Introduction 1. Woman's Place in Man's Life Cycle 2. Images of Relationship 3. Concepts of Self and Morality 4. Crisis and Transition 5. Women's Rights and Women's Judgment 6. Visions of Maturity References Index of Study Participants General Index

In a Different Voice. Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA (Harvard University Press) 1982.

Allport specified four conditions for optimal intergroup contact: equal group status within the situation, common goals, intergroup cooperation and authority support. Varied research supports the hypothesis, but four problems remain. 1. A selection bias limits cross-sectional studies, since prejudiced people avoid intergroup contact. Yet research finds that the positive effects of cross-group friendship are larger than those of the bias. 2. Writers overburden the hypothesis with facilitating, but not essential, conditions. 3. The hypothesis fails to address process. The chapter proposes four processes: learning about the outgroup, changed behavior, affective ties, and ingroup reappraisal. 4. The hypothesis does not specify how the effects generalize to other situations, the outgroup or uninvolved outgroups. Acting sequentially, three strategies enhance generalizationodecategorization, salient categorization, and recategorization. Finally, both individual differences and societal norms shape intergroup contact effects. The chapter outlines a longitudinal intergroup contact theory. It distinguishes between essential and facilitating factors, and emphasizes different outcomes for different stages of contact.

http://majorsmatter.net/race/Readings/Pettigrew%201998.pdf

Intergroup contact theory

Obese individuals are highly stigmatized and face multiple forms of prejudice and discrimination because of their weight (1,2). The prevalence of weight discrimination in the United States has increased by 66% over the past decade (3), and is comparable to rates of racial discrimination, especially among women (4). Weight bias translates into inequities in employment settings, health-care facilities, and educational institutions, often due to widespread negative stereotypes that overweight and obese persons are lazy, unmotivated, lacking in selfdiscipline, less competent, noncompliant, and sloppy (2,5–7). These stereotypes are prevalent and are rarely challenged in Western society, leaving overweight and obese persons vulnerable to social injustice, unfair treatment, and impaired quality of life as a result of substantial disadvantages and stigma. In 2001, Puhl and Brownell published the first comprehensive review of several decades of research documenting bias and stigma toward overweight and obese persons (2). This review summarized weight stigma in domains of employment, health care, and education, demonstrating the vulnerability of obese persons to many forms of unfair treatment. Despite evidence of weight bias in important areas of living, the authors noted many gaps in research regarding the nature and extent of weight stigma in various settings, the lack of science on emotional and physical health consequences of weight bias, and the paucity of interventions to reduce negative stigma. In recent years, attention to weight bias has increased, with a growing recognition of the pervasiveness of weight bias and stigma, and its potential harmful consequences for obese persons. The aim of this article is to provide an update of scientific evidence on weight bias toward overweight and obese adults through a systematic review of published literature since the 2001 article by Puhl and Brownell. This review expands upon previous findings of weight bias in major domains of living, documents new areas where weight bias has been studied, and highlights ongoing research questions that need to be addressed to advance this field of study. A systematic literature search of studies published between January 2000 and May 2008 was undertaken on computerized psychological, medical, social science, sport, and education databases including PsycINFO, PubMed, SCOPUS, ERIC, and SPORTDiscus. The following keyword combinations were used: weight, obese, obesity, overweight, BMI, fat, fatness, size, heavy, large, appearance, big, heavyweight, bias, biased, discrimination, discriminatory, discriminate, stigma, stigmatized, stigmatization, prejudice, prejudicial, stereotype(s), stereotypical, stereotyping, victimization, victimize(d), blame(d), blaming, shame(d), shaming, teasing, tease(d), unfair, bully, bullying, harassment, assumptions, attributions, education, health, health care, sales, employment, wages, promotion, adoption, jury, customer service, housing, media, television. Reference lists of retrieved articles and books were also reviewed, and manual searches were conducted in the databases and journals for authors who had published in this field. Most studies retrieved for this review were published in the United States. Any articles published internationally are noted with their country of origin. Research on weight stigma in adolescents and children was excluded from this review, as this literature was recently reviewed elsewhere (8). Unpublished manuscripts and dissertations were also excluded. In addition, issues pertaining to measurement of weight stigmatization, and demographic variables affecting vulnerability to weight bias such as gender, age, race, and body weight are not addressed in this review. This article instead primarily reviews the evidence of specific areas where weight bias occurs toward adults and its consequences for those affected. This article is organized similarly to the first review published by Puhl and Brownell (2), with sections on weight bias in settings of employment, health care, and education. New sections have been added including weight bias in interpersonal relationships and the media, as well as psychological and physical health consequences of weight bias, and the status of stigma-reduction research. As with the 2001 article, this review also provides an update on legal initiatives to combat weight discrimination, and outlines specific questions for future research.

https://www.sochob.cl/pdf/obesidad_adulto/The%20Stigma%20of%20Obesity%20%20A%20Review%20and%20Update.pdf

The stigma of obesity: a review and update.

