., & Dovidio, J. F. (2009). Mispredicting affective and behavioral responses to racism. Science, 323, 276[ndash]278. Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2007). Negotiating interracial interactions: Costs, consequences, and possibilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 316[ndash]320. Week 9: Institutional Biases (DGR Ch. 14) Graham, L. O. (1995). Invisible man: Why this Harvard-trained lawyer went undercover as a busboy at an all-white Connecticut country club. In Lawrence Otis Graham (Ed.), Member of the Club: Reflections on Life in a Racially Polarized World (pp. 1[ndash]26). New York, NY: HarperCollins. Eberhardt, J. L., Davies, P. G., Purdie-Vaughns, V. J., & Johnson, S. L. (2006). Looking deathworthy: Perceived stereotypicality of black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 17, 383[ndash]386. Dovidio, J. F., Penner, L. A., Albrecht, T. L., Norton, W. E., Gaertner, S. L., & Shelton, J. N. (2008). Disparities and distrust: The implications of psychological processes for understanding racial disparities in health and health care. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 478[ndash]486. Week 10: Combating Explicit Biases (DGR Ch. 17) Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. (1999). Reducing prejudice: Combating intergroup biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 101[ndash]105. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751[ndash]783. Paluck, E. L. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 574[ndash]587. Optional: Stangor, C., Segrist, G. B., & Jost, J. T. (2001). Changing racial beliefs by providing consensus information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 486[ndash]496. Son Hing, L. S., Li, W., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Inducing hypocrisy to reduce prejudicial responses among aversive racists. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 71[ndash]78. Week 11: Combating Implicit Biases (DGR Ch. 20) Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5[ndash]18. Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 242[ndash]261. Rudman, L. A., Ashmore, R. D., & Gary, M. L. (2001). "Unlearning" automatic biases: The malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 856[ndash]868. Optional: Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 369[ndash]388. Week 12: Developmental Perspectives (DGR Ch. 19) Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2008). The development of implicit intergroup cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 248[ndash]253. Apfelbaum, E. P., Pauker, K., Ambady, N., Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Learning (not) to talk about race: When older children underperform in social categorization. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1513[ndash]1518. Optional: McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., Daly, M., & Neal, A. (2006). Children's distributive justice judgments: Aversive racism in Euro-American children? Child Development,77, 1063[ndash]1080. Week 13: Neuroscientific Perspectives Cunningham, W. A., Johnson, M. K., Raye, C. L., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., & Banaji, M. R. (2004). Separable neural components in the processing of Black and White Faces. Psychological Science,15, 806[ndash]813. Amodio, D. M., & Ratner, K. (forthcoming). The brains behind intergroup relations: A social neuroscience analysis of the regulation of intergroup responses. To appear in J. Decety and J. T. Cacioppo, Handbook of Social Neuroscience. Oxford University Press. Optional: Olsson, A., Ebert, J. P., Banaji, M. R., & Phelps, E. A. (2005). The role of social groups in the persistence of learned fear. Science,309, 785[ndash]787. Week 14: Wrap-Up & Synthesis (DGR Ch. 26) Steele, S. (1990) A negative vote on affirmative action. Excerpted from The Content of Our Character. Originally published in The New York Times Magazine, 13 May 1990. Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., & Heilman, M. E. (1991). Social science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American Psychologist, 46, 1049[ndash]1060. Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice Reduction: What works? A critical look at evidence from the field and the laboratory. Annual Review of Psychology,60, 339[ndash]367. Optional: Class Exercise Instructor Preparation: Prepare stick-on labels (one for each student) with a single trait (e.g., lazy, ambitious, athletic, etc.) printed large enough to be visible at a distance of 5[ndash]6 feet. Exercise: Place the trait labels in an envelope and ask each student to select one label at random and place it on the forehead or chest of the student to his or her left, such that the trait remains to be visible to all members of the class except for the student for whom the trait was selected. Is Fate at Work? Ask each student to provide the class with a brief (1[ndash]2 min) verbal description of what he or she did over the summer or winter break. Upon the conclusion of each description, ask the class to formulate questions for the speaker with the aim of assessing whether or not the speaker's personality actually reflects elements of the randomly chosen trait (i.e., is fate at work?). Relay to the class that any question is a fair game, as long as it does not mention the assigned trait or a synonym of the trait. Author Commentary and Discussion: Following this exercise, it is useful to discuss Darley and Gross's (1983) classic study on confirmatory bias and a recent adaptation and extension of this study by Wegener, Clark, and Petty (2006), which tie well into a discussion of processes that work to perpetuate subtle forms of discrimination (see Hodson, Dovidio, & Gaertner, 2002). Indeed, the point of the Darley and Gross study is that people believe that they are objective information processors and that they typically refrain from using non-diagnostic information, such as race