به طور حتم موقعيت، موفقيت و خوشحالي كنوني شما حاصل كارهاي گذشته تان است. اگر از شرايط موجود راضي نيستيد سعي كنيد كاري انجام دهيد. موفقيت و خوشبختي ما نتيجه رفتارهاي محكم و مداوم ماست. اما فعاليت هاي نامنظم و پراكنده اثر مثبتي به دنبال نخواهند داشت. در حقيقت موفقيت ما نتيجه عادت هاي خوب است. كارهاي منظم و پيوسته در زندگي همانند سكاني است كه خوشبختي ما را هدايت مي كنند.

براي رسيدن به خواسته هاي خود و دستيابي به موفقيت عادات خوب و پسنديده خود را پرورش دهيد. متاسفانه بسياري از عادات ما نتيجه تصميم گيري منطقي و افكار آگاهانه ما نيستند. در حقيقت عادات ما انعكاس تجربه و انگيزه است اگر تجربه هاي منفي فراواني داشته باشيم، به طور حتم واكنش هاي منفي از ما يك راه حل مناسب براي كنترل عادت ها، انگيزه است و اينكه چقدر با انگيزه هستيم. اگر در زندگي انگيزه كافي داشته باشيم، اشتياق اجتناب ناپذير براي خوشبختي ، ازترس و ناكامي سبقت مي گيرد.

چهار روش براي با انگيزه بودن:

هدف هاي خود را انتخاب كنيد. زماني كه اهدافتان را تعيين كرديد علاقه شما براي كسب آنها بزرگترين انگيزه تان در زندگي خواهد شد. اهداف بزرگ، كوچك، هدف هاي شخصي، كاري، مالي يا معنوي و ... همه آنها را يادداشت كنيد و براي رسيدن به آن ها اقدام نماييد.

كار روزانه خود را بعد از انتخاب هدف شروع كرده و هر روز حتي اگر شده يك قدم به طرف جلو حركت كنيد، بزرگي و كوچكي آن مهم نيست. تلفن كردن ، كتاب خواندن و ... كميت مهم نيست فقط كاري انجام دهيد. هر كدام از اين موارد شما را به هدفتان نزديكتر مي كند و موقعيت هاي بزرگي را براي شما به ارمغان مي آورد. به خاطر داشته باشيد يك عادت چيزي جز تكرار يك رفتار نيست. كارهاي روزانه عادات شما را محكم تر مي كنند و شما ناخودآگاه آنها را انجام مي دهيد.

وجود ما منطق محض نيست. ما موجوداتي احساساتي و عاطفي هستيم. با همين احساس، ذهن ما بزرگترن نقشه هاي تجاري و مالي را تصور مي كند و عملي مي سازد. هر زماني كه موفق مي شويد بدون در نظر گرفتن كميت آن بدانيد كه يك قدم به هدف خود نزديكتر شده ايد. دلايلي را كه مي خواهيد به هدف مورد نظر خود دست يابيد يادداشت كنيد ( نكات مثبت ) و بار ديگر نكات منفي و مواردي كه فرصت به دست آوردن آنها را از دست داده ايد يادداشت نماييد.

مسوول باشيد و خودتان را كنار نكشيد. از سرزنش كردن والدين همسر،‌ فرزند و رييس تان بپرهيزيد. در حقيقت اين زندگي شماست. نگوييد اگر مي توانستم انجام مي دادم بگوييد مي توانم و انجام مي دهم و به ياد داشته باشيد كه شما نه تنها مسوول زندگي خودتان هستند بلكه بايد تمام تلاش خود را در ان لحظه به كار گيريد تا در دقايق بعدي بهترين ها نصيبتان شود.

                                                              مصرف  كنندگان سيگار

در ايران 15% از جمعيت عمومي سيگار ميكشند. درافراد بالاي 19 سال 25% مردان و5% از زنان از سيگار استفاده ميكنند. مصرف سيگار باعث بيش از 2000 مرگ در هفته ميشود. مخارج سيگار در ايران روزانه 3 ميليارد ريال و در سال هزار ميليارد ريال است. شايعترين بيماريهاي وابسته سرطانهای ريه، دهان و حنجره، برونشيت مزمن، مشكلات قلبي- عروقي وسكتة مغزي هستند. سيگار خطر ناتواني جنسي در مردان را بالا برده و قدرت باروري را در زنان كاهش ميدهد. مصرف سيگار در طول دوران حاملگي موجب افزايش خطر سقط و تولد نوزاد با وزن كم ميشود. در هر زمان معمولاً 75% از سيگاريها قصد ترك دارند.

