ผลต่างระหว่างรุ่นของ "หน้าหลัก"

จาก wiki.surinsanghasociety
ไปยังการนำทาง ไปยังการค้นหา
ล
ล
แถว 1: แถว 1:
−
Ization. We discovered that the stereotype threat ?utilization partnership was also
+
Oral anti-discrimination justification, "... just before judging a single ought to initially get to understand
−
Ization. We discovered that the stereotype threat ?utilization connection was also present when controlling for parental status ( = 0.13, p = 0.005). We conducted a second such evaluation which includes intention to have (much more) youngsters in the future, rather than parental status. We also identified that the stereotype threat-utilization partnership remained significant in this evaluation ( = 0.12, p = 0.011). Ultimately, and consistent with all the prior benefits, there was no interaction among stereotype threat and parental status ( = 0.03, p = 0.533), or stereotype threat and intention to possess kids ( = 0.05, p = 0.556), in interest in using family-friendly policies.consequences, we conducted bootstrapped mediation analyses with ten,000 resamples (utilizing model 4 from the Approach macro; Hayes, 2008). There was no substantial indirect impact of stereotype threat on interest in utilization via perceived damaging profession consequences of using family-friendly policies (IE = -0.01, SE = 0.01, 95  CI: -0.04, 0.01). This study replicated our preceding findings that stereotype threat is positively related to perceived damaging profession consequences connected with applying family-friendly policies. Unexpectedly, nonetheless, stereotype threat was positively related with women's intentions to use work-family practices. Family-friendly policies may perhaps be perceived as a double-edged sword among females who practical experience stereotype threat ?women perceive the policies as damaging to their profession but feel they have no option but to utilize them. Importantly, nevertheless, we did not measure actual utilization, nor do we know no matter whether participants had access to family-friendly policies. Nonetheless, these information suggest that ladies who knowledge stereotype threat feel the rewards of these policies outweigh the prospective career charges linked with employing them. In an ideal planet, family-friendly policies could be an unmitigated plus, but the unfortunate reality seems to become that amongst females who encounter stereotype threat these policies (are perceived to) incur a cost.Basic DISCUSSIONEmployees in organizations that provide family-friendly policies and programs hold additional positive job attitudes and are significantly less likely to withdraw from perform (Kossek and Ozeki, 1998; Anderson et al., 2002; Kossek et al., 2014). The existing analysis, nonetheless, suggests that these advantages might not be realized amongst women who knowledge stereotype threat. Across two research (and a pilot study) with working ladies, we identified that stereotype threat was connected with the perception that taking advantage of family-friendly policies would have negative profession consequences. Interestingly, controlling for whether or not girls had children living at household (pilot study and Study two), or whether or not they intended to have children inside the future (Study two) didn't adjust any of your final results, suggesting that concerns surrounding family-friendly policies are relevant to all operating women, not only present or future mothers.Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.orgJanuary 2017 | Volume 7 | Articlevon Hippel et al.Family-Friendly PoliciesThe Disconnect amongst Perceived Profession Consequences and Interest in Policy UtilizationIronically, Study two suggests that, regardless of perceptions of negative profession consequences of utilizing these policies, girls who seasoned stereotype threat have been more serious about working with them. While the current research usually do not give data that assistance us comprehend this disconnect, you can find various possible explanations. F.
+
Oral anti-discrimination justification, "... ahead of judging one should very first get to understand other people who may be different", and 5) the ingroup memberNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptDev Psychol. Author manuscript; readily available in PMC 2014 August 08.Brenick and KillenPagebased on a social-conventional justification, "the ingroup members will be uncomfortable if X was invited."NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript ResultsLevel of Intergroup Contact--The 4-item Level of Intergroup Get in touch with measure assessed participants' individual experiences of intergroup make contact with with members of your outgroup. The measure was modified in the Diversity Assessment Questionnaire (see Crystal et al., 2008) to specify Arabs as the outgroup for use with this study (as defined within the scenarios). Example concerns incorporated: "How typically do you hang out with folks who are Arabs?" rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1, by no means, to 5, usually) and "How numerous friends do you have got who are Arabs?" rated on a 4-point Likert-type (1, none, to four, most or lots of). Cultural Identity Scale--The final section of your survey was the Cultural Identity Scale. In this section basic demographic info was collected including: age, gender, ethnicity, and religion. Participants' general cultural identity was assessed by way of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney, 1992), created making use of both social (SIT) and developmental (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1980) theories of identity, and 5 further items specifically reflecting cultural identity in regards to interpersonal relationships not assessed within the MEIM in the Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS; Nesdale, 1997). Participants rated their cultural identification on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1, strongly agree, to 5, strongly disagree) to very best describe their thoughts about each statement with regards to their cultural identification ("I feel good pride in getting a member of my cultural group," "I have spent time attempting to learn much more about my cultural group, which include its history, traditions, and customs.").Data Management Process Reliability coefficients were calculated for every scale. The cultural identity scale yielded a Cronbach's alpha of .89 and the intergroup get in touch with scale yielded a Cronbach's alpha of .88 (see Table 1 for scale implies). A confirmatory issue analysis was run around the 17-item cultural identity scale, with all the two defined variables in the MEIM,1) cultural identity commitment, belongingness, and affirmation (identity commitment), 2) cultural identity search and exploration (identity exploration), and also the third in the EIS supplemental products, three) cultural identity social relationships (identity concern for relationships). Full information maximum likelihood estimation was utilised to address missing information. The hypothesized threefactor model yielded only adequate match: RMSEA = .09 (90  self-assurance interval: .087 ?ten), SRMR = .09, CFI = .94. A brand new model was run with two products deleted ("I recognize fairly effectively what my cultural group membership signifies to me."; "I like the way individuals from my cultural group raise their kids.") for the reason that they were triple-loading and found to be as well common and abstract for the adolescent sample. The revised model yielded excellent match: RMSEA = .07 (90  confidence interval: .067 ?084), SRMR = .06, CFI = .96.