or social class, to develop impressions of another person's character or ability when more direct diagnostic information is available. In the Darley and Gross experiment, participants are presented with 'non-diagnostic' information about a young girl's socioeconomic status as being either high or low. Participants are then shown a video of an ambiguous test performance by the girl (i.e., one that reveals both successes and failures). In their study, those who were led to believe that the girl was higher in socioeconomic status developed the impression that the student's performance was well above grade level. In contrast, although the student's performance was identical in both conditions, participants who were led to believe that the student was of low socioeconomic status reported her performance to be well below grade level. Additionally, only those viewing the video developed these strong impressions: whereas those who did not view the video but only possessed the non-diagnostic information guessed that her abilities were at grade level; those who viewed the video believed that they had diagnostic information confirming expectations derived from the non-diagnostic information. In the present exercise, the class questions following each speaker description are often quite revealing, as they frequently expose just how much of our searching for the truth looks to confirm, rather than disconfirm, evidence of a suspected trait or ability. Questions that seek to confirm a trait lead one to think of those situations in which the trait might be true or ability might be revealed. After several such questions, the person answering the questions may come to believe that he or she actually is, for example, quite athletic, which can lead respondents to further confirm the questioner's initial suspicions (or stereotypes) through a self-fulfilling prophecy. This exercise should take 15[ndash]20 min. Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,44, 20[ndash]33. Hodson, G., Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Processes in racial discrimination: Differential weighting of conflicting information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,28, 460[ndash]471. Wegener, D. T., Clark, J. K., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Not all stereotyping is created equal: Differential consequences of thoughtful versus non-thoughtful stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,90, 42[ndash]59.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2009.00226.xAnu Realo, Jüri Allik2009-09-23T04:19:00Z10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00226.xJournal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.Both social capital and individualism[ndash]collectivism (IC) have been, and still are, popular and well-researched constructs in social sciences. Many theorists have argued that individualism poses a threat to social cohesion and communal association. Other researchers believe that growth of individuality, autonomy, and self-sufficiency are necessary conditions for the development of social solidarity and cooperation. The present article reviews the studies on the relationship between social capital and IC, using different data and different measures. We conclude that countries with higher level of social capital (where people believe that most people can be trusted) are also more individualistic, emphasizing the importance of independence, personal accomplishments, and freedom to choose one's own goals. In societies where trust is limited to the nuclear family or kinship alone, people have lower levels of social capital. Social capital increases as the radius of trust widens to encompass a larger number of people and social networks, bridging the 'gap' between the family and state.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2009.00225.xJean-Léon Beauvois, Nicole Dubois2009-09-23T04:19:00Z10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00225.xJournal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.Personality traits are basic constructs of lay psychology. Unlike the traditional view in which traits are considered as descriptive tools, we argue that the most frequent traits are evaluative criteria, that is, they do not point out what people are, but what people are socially worth. First, we intend to report on various studies showing that traits can be viewed as generalizations of affordances in social relations: traits supply information not only on what people are doing, but also, and several times more, on what is possible to do with people. Second, we challenge the dominant view underlying social judgments by showing that the two traditional factors can be viewed as aspects of the social value of persons. We called them social desirability and social utility. We shall show that the two dimensions intervene in situations in which social value of the person is engaged. To finish, we shall address the link between these dimensions with some aspects of individualism.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2009.00224.xTerry E. Duncan, Susan C. Duncan2009-09-23T04:18:00Z10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00224.xJournal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.In recent years, we have witnessed an increase in the complexity of theoretical models that attempt to explain behavior from both contextual and developmental perspectives. This increase in the complexity of our theoretical propositions regarding behavior parallels recent methodological advances for the analysis of change. These new analysis techniques have fundamentally altered how we conceptualize and study change. Researchers have begun to identify larger frameworks to integrate our knowledge regarding the analysis of change. One such framework is latent growth modeling, perhaps the most important and influential statistical revolution to have recently occurred in the social and behavioral sciences. This study presents a basic introduction to a latent growth modeling approach for analyzing repeated measures data. Included is the specification and interpretation of the growth factors, primary extensions such as the analysis of growth in multiple populations, and structural models including both precursors of growth, and subsequent outcomes hypothesized to be influenced by the growth functions.