RESUMEN

Whereas existing data verify the importance of support networks in facilitating resilience following trauma, the sociocultural perceptions of posttrauma difficulties that provide context for these interactions remain largely unexplored. Folk psychiatry models propose that lay explanations of mental illness can be quantified along distinct moralizing, medicalizing, and psychologizing dimensions. The current project aimed to develop a trauma-specific measure capturing lay explanations of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) based on this framework. Data were collected from three samples of Mechanical Turk respondents (N1 = 367; N2 = 365; N3 = 401) as well as an independent sample of university students (N4 = 311). Factor analysis of the final, 13-item Folk Psychiatry Measure-PTSD (FPM-P) indicated close fit of a correlated three-factor model in MTurk and student respondents. Across samples, moralizing beliefs about PTSD (e.g., people with PTSD lack a moral compass) evidenced moderate-to-strong correlations with general attitudes toward those with mental illness, including positive associations with authoritarianism, social restrictiveness, blame, anger, and perceived dangerousness. Negative associations with benevolence and support for community-based care were also noted. Medicalizing beliefs (e.g., PTSD is caused by a chemical imbalance) demonstrated more modest associations with negative attitudes, as noted through weak correlations with increased authoritarianism, anger, and lower benevolence toward those experiencing psychological difficulties. Finally, psychologizing explanations (e.g., people with poor relationships and low social support are at greater risk of developing PTSD) evidenced weak but positive associations with benevolence and pity for those with mental health concerns. Implications and cultural-based nuances of the scale are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The current study examined whether aversive and modern racists would convict Black defendants differently based on theoretical differences: aversive racists are egalitarian and discriminate when not reminded of their values, whereas modern racists do not espouse egalitarian values and discriminate when a non-racial reason exists to justify their behavior. Participants read a criminal trial where defendant race (Black vs. White), race salience (present vs. absent), and justification (weak vs. strong evidence) were manipulated. Results showed that aversive and modern racists convicted the Black defendant at similar rates, but aversive racists were more likely to convict the White than the Black defendant. Aversive racists were also more egalitarian and less socially conservative. The finding that aversive racists convict Black and White defendants differently, but modern racists did not, suggests the importance of distinguishing aversive and modern racists to obtain a more complete picture of racial discrimination in juror decision making.

RESUMEN

Public stereotypes about trauma exposure and its likely consequences have the potential to influence levels of support extended to survivors in the larger community. The current project sought to examine unique profiles of stereotype endorsement both within and across participants sampled from distinct populations. Trauma-related stereotypes involving symptom course, dangerousness, employability, social functioning, predictability, character, and treatment need were examined in undergraduate (N 1 = 404; N 2 = 502) and MTurk (N 3 = 364) samples. Sympathizing [low overall endorsement], Fearful [high overall endorsement], Pejorative [high endorsement + moralizing beliefs], Safety-Focused [intermediate endorsement + dangerousness], and Performance-Focused [intermediate endorsement + employability] groups were replicated in latent profile models across all samples. Stereotype profiles demonstrated hypothesized associations with general perspectives of mental illness although support for consistent relations with respondent characteristics (e.g., sex; personal exposure to trauma; reported exposure in friends/family) was limited. Data suggest that trauma stereotypes are endorsed at high frequencies in the general community and conform to systematic patterns of prejudice that may be overlooked in more global assessments of stigma.

RESUMEN

Using the two-dimensional model of prejudice as a theoretical framework, we examined the geographic distribution of prejudice toward African Americans in the United States (N = 10,522). We found the East South Central, West South Central, and South Atlantic regions were associated with modern racism, principled conservatism characterized the Mountain region, aversive racism was prevalent in the East North Central region, and finally, low in prejudice was found in the Pacific, West North Central, Mid Atlantic, and New England regions. Additional analyses on political conservatism, social conservatism, and egalitarianism generally supported the distinctions between prejudice types made by the two-dimensional model. We believe mapping regional prejudice may have implications for testing theoretical differences between distinct types of prejudice as well as for implementing prejudice reduction strategies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Previous research has established that the appearance of criminal suspects and defendants can affect subsequent legal decisions. Specifically, researchers have proposed that (1) masculine suspects are believed to commit more stereotypically male crimes (e.g., burglary), (2) masculine suspects are believed to commit more violent crimes (e.g., assault), and (3) masculinity is a general cue for committing crime. The current study sought to test these competing hypotheses regarding masculine appearance and perceived criminality. Across three studies, participants read a brief crime scenario and were asked to select out of a lineup the suspect they believed had committed the crime. Suspect masculinity and type of crime were manipulated to determine whether the degree of masculinity influenced whether participants believed they had committed the crime. Results showed that participants consistently associated masculinity with committing violent crime and showed some evidence for the general criminality hypothesis on secondary measures. These findings have important implications regarding law enforcement, eyewitness and juror bias, and legal decisions.

RESUMEN

For over 30 years, a debate has raged regarding the appropriateness of high school, university, and professional sports teams using American Indian mascots. Proponents of such mascots state that these images are traditions and honor Indigenous People. Opponents of these images argue that the symbols foster stereotypes (Pewewardy, 1999) and negatively affect American Indians (Fryberg, Markus, Oyserman, & Stone, 2008). The purpose of this investigation was to examine if exposure to an American Indian mascot activated American Indian stereotypes in a predominately European American sample. In addition, we explored the role of personal motivation, prejudice level, and experience on stereotype activation. We found that the Chief Wahoo image (i.e., Cleveland Indian's logo) compared to other images activated negative, but not positive, American Indian stereotypes. Participants' motivation to control prejudice, prejudice level, and experience did not predict negative stereotype activation. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

Asunto(s)