รุ่นแก้ไขเมื่อ 19:39, 26 สิงหาคม 2564

Oral anti-discrimination justification, "... just before judging a single ought to initially get to understand Oral anti-discrimination justification, "... ahead of judging one should very first get to understand other people who may be different", and 5) the ingroup memberNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptDev Psychol. Author manuscript; readily available in PMC 2014 August 08.Brenick and KillenPagebased on a social-conventional justification, "the ingroup members will be uncomfortable if X was invited."NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript ResultsLevel of Intergroup Contact--The 4-item Level of Intergroup Get in touch with measure assessed participants' individual experiences of intergroup make contact with with members of your outgroup. The measure was modified in the Diversity Assessment Questionnaire (see Crystal et al., 2008) to specify Arabs as the outgroup for use with this study (as defined within the scenarios). Example concerns incorporated: "How typically do you hang out with folks who are Arabs?" rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1, by no means, to 5, usually) and "How numerous friends do you have got who are Arabs?" rated on a 4-point Likert-type (1, none, to four, most or lots of). Cultural Identity Scale--The final section of your survey was the Cultural Identity Scale. In this section basic demographic info was collected including: age, gender, ethnicity, and religion. Participants' general cultural identity was assessed by way of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM; Phinney, 1992), created making use of both social (SIT) and developmental (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1980) theories of identity, and 5 further items specifically reflecting cultural identity in regards to interpersonal relationships not assessed within the MEIM in the Ethnic Identity Scale (EIS; Nesdale, 1997). Participants rated their cultural identification on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1, strongly agree, to 5, strongly disagree) to very best describe their thoughts about each statement with regards to their cultural identification ("I feel good pride in getting a member of my cultural group," "I have spent time attempting to learn much more about my cultural group, which include its history, traditions, and customs.").Data Management Process Reliability coefficients were calculated for every scale. The cultural identity scale yielded a Cronbach's alpha of .89 and the intergroup get in touch with scale yielded a Cronbach's alpha of .88 (see Table 1 for scale implies). A confirmatory issue analysis was run around the 17-item cultural identity scale, with all the two defined variables in the MEIM,1) cultural identity commitment, belongingness, and affirmation (identity commitment), 2) cultural identity search and exploration (identity exploration), and also the third in the EIS supplemental products, three) cultural identity social relationships (identity concern for relationships). Full information maximum likelihood estimation was utilised to address missing information. The hypothesized threefactor model yielded only adequate match: RMSEA = .09 (90 self-assurance interval: .087 ?ten), SRMR = .09, CFI = .94. A brand new model was run with two products deleted ("I recognize fairly effectively what my cultural group membership signifies to me."; "I like the way individuals from my cultural group raise their kids.") for the reason that they were triple-loading and found to be as well common and abstract for the adolescent sample. The revised model yielded excellent match: RMSEA = .07 (90 confidence interval: .067 ?084), SRMR = .06, CFI = .96.

ดึงข้อมูลจาก "https://wiki.surinsanghasociety.com/index.php?title=หน้าหลัก&oldid=332281"