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2009.00223.xSusan E. Cross2009-09-23T04:18:00Z10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00223.xJournal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.Relational self-construal is characterized as the extent to which a person defines the self in terms of close relationships. In this article, I distinguish relational self-construal from collective-interdependent self-construal and from other similar-sounding constructs. I review the history of the concept of relational self-construal and how it is most frequently measured or manipulated. The remainder of the article focuses on research that examines the role of relational self-construal in cognition, affect, motivation, and close interpersonal relationships.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2009.00222.xJason E. Plaks, Sheri R. Levy, Carol S. Dweck2009-09-23T04:18:00Z10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00222.xJournal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.Lay theories (or 'implicit theories') are cornerstones for social cognition: people use lay theories to help them make sense of complex and ambiguous behavior. In this study, we describe recent research on the entity and incremental theories (the belief that personality is fixed or malleable). In so doing, we demonstrate that each theory does not act alone. Instead, each is associated with a set of allied beliefs, the sum total of which cohere into two distinct meaning systems. We present evidence that these meaning systems produce systematic differences in a range of fundamental social cognition processes, with important implications for the field's understanding of trait/situation attribution, moral judgment, person memory, and stereotyping. We further argue that because meaning systems serve a central meaning-making function, people are motivated to believe that the meaning system they are using is effective and accurate. Accordingly, we present evidence that people exhibit processing distortions and compensatory mechanisms to minimize the impact of information that violates their meaning system. We discuss the implications of these findings for the field's understanding of basic social cognition.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2009.00221.xMark Van Vugt, Justin H. Park2009-09-23T04:18:00Z10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00221.xJournal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.A phenomenon of perennial interest to social psychologists is people's tendency to categorize others on the basis of group membership and to exhibit a preference for members of the ingroup relative to the outgroup. Recent work emphasizing the evolutionary functions of outgroup aggression, exploitation, and avoidance have shed new light on previously observed intergroup phenomena and generated many new empirical findings. We delineate two distinct evolved psychologies of intergroup relations and review recent research pertaining to each. One research line (on the psychology of warfare) focuses on the intergroup competition for resources; as we describe below, such competition [ndash] and the associated exploitative psychology [ndash] is more amplified among men. The other research line (on the psychology of disease avoidance) focuses on the need to avoid contagious disease. Because the threats posed by competitive versus disease-carrying outgroups are qualitatively distinct, the psychological reactions may also be qualitatively distinct.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2009.00220.xConstantine Sedikides, Jeffrey D. Green2009-09-23T04:17:00Z10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00220.xJournal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.The autobiographical memory literature has established that people remember poorly unpleasant, relative to pleasant, life events. We complemented this literature with a theoretical model [ndash] the mnemic neglect model [ndash] and an experimental paradigm that exerts tight control over the to-be-remembered material. Participants recall poorly self-threatening feedback compared to self-affirming or other-relevant feedback [ndash] a phenomenon we labeled mnemic neglect. The phenomenon is motivational: it is in the service of self-protection. The phenomenon is also flexible. Participants can switch from self-protection (e.g. avoiding negative feedback) to an alternative goal (e.g. striving for feedback with improvement potential), when circumstances call for it such as when the feedback is provided by a close other rather than a stranger. Finally, self-threatening feedback may be forgotten, but it is not lost: the mnemic neglect effect is not obtained in recognition recall.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2009.00218.xMichael J. Gill, Michael R. Andreychik2009-09-23T04:17:00Z10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00218.xJournal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.We are interested in the bases of social emotions such as compassion and hostility. Our analysis centers on social explanations, or people's answers to the question: Why does the target behave that way or experience those outcomes? Below, we review classic approaches to social explanation and then review work linking explanations to emotions. Finally, we focus on work from our lab that connects explanations to prosocial emotions and intergroup attitudes, including compassion for the disadvantaged and reduced vengefulness toward the violent. A crucial contribution of our work is to illuminate complex connections between explanations and emotions: A given explanation has different socio-emotional implications depending on the explainer's motives. Finally, we review our work suggesting that individuals have social explanatory styles, and that particular styles are predictive of dispositional compassion. A key implication of our work is that social explanations are another basis of prosociality, in addition to factors such as empathy and moral principles.