Question

1) Describe and explain Davey’s (1969) J-curve theory of the “revolution of rising expectations.” What controversial conclusion does the theory suggest about the use (or non-use) of government means to achieve group equality?

2) List and briefly explain the findings of Pettigrew’s (1959; 1960) study of conformity and prejudice.  Who is most likely to express prejudice?  Who is least likely?  Why?

3)  Describe the relationship between religious orientation and prejudice.  Of what relevance are intrinsic and extrinsic orientations?  Explain “quest” and “fundamentalism,” and describe why they’re important.  Be sure to define all terms in your answer.

4) List and briefly explain at least four of the traits found in the authoritarian personality as measured by the F-Scale (Adorno et al. 1950)?  Which of these traits may also be found in Altemeyer’s (1998) “right-wing authoritarian”?  How does Altemeyer’s theory differ from that of Adorno et al.?  Be specific.

Answer 1

Daveys Jcurve theory of the revolution of rising expectations- Davies is perhaps best known for his so-called "J curve" theory of political revolutions, which seeks to explain the rise of revolutionary movements in terms of rising individual expectations and falling levels of perceived well-being.

Davies asserts that revolutions are a subjective response to a sudden reversal in fortunes after a long period of economic growth. The theory is often applied to explain social unrest and efforts by governments to contain this unrest. This is referred to as the Davies' J-Curve, because economic development followed by a depression would be modeled as an upside down and slightly skewed J.

Pettigrew s study of conformity and prejudice-Defining prejudice Intergroup conflict is apparent throughout the globe today, fueled by prejudice and discrimination. But prejudice, like most human phenomena, is more complex than it first appears. For years, social psychology followed Gordon Allport's straightforward definition: intergroup prejudice consists of negative opinions against an outgroup without sufficient evidence (Allport, 1954). In other words, prejudice is being down on something you are not up on. Note that this view holds prejudice to involve both negative emotions and irrational beliefs. But my teacher's definition turns out to be too simple. Consider prejudice against women. Most opinions of men about women are in fact favorable. Prejudice becomes evident only when women step out of the roles that society prescribes for them. For example, there is often resistance to even a competent woman becoming an airline pilot. Such resistance arises because there is a perceived "lack of fit" between the generally positive stereotype of women and that of airline pilots. Women are supposed to lack the technical skills required of pilots. Thus, prejudice becomes evident when there is a perception of "role incongruity" (Eagly & Dickman, 2005). When large numbers of women challenge these perceptions and attempt to assume previously all-male roles 1 Conferencia presentada el 3 de setiembre de 2006 en la Universidad de Costa Rica, San José Costa Rica.

Religious orientation and prejudice-generalizations seem well established concerning the relationship between subjective religion and ethnic prejudice: (a) On the average churchgoers are more prejudiced than nonchurchgoers; (b) the relationship is curvilinear; (c) people with an extrinsic religious orientation are significantly more prejudiced than people with an intrinsic religious orientation. With the aid of a scale to measure extrinsic and intrinsic orientation this research confirmed previous findings and added a 4th: people who are indiscriminately proreligious are the most prejudiced of all. The interpretations offered are in terms of cognitive style. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

Intrinsic and extrinsic variations -Intrinsic Motivation: is defined as the motivation to actively engage in learning activities out of curiosity, interest, enjoyment, or in order to achieve their own intellectual and personal goals (Brewster & Fager, 2000).
Extrinsic Motivation: can be defined as, “it pertains to a wide variety of behaviors that are engaged in as a means to an end and not for their own sake” (Deci, 1975).
Objectives of the Study
1. To find out whether there is any significant difference in Motivational Orientations of college students based on the following background variables: (i) Gender, (ii) Degree Studying and (iii) Stream of the Study.
2. To find out the type of Motivational Orientations of male and female students.
Hypotheses of the Study
1. There is no significant difference in Motivational Orientations of college students with respect to the following background variables: (i) Gender, (ii) Degree Studying and (iii) Stream of the Study.
2. There is no significant difference in type of Motivational Orientationsbetween male and female students.
Methodology: The present study was a descriptive survey method. The data was collected from 300 College students (Government; Government Aided; and Private Colleges) in Chennai city by adopting stratified random sampling method.
Tool used for the Study: The Work Preference Inventory developed by Amabile et al., (1994) was used in the present study.
Results and Discussion: From the Table-1 it is inferred that the description for the categories of the background variables such as Gender, Degree Studying and Stream of

Quest and fundamentalism-This study examined how social desirability and religious fundamentalism may moderate relationships between religious orientation and measures of psychological and spiritual health. Intrinsics scored higher on fundamentalism but were not susceptible to a social desirability response bias. In multiple regression equations, intrinsic religion emerged as the strongest predictor of psychospiritual health. Fundamentalism added little or no variance in predicting psychological or spiritual well-being. Quest yielded negative correlations with social desirability and fundamentalism. High quest scorers also reported more personal distress and lower spiritual well-being. Social extrinsicness (Es) was unrelated to psychological or spiritual health whereas personal extrinsicness (Ep) predicted higher personal distress when social desirability and fundamentalism were controlled. Ep was also associated with a satisfying relationship with God but was unrelated to a sense of life satisfaction. With the exception of the extrinsic subscales, all religious measures exhibited good psychometric qualities. Ep and Es suffered from weak internal consistency.

Authoritarian personality as measured by the f scale -

The Authoritarian Personality "invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranked these traits and their intensity in any given person on what it called the 'F scale' (F for fascist)."The personality type Adorno et al. identified can be defined by nine traits that were believed to cluster together as the result of childhood experiences. These traits include conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intellectualism, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and "toughness", destructiveness and cynicism, projectivity, and exaggerated concerns over sex.

Though strongly criticized for bias and methodology,the book was highly influential in American social sciences, particularly in the first decade after its publication: "No volume published since the war in the field of social psychology has had a greater impact on the direction of the actual empirical work being carried on in the universities today."

Altemeyers right wing authoritarian-The present research attempts to replicate and extend Altemeyer’s (1996) research on right wing authoritarianism. Two hundred and twenty participants completed the Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale (Altemeyer, 1996), Left Wing Authoritarianism Scale (Altemeyer, 1996) Attitudes Toward Violence Scale (ATVS; Anderson, Benjamin, Wood, & Bonacci, 2006), the Need for Cognition Scale (Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984), and the Consideration for Future Consequences Scale (Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994). The results largely replicated Altemeyer’s (1996) research. The results showed no evidence of high scorers on the LWA Scale. Furthermore, the results confirmed Altemeyer’s typology of authoritarian styles, demonstrating that right-wingers and wild-card authoritarians tend to score higher on measures of authoritarian aggression and lower on at least one measure of epistemic closure relative to non-authoritarians and right-wingers.

Altemeyers theory differ from that of Adorno is that A main theoretical and empirical question in the field of authoritarianism and modern political racism research was answered in a large survey of 900 Flemish high school students. This research question was, Which of the authoritarianism concepts and scales performs better in a theoretical and empirical sense: that of Adorno et al. (1950), Lederer (1983) or Altemeyer (1988)? The results show, contrary to what has been suggested by some authors, that the various operationalizations of authoritarianism have no superiority over one another: the scales have similar relations with the main variables they are supposed to predict, like antiminorities ethnocentrism, national ingroup favoritism. anti-Semitism, antifeminism, pro-Apartheid attitudes, submissive behavior, social punitiveness, trust in authorities, and sympathy and voting preference for a racist party, and no relation with directiveness. This is not really a surprise as the various F scales are relatively highly intercorrelated. The results also support the existence of an attitudinal and behavioral syndrome of authoritarianism.