Thank you for downloading using multivariate statistics. As you may know, people have look hundreds times for their favorite novels like this using multivariate statistics, but end up in infectious downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of tea in the afternoon, instead they juggled with some harmful bugs inside their laptop. using multivariate statistics is available in our digital library an online access to it is set as public so you can download it instantly. Our books collection saves in multiple locations, allowing you to get the most less latency time to download any of our books like this one. Merely said, the using multivariate statistics is universally compatible with any devices to read.

Using Multivariate Statistics

The present article presents a meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. With 713 independent samples from 515 studies, the meta-analysis finds that intergroup contact typically reduces intergroup prejudice. Multiple tests indicate that this finding appears not to result from either participant selection or publication biases, and the more rigorous studies yield larger mean effects. These contact effects typically generalize to the entire outgroup, and they emerge across a broad range of outgroup targets and contact settings. Similar patterns also emerge for samples with racial or ethnic targets and samples with other targets. This result suggests that contact theory, devised originally for racial and ethnic encounters, can be extended to other groups. A global indicator of Allport's optimal contact conditions demonstrates that contact under these conditions typically leads to even greater reduction in prejudice. Closer examination demonstrates that these conditions are best conceptualized as an interrelated bundle rather than as independent factors. Further, the meta-analytic findings indicate that these conditions are not essential for prejudice reduction. Hence, future work should focus on negative factors that prevent intergroup contact from diminishing prejudice as well as the development of a more comprehensive theory of intergroup contact.

A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.

Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world's top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Researchers - often implicitly - assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these "standard subjects" are as representative of the species as any other population. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species - frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior - hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioral sciences to best tackle these challenges.

/pdf/the-weirdest-people-in-the-world-480wr4m3kb.pdf

The WEIRDest People in the World

In 1974 an article appeared in Science magazine with the dry-sounding title “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases” by a pair of psychologists who were not well known outside their discipline of decision theory. In it Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman introduced the world to Prospect Theory, which mapped out how humans actually behave when faced with decisions about gains and losses, in contrast to how economists assumed that people behave. Prospect Theory turned Economics on its head by demonstrating through a series of ingenious experiments that people are much more concerned with losses than they are with gains, and that framing a choice from one perspective or the other will result in decisions that are exactly the opposite of each other, even if the outcomes are monetarily the same. Prospect Theory led cognitive psychology in a new direction that began to uncover other human biases in thinking that are probably not learned but are part of our brain’s wiring.

Thinking fast and slow.

/pdf/weird-languages-have-misled-us-too-comment-on-henrich-et-al-57dmcdjt24.pdf

WEIRD languages have misled us, too [Comment on Henrich et al.]

Recent years have witnessed a renewal of interest in intergroup contact theory. A meta-analysis of more than 500 studies established the theory's basic contention that intergroup contact typically reduces prejudices of many types. This paper addresses the issue of process: just how does contact diminish prejudice? We test meta-analytically the three most studied mediators: contact reduces prejudice by (1) enhancing knowledge about the outgroup, (2) reducing anxiety about intergroup contact, and (3) increasing empathy and perspective taking. Our tests reveal mediational effects for all three of these mediators. However, the mediational value of increased knowledge appears less strong than anxiety reduction and empathy. Limitations of the study and implications of the results are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐analytic tests of three mediators

Recent advances in intergroup contact theory

The hypothesis has inspired extensive research over the past ha lf century 
(Pettig rew, 1 998b) . Al l po rt's formulation has received support across a variety of 
societies, situations, and g roups. And d ifferent research methods have yielded 
find ings that provide support-field stud ies (e.g . , Deutsch & Col l ins , 1 95 1 ) , ar­
chival research (e.g . , F ine , 1 979) , survey research (e.g . , Herek & Capitan io , 
1 996) , and laboratory studies (e.g . , Cook, 1 978; Desforges et a l . , 1 99 1 ) .

Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice: Recent meta-analytic findings.

Considerable research has shown that greater intergroup contact corresponds with lower intergroup prejudice, yet little is known regarding how the relationships between contact and prejudice may vary for members of minority and majority status groups. The present research examined differences in contact-prejudice relationships among members of minority and majority status groups, using data from a larger meta-analytic study of the effects of intergroup contact. Results indicate that the relationships between contact and prejudice tend to be weaker among members of minority status groups than among members of majority status groups. Moreover, establishing Allport's (1954) proposed conditions for optimal intergroup contact significantly predicts stronger contact-prejudice relationships among members of majority status groups, but not among members of minority status groups. Implications of these findings for future research on contact between minority and majority status groups are discussed.

Linda R. Tropp

Papers

A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.

How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐analytic tests of three mediators

Recent advances in intergroup contact theory

Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice: Recent meta-analytic findings.

Relationships Between Intergroup Contact and Prejudice Among Minority and Majority Status Groups