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2009.00217.xRichard W. Robins, Roberta A. Schriber2009-09-23T04:17:00Z10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00217.xJournal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.The self-conscious emotions (e.g., embarrassment, guilt, pride, shame) are a special class of emotions that critically involve the self, including the capacity to form stable self-representations and to evaluate oneself relative to internal and external standards. In this article, we summarize five areas of recent research on self-conscious emotions: (a) the cognitive elicitors, or causal appraisals, that generate them; (b) their non-verbal expressions; (c) the underlying neural processes; (d) the degree to which their experience and expression varies across cultures; and (e) the measures that have been developed to assess them. In each section, we provide recommendations for future research directions.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2009.00215.xF. M. Cheung, W. Fan, C. To2009-09-23T04:16:00Z10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00215.xJournal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.This paper introduces the development of the Cross-Cultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI) as a culturally relevant measure for personality assessment in collectivistic cultures. The CPAI was developed as a joint effort of psychologists at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Chinese Academy of Sciences in the late 1980s. In response to the critique of the imposed etic approach in cross-cultural personality assessment, the team considered it timely to develop an indigenous measure suitable for the Chinese people who constituted at least one-fourth of the world's population. The team built on their experience in the methodology of the adaptation and standardization of the Chinese MMPI to design a comprehensive indigenous instrument covering personality characteristics for normal as well as diagnostic assessment of the Chinese people. In addition to universal personality traits, the CPAI included indigenously derived scales that assessed the relational aspects of personality. The cross-cultural relevance of the CPAI was assessed by examining the convergence and divergence of the CPAI with the NEO PI-R (Costa, & McCrae, 1992) measuring the Five Factor Model, which was claimed to cover universal personality dimensions. A joint factor analysis of the CPAI and the NEO PI-R in both Chinese and Singaporean samples showed that the CPAI factor of Interpersonal Relatedness (IR) did not load on any of the Big Five factors, whereas none of the CPAI scales loaded on the Openness to Experience factor of the NEO PI-R. In the present article, we reported three studies that illustrated the usefulness of these indigenous scales in Chinese organizational settings. The Interpersonal Relatedness factor scales on the CPAI contributed additional value beyond scales from the universal factors of Social Potency and Dependability in profiling MBA students at senior-level positions, in assessing hotel workers' customer orientation, and in predicting senior executives' leadership behaviors. 1. Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Fan, R. M., Song, W. Z., Zhang, J. X. & Zhang, J. P. (1996). Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI). Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 27, 181[ndash]199. This article described the methods and procedures used in developing the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI), reports initial findings on the reliability of the inventory, and discusses related issues in cross-cultural personality assessment. Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Leung, K., Ward, C., & Leong, F. (2003). The English version of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 433[ndash]452. The article examined the structure of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI), an indigenous Chinese assessment instrument, in two English-speaking samples. In Study 1, the English version of the CPAI was developed and administered to a sample of 675 Singaporean Chinese (aged 18[ndash]73 years). In Study 2, the English version CPAI was administered to a Caucasian American sample (n = 137). Factor analysis showed that the factor structure of the English version CPAI was similar to the structure of the original Chinese version in the normative sample. Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Zhang, J. X., Leung, K., Leong, F., & Yeh, K. H. (2008). Relevance of openness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture: Aspects of its cultural relevance. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 81[ndash]108. The Openness factor was missing from the original Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI). We used a combined emic-etic approach to generate six culturally relevant Openness scales. Joint factor analyses showed that four of the CPAI-2 Openness scales loaded with the Openness factor of the NEO-FFI. This article also presents the factor structure of the CPAI-2 and its joint factor analysis with the NEO-FFI in the re-standardization sample. Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., & Zhang, J. X. (2004). What is "Chinese" personality?: Subgroup differences in the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36, 491[ndash]499. This paper reported subgroup differences in the CPAI 2 normative sample to illustrate variations and continuity of personality characteristics within the same culture. Sex and age differences on mean scores of the CPAI-2 scales are consistent with expected variations associated with socialization and developmental stages. There is no consistent pattern of variations across Hong Kong and different geographical regions within Mainland China. Within culture and cross-cultural differences illustrate the continuity of individual differences in personality, and the dialectics of emic and etic constructs. Kwong, J. Y. Y., & Cheung, F. M. (2003). Prediction of performance facets using specific personality traits in the Chinese context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 99[ndash]110. This study examined how personality variables relate differentially to interpersonal and personal facets. Supervisory-level employees completed the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory and provided their recent performance appraisal records. Results indicated that personality traits that relate to interpersonal orientation (e.g., Harmony and Leadership in the CPAI) better predicted interpersonal versus personal contextual behaviors, whereas a trait associated with personal virtues such as moral obligation and loyalty to group (CPAI's Veraciousness) predicted the personal but not the interpersonal domain. Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Zhang, J. X., Sun, H. F., Gan, Y. Q., Song, W. Z., & Xie, D. (2001). Indigenous Chinese personality construct: Is the Five Factor Model complete? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 407[ndash]433. This paper investigated the universality and sufficiency of the 5-factor model in the Chinese context. The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI) were employed among Chinese students, Chinese Managers, and Hawaiian students. A comprehensive analysis showed that the 6-factor models were superior to the 5-factor models and that the Interpersonal Relatedness factor which was defined only by CPAI scales could not be consistently explained by a combination of the Big Five factors. Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., & Zhang, J. X. (2004). Convergent validity of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Preliminary findings with a normative sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 92[ndash]103. This study examined the convergent validity of the CPAI, an indigenously constructed measure, by comparing its patterns of correlations with the MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 2001). Results provide preliminary support for the convergence between most of the CPAI clinical scales and the relevant MMPI-2 scales. The CPAI personality scales further illustrated the patterns of personality features associated with the MMPI-2 scales in a Chinese cultural context. Cheung, S. F., Cheung, F. M., Howard, R., & Lim, Y. H. (2006). Personality across ethnic divide in Singapore: Are "Chinese traits" uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 467[ndash]477. In this study, the English version of the Cross-Cultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory-2 (CPAI-2) was administered to three samples representing the main ethnic groups in Singapore. Factor analysis and Procrustes rotation showed that the four CPAI-2 factors, Social Potency, Dependability, Accommodation, and Interpersonal Relatedness, could generally be recovered. Cross-cultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI): http://ww3.psy.cuhk.edu.hk/~cpaiweb/ This website indexes a description for the Cross-cultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory [ndash] 2 (CPAI-2) and the Cross-cultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory [ndash] Adolescent Version (CPAI-A) in English and Chinese. We provide directions for researchers to request for research use of these measures that will contribute to building up the database on the validity of the CPAI-2 or CPAI-A. The website also provides related references including publications by our research team and other researchers who used the CPAI-2 and CPAI-A. The aim of this seminar is to introduce students to universal and culture-specific personality. Personality models, research paradigms, and cross-cultural issues of personality assessment are discussed. The Cross-cultural Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2) is cited as an example of the combined etic-emic approach to develop indigenous personality assessment. The program of research to validate the CPAI-2, especially its utility in applied settings, is reviewed. This seminar on personality assessment consists of lectures, class discussion, readings, small group activities, and a proposed group project. There are some required readings. In addition, each student will be responsible for presenting one extra journal article. The primary requirement of the course is to do all required and additional readings in preparation for the discussions, to present a journal report in class outside of the assigned readings, and to work together in small groups to develop a research project. All students are expected to participate thoughtfully and actively in the class discussions. Final grades will be based on the amount and quality of student participation in general (20%), individual presentation of the journal report (40%), and a group presentation (including powerpoint and handout) that proposes a new study (40%) that answers an interesting question on cross-cultural personality assessment, based on the current state of knowledge on this topic. Using powerpoint, outline the journal article that you were assigned and present it to the class, as a teacher would present the material to his or her class. State clearly what the rationale was for the research, what literature was pertinent, what the hypotheses were, how the study was