Mark Nolan

Responses to powerlessness: Stereotyping as an instrument of social conflict.

In the context of recent arguments that stereotyping plays an important role in the subjugation of powerless groups, this article explores the possibility that stereotyping may also contribute to social change processes engaged in by the disadvantaged. In a partial replication of an experiment by S. C. Wright, D. M. Taylor, and F.M. Moghaddam (1990), participants (N = 44) were placed in powerless, low-status groups and denied entry to an attractive high-status group. The intergroup boundary was open, slightly permeable, or completely impermeable. Participants could respond to this disadvantage in 1 of 3 ways: acceptance, individual protest, or collective protest. As predicted, open boundaries produced acceptance and reproduction of stereotypes consistent with the established status relationship, whereas closed boundaries encouraged collective protest and stereotypes that challenged the powerful groups position.

An examination of resource-based and fit-based theories of stereotyping under cognitive load and fit

Should stereotyping be characterised as an act of cognitive miserliness of one of rational meaning-seeking? This paper uses a cognitive load paradigm to investigate the adequacy of popular resource-based explanations of stereotyping in comparison to art alternative fit-based or meaning-based explanation, in Experiment 1, load was increased by means of concurrent tasks within a highly fitting context (where targets generally behaved bz a stereotype-consistent fashion). A linear decrease in stereotyping resulted as measured by category confusions on a who-said,what recognition task (Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff & Ruderman, 1978). This outcome is inconsistent with a resource-based analysis of stereotyping. Experiment 2 manipulated load as stimulus exposure rime. Although load was successfully, imposed in this second experiment, stereotyping neither increased nor decreased as a function of lend. The concept of cognitive load and the importance of fit for the analysis of stereotyping are discussed. Copyright (C) 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Some legal and psychological benefits of a nationally uniform and general anti-discrimination law in Australia

Australians are currently protected from discrimination by various modes of State and Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation. This often leads to inconsistencies in the protection available nationwide. No state has referred its power to legislate against discriminatory behaviour to the Commonwealth under s 51 (xxxvii) of the Commonwealth Constitution. Importantly, Commonwealth antidiscrimination legislation explicitly preserves the concurrent legislative power of the States and does not purport to cover the field, allowing concurrent regulation where possible.l While the Commonwealth has separate statutes dealing with each type of discrimination,2 the states have tended to deal with all types of discrimination in one general anti-discrimination Act.3 To some extent, this difference may reflect the different limits on the exercise of state legislative power vis-a-vis Commonwealth legislative power.4 The various modes of anti-discrimination law across Australia also reflect various phases of international treaty making and legislative response to different eras of consciousness raising about discrimination.

Effectiveness of Question Trails as Jury Decision Aids: the Jury's Still Out

Despite its importance, research has revealed limitations in jury decision-making and has sought to develop processes for its improvement. Using 92 individual mock jurors, this study examined the use of question trails (QTs) as decision aids, testing a cognitive load explanation of their benefits and investigating individual differences in need for cognition (NFC) and need for cognitive closure (NFCC). Only limited evidence was obtained suggesting significant improvements due to QTs, and results failed to find a mediating role for extrinsic references as cognitive load explanations propose. QTs did not appear to increase decision confidence or significantly reduce perceived difficulty, leading rather, for some offences, to lower confidence. Inconclusive evidence was obtained consistent with a moderating role for individual NFC and NFCC on QT effectiveness. Implications for future research, theoretical understandings of jury decision-making, and the use of QTs in the legal system are discussed.