Link didn't work properly, anyways here's the diagram!
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Stages of Culture Shock
Reading over my last entry just got me thinking how my attitude changed the longer I was there, found this little diagram that explains it nicely http://www.bohemica.com/.../culture_shock.gif . Im guessing the time frame for going through the stages is different for different people.
Excitement
The individual experiences a holiday or 'honeymoon' period with their new surroundings.
They feel very positive about the culture are overwhelmed with impressions and find the new culture exotic and fascinating. (Definitely experienced this stage)
Withdrawal/ Culture Shock
The individual now has some more face to face experience of the culture and starts to find things different, strange and frustrating. They can find the behaviour of the people unusual and unpredictable. They begin to dislike the culture and react negatively to the behaviour. They can feel anxious and start to withdraw.
(Began to experience this stage, I think the people that I travelled with experienced this earlier than me, maybe something to do with different personality types???)
Mental Isolation
Individuals have been away from their family and good friends for a long period of time and may feel lonely. Many still feel that they cannot express themselves as well as they can in their native language. Frustration and sometimes a loss of self-confidence result. Some individuals remain at this stage.
Adjustment and Acceptance
The individual now feels 'at home'.They enjoy being in the culture and can function well in the culture. The individual now has a routine and feels more settled and is more confident in dealing with the new culture.
Thats just the basic path of culture shock, again it will vary depending on personality, experience, country etc.
thats all for now...
Excitement
The individual experiences a holiday or 'honeymoon' period with their new surroundings.
They feel very positive about the culture are overwhelmed with impressions and find the new culture exotic and fascinating. (Definitely experienced this stage)
Withdrawal/ Culture Shock
The individual now has some more face to face experience of the culture and starts to find things different, strange and frustrating. They can find the behaviour of the people unusual and unpredictable. They begin to dislike the culture and react negatively to the behaviour. They can feel anxious and start to withdraw.
(Began to experience this stage, I think the people that I travelled with experienced this earlier than me, maybe something to do with different personality types???)
Mental Isolation
Individuals have been away from their family and good friends for a long period of time and may feel lonely. Many still feel that they cannot express themselves as well as they can in their native language. Frustration and sometimes a loss of self-confidence result. Some individuals remain at this stage.
Adjustment and Acceptance
The individual now feels 'at home'.They enjoy being in the culture and can function well in the culture. The individual now has a routine and feels more settled and is more confident in dealing with the new culture.
Thats just the basic path of culture shock, again it will vary depending on personality, experience, country etc.
thats all for now...
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Getting Started
Hi all,
These are just some things I’ve been thinking about in regards to my “culture shock topic”.
Recently I went on a two week holiday to Thailand, previous to starting this assignment if I was asked if I suffered from culture shock I would have immediately answered no! I see myself as a fairly open person and accepting of other lifestyles. However after starting my research I may have suffered more of a culture shock than I realised. After doing some reading the following list of ‘symptoms’ seems to re-occur throughout.
Symptoms of culture shock:
· Unwarranted criticism of the culture and people
· Heightened irritability
· Constant complaints about the climate
· Continual offering of excuses for staying indoors
· Utopian ideas concerning one's previous culture
· Continuous concern about the purity of water and food
· Fear of touching local people
· Refusal to learn the language
· Preoccupation about being robbed or cheated
· Preoccupation with returning home
Unfortunately I have to admit that I am guilty of doing several of these things, although these things didn’t start until the end of the holiday. Communication difficulties were probably the most frustrating, although thinking about it now I should have made more of an effort to understand them rather than just expecting them to understand English (although majority of hotel staff had a pretty good understanding of English). I also have to admit that I did complain about the place being ‘dirty’ and not being able to drink tap water. Towards the end I was looking forward to going home because of all the little things I missed, like tap water and pizza shapes (don’t ask why, I don’t usually even like them that much). Despite this there were still other things I loved about Thailand, all the local people I met were very friendly and extremely polite, in fact they were so polite it was hard for me to know how to respond because I wasn’t used to it.
I am wondering if travelling to another country that isn’t as different to Australia would still produce the same sort of reactions but just focussing on other aspects for example the weather?