آثار مخرب

مواد مخرب سيگار عبارتند از:

نيكوتين: ‌باعث افزايش ضربان قلب و كاهش اشتها ميشود. در مقادير بالاتر اثرات خواب‌آوري نيز دارد. نيکوتين بسيار اعتياد آور بوده و علايم ترك آن شامل تحريك پذيري، اضطراب، افسردگي، كاهش تمركز، گرسنگي، سرگيجه و ولع بسيار براي مصرف است.

منواكسيد كربن:  گازی سمي است كه باعث كاهش اكسيژن خون و مانع از كارايي موثر ميشود.

تار (TAR): حدود 70% به هنگام استنشاق در ريه رسوب ميكند و در طول مجاري هوايي نيز تخريب به بار خواهد آورد.

فوايد ناشي از ترك:

 ¨  بيست دقيقه بعد از آخرين سيگار، فشارخون، ضربان قلب و درجه حرارت بدن به سطح طبيعي برميگردد.

 ¨  درعرض 48 ساعت انتهاهاي عصبي شروع به رشد كرده و حس چشايي و بويايي افزايش مي يابد.

   ¨         در عرض 9-1 ماه سرفه، نفس تنگي و خستگي كاهش و سطح انرژي افزايش مي يابد .

 ¨  تقريباً 5 سال بعد از ترك خطر بيماري‌هاي وابسته به سيگار به اندازة افراد غيرسيگاري ميشود.

چگونه كمك كنيم؟

بهترين راه براي ترك، مشاوره با متخصص است. درمانهاي جايگزين نيكوتين، دارو و حمايتهاي رفتاري جزو اصول اوليه اند. درمان جايگزين نيكوتين براي افراد با مصرف بيش از ده نخ سيگار در روز مفيد است. پس از آنكه مصرف قطع شد اين درمان شروع ميشود و در فرم هاي مختلف برچسب هاي پوستي، آدامس، اسپري بيني، استنشاقي و قرص زير زباني وجود دارد. چنانچه با درمانهاي رفتاري همراه شود شانس ترك و عدم بازگشت به مصرف را دوبرابر ميكند. داروهايي نيز مورد استفاده قرار ميگيرند كه نياز به نظارت پزشکی دارند.

مشكلات شايع ترك:

 ¨  ولع: ‌بيمار را مطمئن كنيد كه ولع به مدت طولاني نمانده و با استفاده از داروها و نيكوتين جايگزين قابل كمتر شدن است.

 ¨  افزايش وزن: يكي از دلايل اوليه بازگشت به خصوص ميان خانمها افزايش وزن است كه به دليل بازگشت اشتها و بهبودي حس بويايي و چشايي اتفاق مي افتد و البته با ورزش و رژيم قابل پيشگيري است.

 ¨  بي حوصلگي:  بسياري از سيگاريها نه تنها با علايم ترك بلكه با نبودن يك رفتار آرامبخش بايد كنار آمده و بياموزند كه روشي بجاي سيگار براي خود پيدا كنند

    شناسايي دانشجويان داراي مشكلات عاطفي ـ رفتاري  

 افرادي كه مشكلات و ناراحتي هاي عاطفي ـ رفتاري را تجربه مي كنند، غالباً علايمي از خود بروز مي دهند كه دلالت بر مشكلات و ناراحتي هاي عاطفي ـ هيجاني دارد. سعي اوليه افراد اين است كه خود به شكلي با اين علايم و مشكلات مقابله كنند اما معمولاً اين تلاشها قرين توفيق نيست و وضعيت فرد رفته به رفته وخيم تر مي شود و علايم با شدت بيشتر بروز مي كنند. شاخص هاي زير در تشخيص مشكلات عاطفي ـ رفتاري مي تواند مفيد  واقع شود:

philosophy of Mind

‘Philosophy of mind’, and ‘philosophy of psychology’ are two terms for the same general area of philosophicalinquiry: the nature of mental phenomena and their connection with behaviour and, in more recent discussions, the brain.