done, what the results were, and what the authors felt the primary contribution was. Then, offer your own assessment of the research, as a reviewer would. What were its strengths and what were it weaknesses? Did you spot any alternative explanations or confounds? Do you think the findings would generalize to other manipulations, measures, and populations (if not, why not)? What further studies would you suggest doing based on this research? The presentation of the group research project should consist of a powerpoint that includes: (i) a title page; (ii) a brief introduction, citing relevant research; (iii) the hypothesis, stated clearly; (iv) a method section that the reader could use to replicate the study; (v) a graph or table of the expected results; (vi) a brief discussion section that indicates, if the results supported the hypothesis, what the theoretical and practical significance would be for the field; and (vii) a reference section. The group should also hand in a 150-word (maximum) abstract. Your final grading will be based on a composite score of your presentation and your seminar contributions. Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Zhang, J. X., Leung, K., Leong, F. T. L., & Yeh, K. H. (2008). Relevance of openness as a personality dimension in Chinese culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 81[ndash]108. Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Fan, R., Song, W. Z., Zhang, J. X., & Zhang, J. P. (1996). Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI). Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 27, 181[ndash]199. Church, A. T. (2001). Personality measurement in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Personality, 69, 979[ndash]1006. Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Individual article (or cluster of articles), from which each of you chooses one (each student needs to choose a different article). If you would like to choose something not on this list, get lecturer's approval: Butcher, J. N., Cheung, F. M., & Lim, J. (2003). Use of the MMPI-2 with Asian populations. Psychological Assessment, 15, 248[ndash]256. Chan, B. (2005). From West to East: The impact of culture on personality and group dynamics. Cross-Cultural Management, 12, 31[ndash]45. Chen, S. X., Bond, M. H., & Cheung, F. M. (2005). Personality correlates of social axioms: Are beliefs nested within personality? Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 509[ndash]519. Cheung, F. M. (2004). Use of Western- and indigenously-developed personality tests in Asia. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 173[ndash]191. Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., & Leung, F. (2008). Clinical validity of the Cross-Cultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2) in the assessment of substance use disorders among Chinese mean. Psychological Assessment, 20, 103[ndash]113. Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Leung, K., Ward, C., & Leong, F. (2003). The English version of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34, 433[ndash]452. Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Wada, S., & Zhang, J. X. (2003). Indigenous measures of personality assessment in Asian countries: A review. Psychological Assessment, 15, 280[ndash]289. Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., & Zhang, J.X. (2004a). What is "Chinese" personality?: Subgroup differences in the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2). Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36, 491[ndash]499. Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., & Zhang, J.X. (2004b). Convergent validity of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Preliminary findings with a normative sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 92[ndash]103. Cheung, F. M. & Leung, K. (1998). Indigenous personality measures: Chinese examples. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 233[ndash]248. Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Zhang, J. X., Sun, H. F., Gan, Y. Q., Song, W. Z., & Xie, D. (2001). Indigenous Chinese personality construct: Is the Five Factor Model complete? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 407[ndash]433. Cheung, S. F., Cheung, F. M., Howard, R., & Lim, Y. H. (2006). Personality across ethnic divide in Singapore: Are "Chinese traits" uniquely Chinese? Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 467[ndash]477. Fu, H., Watkins, D., & Hui, E., K. P. (2004). Personality correlates of the disposition towards interpersonal forgiveness: A Chinese perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 305[ndash]316. Heine, S. J., & Buchtel, E. E. (2009). Personality: The universal and the culturally specific. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 369[ndash]394. Ho, M. Y., Cheung, F. M., & Cheung,S. F. (2008). Personality and life events as predictors of adolescents' life satisfaction: Do life events mediate the link between personality and life satisfaction? Social Indicators Research, 89, 457[ndash]471. Kwong, J Y. Y., & Cheung, F. M. (2003). Prediction of performance facets using specific personality traits in the Chinese context. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 99[ndash]110. Leung, K., Cheung, F. M., Zhang, J. X., Song, W. Z., & Xie, D. (1997). The five factor model of personality in China. In K. Leung, Y. Kashima, U. Kim, & S. Yamaguchi (Eds.), Progress in Asian social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 231[ndash]244). Singapore: John Wiley. Lin, E. J., & Church, A. T. (2004). Are indigenous Chinese personality dimensions culture-specific? An investigation of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory in Chinese American and European American samples. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 586[ndash]605. Liu, L. A., Friedman, R. A., & Chi, S. C. (2005). 