Because my holiday was so short I only really experienced the first stages of culture shock before I came home, I am curious whether or not I would have been able to fully adjust if I was to live there permanently. It just makes you think how hard it would be for those migrating to Australia to fully adapt our lifestyle where in some cases it would be completely different from what their used to. I also had the safety shield of being a tourist with people willing to help me with things. Whereas those moving to another country would have other things like looking for housing, work, schools, banks and other everyday living type things to adjust to on top of everything else.
Well that’s just a few things that got me thinking, now all I have to do is find some journal articles that discuss these issues!
These are just some things I’ve been thinking about in regards to my “culture shock topic”.
Recently I went on a two week holiday to Thailand, previous to starting this assignment if I was asked if I suffered from culture shock I would have immediately answered no! I see myself as a fairly open person and accepting of other lifestyles. However after starting my research I may have suffered more of a culture shock than I realised. After doing some reading the following list of ‘symptoms’ seems to re-occur throughout.
Symptoms of culture shock:
· Unwarranted criticism of the culture and people
· Heightened irritability
· Constant complaints about the climate
· Continual offering of excuses for staying indoors
· Utopian ideas concerning one's previous culture
· Continuous concern about the purity of water and food
· Fear of touching local people
· Refusal to learn the language
· Preoccupation about being robbed or cheated
· Preoccupation with returning home
Unfortunately I have to admit that I am guilty of doing several of these things, although these things didn’t start until the end of the holiday. Communication difficulties were probably the most frustrating, although thinking about it now I should have made more of an effort to understand them rather than just expecting them to understand English (although majority of hotel staff had a pretty good understanding of English). I also have to admit that I did complain about the place being ‘dirty’ and not being able to drink tap water. Towards the end I was looking forward to going home because of all the little things I missed, like tap water and pizza shapes (don’t ask why, I don’t usually even like them that much). Despite this there were still other things I loved about Thailand, all the local people I met were very friendly and extremely polite, in fact they were so polite it was hard for me to know how to respond because I wasn’t used to it.
I am wondering if travelling to another country that isn’t as different to Australia would still produce the same sort of reactions but just focussing on other aspects for example the weather?
Because my holiday was so short I only really experienced the first stages of culture shock before I came home, I am curious whether or not I would have been able to fully adjust if I was to live there permanently. It just makes you think how hard it would be for those migrating to Australia to fully adapt our lifestyle where in some cases it would be completely different from what their used to. I also had the safety shield of being a tourist with people willing to help me with things. Whereas those moving to another country would have other things like looking for housing, work, schools, banks and other everyday living type things to adjust to on top of everything else.
Well that’s just a few things that got me thinking, now all I have to do is find some journal articles that discuss these issues!
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Stereotyping: Homosexuality
We in Australia like to portray a wide acceptance of many controversial issues. Despite this, many stereotypes still exist in our every day society. These stereotypes are predominately related to those in minority groups, this includes homosexuals. To truly understand why there are so many myths and misconceptions in regards to these minority groups, you firstly need to have a sound understanding of what stereotyping is and how they are developed.
Generally speaking, stereotyping is a process of perceiving people in terms of their group membership (Jussium, Nelson, Manis & Soffin, 1995). Sensory stimulation is constantly being presented to us at a rapid rate every day. To attempt to interpret and respond to all of this is virtually impossible. Therefore to help cope with so much stimuli, and to sort important information from other trivial stimuli we begin to group things together (Jussium, Nelson, Manis & Soffin, 1995). This enables us to focus on central information and to incorporate new information with past experiences (Jussium, Nelson, Manis & Soffin, 1995). Through this strategy, we are able to perceive the world as stable, predictable, and therefore manageable (Schaller, 1992). This is an evolutionary process, and in most cases we are unaware it is even happening (Schaller, 1992).
One particular strategy to help sort information is known as categorization. This a mental process in which we group things together, including people, according to something they have in common (Schaller, 1992). This mental strategy can then often lead to stereotyping when it is applied to humans. One minority group that has fallen under this type of categorisation is that of homosexuals. Homosexuals are defined as people who have a primary sexual or romantic attraction to others of their own sex (Hassan, Bano & Rahman, 2007).
For a stereotype to develop, we first categorise people on the basis of some characteristic, we then attribute other characteristics to that group, and then attribute that characteristic to all others within that group (Schaller, 1992). The primary difference between categorisation and stereotyping is that categorisation is based on characteristics that helps define a group, whereas stereotyping involves criteria that may be only true to a small number of the group but is then generalised across the entire group (Schaller, 1992). For example, a categorisation criteria for homosexual people may be all those whose primary romantic and sexual attraction is to those of the same sex, the stereotype would be that all homosexual men are camp and all homosexual women hate men (Hassan, Bano & Rahman, 2007). Once a person has developed a stereotype, they often perceive things the way they have previously categorised them (Lambert, Payne & Jacoby, 2003). They will often only notice characteristics that are congruent with their beliefs and fail to take in information that challenges their views. This selective attention then leads to stereotypes being confirmed in the individuals mind (Lambert, Payne & Jacoby, 2003). When looking at the formation of stereotypes in this way, it is understandable why firstly stereotypes exit and why they continue to. This is also why many stereotypes are often hard to change.
There are countless stereotypical views of homosexual people, for example all gay men are feminine and will die of AIDS, all gay women are butch and masculine and have had bad experiences with men (Hassan, Bano & Rahman, 2007). These characteristics may be true to a small number of that group but are not justified across the entire group. These thoughts are often concreted in the minds of people with this view through family, friends and the media (Hassan, Bano & Rahman, 2007).
There are many theories behind why this particular group has such a widely agreed on criteria, one of these is that of personal doubt (Haddock, Zanna & Esses, 1993). This theory suggests that the person themselves is doubtful of their own femininity or masculinity and likes to place strict boundaries around each gender. Therefore, those who blur these lines are considered homosexual (Haddock, Zanna & Esses, 1993). This can lead to the confirmation of the widespread belief that male homosexuals are effeminate and lesbians are masculine (Hassan, Bano & Rahman, 2007). However, many people who are homosexuals do not meet the full criteria but some heterosexual people do. It is believed that when these people follow these rules they feel more secure with their own sexuality. They are able to use stereotypes to distinguish between in-group and out-group members (Haddock, Zanna & Esses, 1993). It is also noted that when these individuals meet those who challenge these borders they can often feel threatened (Haddock, Zanna & Esses, 1993).
Cognitive processes however are not solely responsible for the formation of these stereotypes. They are often also shaped historically and by cultural ideologies. These are often again portrayed in the media, for example commercials, sitcoms and movies (Haddock, Zanna & Esses, 1993). One particular example is the sitcom “Will and Grace”, this show depicts two of the main characters who happen to be gay as camp and theatrical. Through the use of media, the stereotype is continuously being reinforced. Therefore if a person then encounters an individual that displays characteristics similar to these characters, they are quickly assumed homosexual.
Another issue that may assist in the formation of stereotypes is religion. Religion is very important and influential in many people’s lives and therefore stereotypes form with this in mind will prove very hard to distinguish. It needs to be noted that homosexuality is not viewed the same in all religions and differs across generations, places and leaders (Lease, Horne, & Noffsinger-Frazier, 2005). Homosexuality and religion is a topic that has been highly debated with many differing views. The most common issues brought up by unaccepting church groups are that it is contrary to nature, it is condemned in scripture and its acceptance would ruin society (Lease, Horne, & Noffsinger-Frazier, 2005). These views force many homosexual people to struggle everyday with prejudice and criticism. On the otherhand, many psychological and medical professional associations recognise that sexual orientation, whether heterosexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality is a healthy, normal and natural aspect of the human personality (Hooker, 1993). They and others who support homosexuality within society believe it is an offensive misuse of religion to propel prejudice into the community (Haddock, Zanna & Esses, 1993).
Homosexuality is viewed very differently in the scientific world. In recent times, it has been established that a vast majority of psychiatrists and psychologists believe in the biological theories behind homosexuality (Hooker, 1993). This theory supports that the brain itself, genes and prenatal chemistry all contribute to homosexuality, prior to this environmental or psychological factors were only considered (Hooker, 1993). . Many studies looking into the ‘gay gene’ has raised several new issues and sparked new debates in the government in regards to same sex marriages and in the general community (Bailey, Dunne & Nicholas, 2000).