Empathy accounts for the naturally occurring subjective experience of similarity between the feelings expressed by self and others without loosing sight of whose feelings belong to whom. Empathy involves not only the affective experience of the other person’s actual or inferred emotional state but also some minimal recognition and understanding of another’s emotional state. In light of multiple levels of analysis ranging from developmental psychology, social psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and clinical neuropsychology, this article proposes a model of empathy that involves parallel and distributed processing in a number of dissociable computational mechanisms. Shared neural representations, self-awareness, mental flexibility, and emotion regulation constitute the basic macrocomponents of empathy, which are underpinned by specific neural systems. This functional model may be used to make specific predictions about the various empathy deficits that can be encountered in different forms of social and neu...

The functional architecture of human empathy

HIV and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination: a conceptual framework and implications for action.

Results of 3 experiments suggest that feeling empathy for a member of a stigmatized group can improve attitudes toward the group as a whole. In Experiments 1 and 2, inducing empathy for a young woman with AIDS (Experiment 1) or a homeless man (Experiment 2) led to more positive attitudes toward people with AIDS or toward the homeless, respectively. Experiment 3 tested possible limits of the empathy-attitude effect by inducing empathy toward a member of a highly stigmatized group, convicted murderers, and measuring attitudes toward this group immediately and then 1-2 weeks later. Results provided only weak evidence of improved attitudes toward murderers immediately but strong evidence of improved attitudes 1-2 weeks later.

Empathy and Attitudes: Can Feeling for a Member of a Stigmatized Group Improve Feelings Toward the Group?

Three experiments tested whether empathy evokes egoistic motivation to share vicariously in the victim's joy at improvement (the empathic-joy hypothesis) instead of altruistic motivation to increase the victim's welfare (the empathy-altruism hypothesis). In Experiment 1, Ss induced to feel either low or high empathy for a young woman in need were given a chance to help her. Some believed that if they helped they would receive feedback about her improvement; others did not. In Experiments 2 and 3, Ss induced to feel either low or high empathy were given a choice of getting update information about a needy person's condition. Before choosing, they were told the likelihood of the person's condition having improved--and of their experiencing empathic joy--was 20%, was 50%, or was 80%. Results of none of the experiments patterned as predicted by the empathic-joy hypothesis; instead, results of each were consistent with the empathy-altruism hypothesis.

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/61/3/413.pdf

Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis.

Across 3 small studies, 80 female undergraduates were confronted with the dilemma of deciding whom-themselves or another research participant-to assign to a positive consequences task, leaving the other to do a dull, boring task. In Study 1, where morality was not mentioned, 16 of 20 assigned themselves to the positive consequences task, even though in retrospect only 1 said this was moral. In Studies 2 and 3, a moral strategy was suggested: either flipping a coin or accepting task assignment by the experimenter. In Study 2, 10 of 20 participants flipped a coin, but of these, 9 assigned themselves the positive consequences task. In Study 3, participants were significantly more likely to accept the experimenter's assignment when it gave them the positive consequences task. Overall, results suggested motivation to appear moral yet still benefit oneself. Such motivation is called moral hypocrisy.

In a very different voice: unmasking moral hypocrisy.

The empathy-altruism hypothesis claims that prosocial motivation associated with feeling empathy for a person in need is directed toward the ultimate goal of benefiting that person, not toward some subtle form of self-benefit. We explored two new egoistic alternatives to this hypothesis. The empathy-specific reward hypothesis proposes that the prosocial motivation associated with empathy is directed toward the goal of obtaining social or self-rewards (i.e., praise, honor, and pride). The empathy-specific punishment hypothesis proposes that this motivation is directed toward the goal of avoiding social or self-punishments (i.e., censure, guilt, and shame). Study 1 provided an initial test of the empathy-specific reward hypothesis. Studies 2 through 4 used three procedures to test the empathy-specific punishment hypothesis. In Study 5, a Stroop procedure was used to assess the role of reward-relevant, punishment-relevant, and victim-relevant cognitions in mediating the empathy-helping relationship. Results of these five studies did not support either the empathy-specific reward or the empathy-specific punishment hypothesis. Instead, results of each supported the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Evidence that empathic emotion evokes altruistic motivation continues to mount.

C D Batson

Papers

Empathy and Attitudes: Can Feeling for a Member of a Stigmatized Group Improve Feelings Toward the Group?

Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis.

In a very different voice: unmasking moral hypocrisy.

Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis.