No abstract

No abstract

Two explanations of intergroup discrimination were investigated-social norm and belief similarity. Subjects were arbitrarily categorized into two groups and informed that ingroup and outgroup members were either similar or dissimilar to themselves on attitudes and beliefs. Then subjects divided rewards between a member of the ingroup and a member of the outgroup. The ingroup was favored in the assignment of rewards across all conditions, indicating that mere categorization is sufficient to produce intergroup discrimination. Ingroup favoritism was further enhanced when the ingroup held similar beliefs to those of the subject, but similarity or dissimilarity of outgroup members did not differentially affect discriminative behavior. Thus, ingroup characteristics may be more important than, outgroup characteristics as a contributor to intergreu-p-behavior."^Subjects did not report ingroup favoritism as the pre-"ferred^ strategy for distributing rewards, as might be expected according to the social norm explanation.

In two experiments subjects were categorized into groups and made predictions about the beliefs of other in‐group or out‐group members. It was hypothesized that subjects would predict (a) greater homogeneity among out‐group members than among in‐group members, (b) greater similarity between themselves and in‐group members than out‐group members, and (c) greater similarity among in‐group members in the presence of an out‐group. In addition, assumptions of homogeneity and similarity were expected (d) to be strongest on items relevant to the categorization criterion and (e) to be accentuated over time. Results from the first study supported all but the final hypothesis. In a second study subjects were given base‐rate information about the beliefs of either in‐group or out‐group members and were asked to predict the responses of another in‐group or out‐group member. Subjects systematically biased their predictions so as to reduce differences between their own opinions and in‐group members' positions and to increase differences between their opinions and out‐group members' positions. In addition, in‐group members were expected to be more similar to the subjects when an out‐group was present than when no explicit out‐group existed. Finally, as in the first experiment, these biases of prediction were strongest for items relevant to the categorization criterion.

Out-group members received fairer treatment when they were seen as differing individuals rather than as an undifferentiated group.

No abstract

The effects of three levels of treatment integrity (100%, 50%, and 0%) on child compliance were evaluated in the context of the implementation of a three-step prompting procedure. Two typically developing preschool children participated in the study. After baseline data on compliance to one of three common demands were collected, a therapist implemented the threestep prompting procedure at three different integrity levels. One integrity level was associated with each demand. The effects of the integrity levels were examined using multielement designs. The results indicate that compliance varied according to the level of treatment integrity that was in place.DESCRIPTORS: noncompliance, preschool children, three-step prompting, treatment integrityTreatment integrity refers to the extent to which a treatment is implemented as designed. In research, behavioral interventions are likely to be implemented with near-perfect integrity, but in practice settings this is not always so. A number of studies have examined the effects of behavioral interventions when implemented at less than perfect levels of integrity. For example, Northup, Fisher, Kahng, Harrel, and Kurtz (1997) evaluated varying levels of integrity for a differential reinforcement plus time-out procedure. Appropriate behavior was reinforced on 100% of occasions, 50% of occasions, or 25% of occasions. In addition, time-out was implemented for aberrant behavior using these same values. Results showed that intervention effects were maintained at 100% integrity levels even when time-out was implemented at 50% integrity. Vollmer, Roane, Ringdahl, and Marcus (1999) examined differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) at varying integrity levels. They found that after exposure to DRA at 100% integrity (i.e., appropriate behavior was reinforced each time it occurred; problem behavior was never reinforced), lower levels of integrity did compromise intervention effects. However, participants exhibited a general bias toward appropriate behavior during many of the varying integrity levels, presumably because their recent history with the 100% integrity phase predisposed them to engage in appropriate behavior.Although these studies provide a start, more research on the effects of behavioral interventions at varying levels of integrity is needed. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of varying levels of treatment integrity on child compliance in the context of the implementation of a multistep prompting procedure (Horner & Keilitz, 1975). This study extends the existing research on treatment integrity of behavioral interventions by conducting a parametric analysis of an antecedent-based intervention (prompting) as opposed to a consequencebased intervention (reinforcement). METHOD Participants and SettingJake (a 4-year-old boy) and Cara (a 4-yearold girl), the first 2 children nominated for the study, participated. Neither of the participants had a psychiatric diagnosis or a developmental Requests for reprints should be sent to David A. Wilder,

Four experiments examined the hypothesis that in-groups exert more influence than do outgroups. The hypothesis was supported using both laboratory groups of university students and a natural social category (university affiliation). Subjects exposed to in-group communicators attributed greater independence to them, made fewer errors in recalling their messages, and clustered recollections of messages by individual speaker. In addition, the persuasiveness of out-group members was enhanced when individuating information was provided about them that increased their heterogeneity. The individuated out-group members were as influential as in-group communicators. Results were interpreted in terms of attribution and social identity processes.Common sense, everyone's seer, tells people that they are more influenced by people whom they like than by those whom they dislike, by people who are similar to them than by those who are dissimilar, and by those with whom they often interact than by those with whom they have little contact. Research has generally confirmed common sense. Experiments have demonstrated that people are more influenced by similar others (e.g., Brock, 1965;Goethals & Nelson, 1973), by those whom they like and identify with (e.g, Kelley, 1952;Kelman, 1961;Siegel & Siegel, 1957), and by those with whom they share a common social identity (e.g., Turner, 1982). Although not without exception, people are generally fond of groups to which they belong; they usually belong to groups of similar others; and they most often interact with members of their in-groups. So, it seems fair to propose that in-group members exert greater pressure to conform than do out-group members. To understand why, consider the reasons why people conform in the first place.Conformity pressure can be separated into normative and informational components (Allen, 1965;Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). Normative pressure is based on an individual's desire to attain rewards and avoid punishments at the hands of the group. Normative pressure is comparable to reward/coercive power in French and Raven's (1959) conceptualization of social power or compliance in Kelman's (1958) typology of attitude change. Because normative influence is based on the group's capacity to administer rewards and punishments, it is generally accepted that influence based on normative pressure will endure so long as the individual is monitored by the group. On the other hand, informational influence relies on the message content to persuade the individual and should, therefore, reap more permanent change (comparable to the concept of informational power in the French & Raven typology).In general, in-groups are more likely to exert both normative and informational pressure than are out-groups.