There are many ways we can learn to extinguish homosexual stereotypes. On a personal level, you can look for inconsistencies in the stereotypes you have formed. For example, you may have formed the stereotype that all homosexual men are camp, however there are many exceptions to the rule. You may have encountered a few gay men that could be considered to be feminine, but it only takes one masculine gay man to disprove this theory. The more interactions you have with people in this group the more exceptions to the criteria you will find, this will make the stereotypes you have formed less credible (Lambert, Payne & Jacoby, 2003). Without stereotypes, you will be able to see individuals more accurately.
Education is another important factor that is assisting in the reduction of stereotypical views of homosexuals (Jussium, Nelson, Manis & Soffin, 1995). For example, one of the more extreme beliefs about openly gay teachers, professors, professionals or other role models is that they will attempt to influence people and try to recruit people to homosexuality (Armesto, 2002). However, studies have shown that even being raised by a homosexual parent has no substantial influence on sexual orientation, therefore having a homosexual teacher seems fairly unlikely to have a significant impact (Armesto, 2002).
There have however been positive changes in society in more recent times. Legislation changes in some countries in regards to same sex marriages, and the formation church groups supporting homosexuality all aim at reducing prejudice alongside stereotyping (Lease, Horne & Noffsinger-Frazier, 2005). Other positive changes include the celebration of homosexuality in events such as the annual Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. This celebration is a gay pride parade and a festival for the gay and lesbian community. It was originally a protest march and in commemoration of the Stonewall riots. It has now progressed into impressive festival filled with exotic costumes and dance music and producing a positive light on the homosexual community. It does however still have a political edge with often witty visual commentary on their floats.
For most people stereotyped assumptions are made every day and for most, these are unintentional (Schaller, 1992). It is important to put a stop to stereotyping as this can often lead to prejudices and therefore descrimination (Jussium, Nelson, Manis & Soffin, 1995). Understanding how stereotypes exists, how they are originally formed, and why they continually exist leads to the reduction of fast generalisations (Schaller, 1992). By challenging stereotypes and and being exposed to people within the community you are not usually associated with enables you to see people as individuals rather than persons of an in-group or out-group (Spencer-Rodgers, Hamilton & Sherman, 2007). This can only be positive, as the reduction of stereotyping is the reduction of predjudice and discrimination.
References
Armesto, J. C. (2002). Developmental and contextual factors that influence gay fathers’ parental competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog, 80, 67-78.
Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M. P. & Nicholas, G. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 524-536.
Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P. & Esses, V. M. (1993). Assessing the Structure of Prejudicial Attitudes: The Case of Attitudes Toward Homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1105-1118.
Hassan, R., Bano, R. & Rahman, T. (2007). Selective sexual orientation-related differences in object location memory. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121, 625-633.
Hooker, E. (1993). Reflections of a 40 year Exploration: A Scientific View on Homosexuality. American Psychologist, 48, 450-453.
Jussium, L., Nelson, T. E., Manis, M. & Soffin, S. (1995). Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Labeling Effects: Sources of Bias in Person Perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 228-246.
Lambert, A. J., Payne, B. K. & Jacoby, L. L. (2003). Stereotypes as dominant resposes: On the ‘Social Facilitation’ of prejudice in anticipated public contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 277-295.
Lease, S. H., Horne, S. G. & Noffsinger-Frazier, N. (2005). Affirming Faith Experiences and Psychological Health for Caucasian Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 378–388.
Schaller, M. (1992). In- group and reasoning in social inference: Implications for formation and mainenance of group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 61-74.
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Hamilton, D. L. & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The Central Role of Entitativity in Stereotypes of Social Categories and Task Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 369–388.
Generally speaking, stereotyping is a process of perceiving people in terms of their group membership (Jussium, Nelson, Manis & Soffin, 1995). Sensory stimulation is constantly being presented to us at a rapid rate every day. To attempt to interpret and respond to all of this is virtually impossible. Therefore to help cope with so much stimuli, and to sort important information from other trivial stimuli we begin to group things together (Jussium, Nelson, Manis & Soffin, 1995). This enables us to focus on central information and to incorporate new information with past experiences (Jussium, Nelson, Manis & Soffin, 1995). Through this strategy, we are able to perceive the world as stable, predictable, and therefore manageable (Schaller, 1992). This is an evolutionary process, and in most cases we are unaware it is even happening (Schaller, 1992).
One particular strategy to help sort information is known as categorization. This a mental process in which we group things together, including people, according to something they have in common (Schaller, 1992). This mental strategy can then often lead to stereotyping when it is applied to humans. One minority group that has fallen under this type of categorisation is that of homosexuals. Homosexuals are defined as people who have a primary sexual or romantic attraction to others of their own sex (Hassan, Bano & Rahman, 2007).
For a stereotype to develop, we first categorise people on the basis of some characteristic, we then attribute other characteristics to that group, and then attribute that characteristic to all others within that group (Schaller, 1992). The primary difference between categorisation and stereotyping is that categorisation is based on characteristics that helps define a group, whereas stereotyping involves criteria that may be only true to a small number of the group but is then generalised across the entire group (Schaller, 1992). For example, a categorisation criteria for homosexual people may be all those whose primary romantic and sexual attraction is to those of the same sex, the stereotype would be that all homosexual men are camp and all homosexual women hate men (Hassan, Bano & Rahman, 2007). Once a person has developed a stereotype, they often perceive things the way they have previously categorised them (Lambert, Payne & Jacoby, 2003). They will often only notice characteristics that are congruent with their beliefs and fail to take in information that challenges their views. This selective attention then leads to stereotypes being confirmed in the individuals mind (Lambert, Payne & Jacoby, 2003). When looking at the formation of stereotypes in this way, it is understandable why firstly stereotypes exit and why they continue to. This is also why many stereotypes are often hard to change.
There are countless stereotypical views of homosexual people, for example all gay men are feminine and will die of AIDS, all gay women are butch and masculine and have had bad experiences with men (Hassan, Bano & Rahman, 2007). These characteristics may be true to a small number of that group but are not justified across the entire group. These thoughts are often concreted in the minds of people with this view through family, friends and the media (Hassan, Bano & Rahman, 2007).
There are many theories behind why this particular group has such a widely agreed on criteria, one of these is that of personal doubt (Haddock, Zanna & Esses, 1993). This theory suggests that the person themselves is doubtful of their own femininity or masculinity and likes to place strict boundaries around each gender. Therefore, those who blur these lines are considered homosexual (Haddock, Zanna & Esses, 1993). This can lead to the confirmation of the widespread belief that male homosexuals are effeminate and lesbians are masculine (Hassan, Bano & Rahman, 2007). However, many people who are homosexuals do not meet the full criteria but some heterosexual people do. It is believed that when these people follow these rules they feel more secure with their own sexuality. They are able to use stereotypes to distinguish between in-group and out-group members (Haddock, Zanna & Esses, 1993). It is also noted that when these individuals meet those who challenge these borders they can often feel threatened (Haddock, Zanna & Esses, 1993).
Cognitive processes however are not solely responsible for the formation of these stereotypes. They are often also shaped historically and by cultural ideologies. These are often again portrayed in the media, for example commercials, sitcoms and movies (Haddock, Zanna & Esses, 1993). One particular example is the sitcom “Will and Grace”, this show depicts two of the main characters who happen to be gay as camp and theatrical. Through the use of media, the stereotype is continuously being reinforced. Therefore if a person then encounters an individual that displays characteristics similar to these characters, they are quickly assumed homosexual.
Another issue that may assist in the formation of stereotypes is religion. Religion is very important and influential in many people’s lives and therefore stereotypes form with this in mind will prove very hard to distinguish. It needs to be noted that homosexuality is not viewed the same in all religions and differs across generations, places and leaders (Lease, Horne, & Noffsinger-Frazier, 2005). Homosexuality and religion is a topic that has been highly debated with many differing views. The most common issues brought up by unaccepting church groups are that it is contrary to nature, it is condemned in scripture and its acceptance would ruin society (Lease, Horne, & Noffsinger-Frazier, 2005). These views force many homosexual people to struggle everyday with prejudice and criticism. On the otherhand, many psychological and medical professional associations recognise that sexual orientation, whether heterosexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality is a healthy, normal and natural aspect of the human personality (Hooker, 1993). They and others who support homosexuality within society believe it is an offensive misuse of religion to propel prejudice into the community (Haddock, Zanna & Esses, 1993).