'Ren Qing' versus the 'Big Five': The role of culturally sensitive measures of individual difference in distributive negotiations. Management and Organizational Review, 1, 225[ndash]247. McCrae, R. R., Yik, M. S. M., Trapnell, P. D., Bond, M. H., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpreting personality profiles across cultures: Bilingual, acculturation, and peer rating studies of Chinese undergraduates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1041[ndash]1055. Sun, H. F., & Bond, M. H. (2000). Choice of influence tactics: Effects of the target person's behavioral patterns, status and the personality influencer. In Li, J.T., Tusk, A. S., & Weldon. E. (Eds.), Management and organizations in the Chinese context (pp. 283[ndash]302). London: MacMillan. Yang, K. S. (1997). Theories and research in Chinese personality: An indigenous approach. In H. S. R. Kao & D. Sinha (Eds.), Asian perspectives on psychology (pp. 236[ndash]262). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yik, M. S., & Bond, M. H. (1993). Exploring the dimensions of Chinese person perception with indigenous and imported constructs: Creating a culturally balanced scale. International Journal of Psychology, 28, 75[ndash]95. Introduction (1) the brief history of cross-cultural personality assessment, (2) international research on the Five Factor Model, (3) the application of etic and emic approaches in the field of personality assessment, (4) indigenous research on personality assessment in Asia, (5) the development of CPAI, and (6) the application of the CPAI/CPAI-2 in applied settings. Cheung, F. M., Cheung, S. F., Wada, S., & Zhang, J. X. (2003). Indigenous measures of personality assessment in Asian countries: A review. Psychological Assessment, 15, 280[ndash]289. Cheung, F. M., Leung, K., Fan, R., Song, W. Z., Zhang, J. X., & Zhang, J. P. (1996). Development of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI). Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 27, 181[ndash]199. Church, A. T. (2001). Personality measurement in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Personality, 69, 979[ndash]1006. Van de Vijver, F., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Individual presentations, and group presentations. What are the problems of the imposed etic approach in personality assessment? What is the primary content of a combined emic-etic approach used in personality assessment? Why should the indigenous dimensions of personality be emphasized beyond the classic Big-Five factors? How would you evaluate newly developed measures of personality traits in a non-Western culture? What is the main contribution of the CPAI scales in the field of personality assessment? What is the added value of the emic CPAI scales in applied settings? We designed a classroom demonstration on personality assessment, and request students (or a small group, for instance, 2[ndash]5 persons) develop a mini scale to assess one culturally-relevant personality construct. We expect this classroom activity to assist students to understand the meaning of an emic personality trait that reflects a culturally-relevant construct in their own life.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2009.00214.xAndrew Baron, Mahzarin Banaji2009-09-23T04:16:00Z10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00214.xJournal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.The near ubiquity of ingroup preference is consistent with the view that it is an automatic consequence of social categorization, possibly a basic foundation of intergroup relations. However, research with adults has demonstrated that automatic ingroup preference is notably absent among less dominant, less advantaged groups, an outcome predicted by System Justification Theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994). How basic is this tendency to justify existing social arrangements? Data from young children are crucial in addressing whether such an opposing orientation is itself a fundamental feature of intergroup social cognition. The developmental data summarized here suggest that knowledge about the relative status of one's ingroup is absorbed and internalized sufficiently early in life, revealing system-justifying tendencies by age 5, the earliest age such questions have been examined to date. Across several studies summarized here young children from non-dominant groups failed to show an implicit ingroup preference, similar to their adult counterparts. We conclude that from an early age intergroup preferences are constrained by knowledge, implicit or explicit, about the relative status differences among groups and may suggest an orientation toward supporting existing social and political structures. The possibility that system-justifying tendencies may exist in even younger children remains open for future tests.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2009.00212.xPaul Bennett2009-09-23T04:16:00Z10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00212.xJournal Compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing LtdJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc.Health screening involves the early identification of risk factors for disease or early-stage disease. There is clear evidence of a health benefit following many screening programs. However, these programs may also contribute to significant psychological distress in a significant minority of vulnerable individuals. This paper considers the impact of screening in relation to breast cancer, focusing on assessment of genetic risk for breast cancer and mammography. It then reviews how these programs presently try to minimize any distress among participants before examining how health and clinical psychological theory can contribute to the development of new interventions, focusing on the use of cognitive challenge and teaching appropriate emotion-focused coping strategies such as mindfulness and distraction. Future research developments are then addressed.