Homosexuality is viewed very differently in the scientific world. In recent times, it has been established that a vast majority of psychiatrists and psychologists believe in the biological theories behind homosexuality (Hooker, 1993). This theory supports that the brain itself, genes and prenatal chemistry all contribute to homosexuality, prior to this environmental or psychological factors were only considered (Hooker, 1993). . Many studies looking into the ‘gay gene’ has raised several new issues and sparked new debates in the government in regards to same sex marriages and in the general community (Bailey, Dunne & Nicholas, 2000).
There are many ways we can learn to extinguish homosexual stereotypes. On a personal level, you can look for inconsistencies in the stereotypes you have formed. For example, you may have formed the stereotype that all homosexual men are camp, however there are many exceptions to the rule. You may have encountered a few gay men that could be considered to be feminine, but it only takes one masculine gay man to disprove this theory. The more interactions you have with people in this group the more exceptions to the criteria you will find, this will make the stereotypes you have formed less credible (Lambert, Payne & Jacoby, 2003). Without stereotypes, you will be able to see individuals more accurately.
Education is another important factor that is assisting in the reduction of stereotypical views of homosexuals (Jussium, Nelson, Manis & Soffin, 1995). For example, one of the more extreme beliefs about openly gay teachers, professors, professionals or other role models is that they will attempt to influence people and try to recruit people to homosexuality (Armesto, 2002). However, studies have shown that even being raised by a homosexual parent has no substantial influence on sexual orientation, therefore having a homosexual teacher seems fairly unlikely to have a significant impact (Armesto, 2002).
There have however been positive changes in society in more recent times. Legislation changes in some countries in regards to same sex marriages, and the formation church groups supporting homosexuality all aim at reducing prejudice alongside stereotyping (Lease, Horne & Noffsinger-Frazier, 2005). Other positive changes include the celebration of homosexuality in events such as the annual Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. This celebration is a gay pride parade and a festival for the gay and lesbian community. It was originally a protest march and in commemoration of the Stonewall riots. It has now progressed into impressive festival filled with exotic costumes and dance music and producing a positive light on the homosexual community. It does however still have a political edge with often witty visual commentary on their floats.
For most people stereotyped assumptions are made every day and for most, these are unintentional (Schaller, 1992). It is important to put a stop to stereotyping as this can often lead to prejudices and therefore descrimination (Jussium, Nelson, Manis & Soffin, 1995). Understanding how stereotypes exists, how they are originally formed, and why they continually exist leads to the reduction of fast generalisations (Schaller, 1992). By challenging stereotypes and and being exposed to people within the community you are not usually associated with enables you to see people as individuals rather than persons of an in-group or out-group (Spencer-Rodgers, Hamilton & Sherman, 2007). This can only be positive, as the reduction of stereotyping is the reduction of predjudice and discrimination.
References
Armesto, J. C. (2002). Developmental and contextual factors that influence gay fathers’ parental competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog, 80, 67-78.
Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M. P. & Nicholas, G. (2000). Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 524-536.
Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P. & Esses, V. M. (1993). Assessing the Structure of Prejudicial Attitudes: The Case of Attitudes Toward Homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1105-1118.
Hassan, R., Bano, R. & Rahman, T. (2007). Selective sexual orientation-related differences in object location memory. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121, 625-633.
Hooker, E. (1993). Reflections of a 40 year Exploration: A Scientific View on Homosexuality. American Psychologist, 48, 450-453.
Jussium, L., Nelson, T. E., Manis, M. & Soffin, S. (1995). Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Labeling Effects: Sources of Bias in Person Perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 228-246.
Lambert, A. J., Payne, B. K. & Jacoby, L. L. (2003). Stereotypes as dominant resposes: On the ‘Social Facilitation’ of prejudice in anticipated public contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 277-295.
Lease, S. H., Horne, S. G. & Noffsinger-Frazier, N. (2005). Affirming Faith Experiences and Psychological Health for Caucasian Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Individuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 378–388.
Schaller, M. (1992). In- group and reasoning in social inference: Implications for formation and mainenance of group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 61-74.
Spencer-Rodgers, J., Hamilton, D. L. & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The Central Role of Entitativity in Stereotypes of Social Categories and Task Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 369–388.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)