Much work in this area reflects a revolution in psychology that began mid-century. Before then, largely in reaction totraditional claims about the mind being non-physical (see Dualism; Descartes), many thought that a scientific psychologyshould avoid talk of ‘private’ mental states. Investigation of such states had seemed to be based on unreliable introspection(see Introspection, psychology of), not subject to independent checking (see Private language argument), and to invitedubious ideas of telepathy (see Parapsychology). Consequently, psychologists like B.F. Skinner and J.B. Watson, andphilosophers like W.V. Quine and Gilbert Ryle argued that scientific psychology should confine itself to studying publiclyobservable relations between stimuli and responses (see Behaviourism, methodological and scientific; Behaviourism,analytic).

However, in the late 1950s, several developments began to change all this: (i) The experiments behaviourists themselves ranon animals tended to refute behaviouristic hypotheses, suggesting that the behaviour of even rats had to be understood interms of mental states (see Learning; Animal language and thought). (ii) The linguist Noam Chomsky drew attention to thesurprising complexity of the natural languages that children effortlessly learn, and proposed ways of explaining thiscomplexity in terms of largely unconscious mental phenomena. (iii) The revolutionary work of Alan Turing (see Turingmachines) led to the development of the modern digital computer. This seemed to offer the prospect of creating Artificialintelligence, and also of providing empirically testable models of intelligent processes in both humans and animals. (iv)Philosophers came to appreciate the virtues of realism, as opposed to instrumentalism, about theoretical entities in general.

Social perception theories and investigations deal with the nature, causes, and consequences of perceptions of social entities, including one's self, other individuals, social categories, and aggregates or groups to which one may or may not belong. The content of a perception can be virtually any property. Individual attributes may include personality traits, behavioral dispositions, physical characteristics, and ability evaluations. Group attributes can include properties such as size, cohesiveness, cultural traits, stratification patterns, network patterns, legitimacy, and historical elements. With some notable exceptions, however, the field of social perception traditionally has emphasized the micro side, focusing on individual inferences regarding one individual or a very small number of other individuals.

Social perception is best viewed as an umbrella label that covers a range of loosely related and usually loosely formulated theoretical conjectures and associated research. Today "social cognition" may be the more popular label, subsuming theory and research indexed under numerous other headings: person perception, social judgment, social representation, schema theory, reference group theory, impression formation, attribution theory, and more. Little of this work will be discussed here, although most of it is easy to access. Reference lists in books, chapters, and articles under the variou

From Social Perception to Public Expression of Opinion: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach to the Spiral of Silence

Gregor Petri and Andrej Pinter

Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva pload 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenija, Email: gregor.petric@uni-lj.si
The Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana

The paper presents a test of the spiral of silence theory by means of a structural equation modeling approach. It first proposes an integral formal model, designed to capture interdependencies between the theory's central concepts. Certain conceptual developments are introduced: willingness to express opinion is separated from actual expression of opinion in public; perception of opinion climate and of opinion trends are conceptualized as interactions between individuals' own preferences and stimuli from the social environment; fear of isolation is conceptualized as a variable conditioned by social perception; the role of normative import is conceptualized as specific to particular issues. Accordingly, the paper presents measures and analytical instruments for the test of the formal model. The informative methodological approach is adopted in order to control for possible errors, which determine the quality of empirical procedures. Results show that only parts of the theoretical model are confirmed. They strongly emphasize: (1) the role of social perception; (2) that complex social perception mechanisms shape willingness to express opinion; and (3) that fear of isolation to some extent also explains willingness to express opinion. However, while fear of isolation reduces willingness to express opinion, it does not itself decrease when opinions are congruent with the majority. The paper concludes with a discussion of possible theoretical and methodological explanations for our findings.

افرادي که از نظر عمومي کمرو هستند  

به عقيده ي شما کدام گروه از اين دو نوع افراد کمرو ، کمرويي خويش را " مشکل " بزرگتري مي بينند؟ به نظر مي رسد باري که بر دوش افراد کمرو از نظر عمومي قرار دارد، سنگين تر از بار افراد گروه ديگر است. احساسات آنان بر عملکردشان تأثير مي گذارد که متعاقباً بر ارزيابي ديگران از آنان اثر مي بخشد و در نهايت بر طرز تفکرشان درباره ي خودشان تأثير دارد. احساسات بد، عملکرد ناشايست ، رتبه بندي ضعيف گفتار و رفتار ، عزت نفس پايين و ...

نسل جوان در تيررس افسردگي

تحقيقات نشان مي دهد كه از هر ده نفر تقريباً يك نفر از افسردگي رنج مي برد و زنان دو برابر مردان به اين بيماري مبتلا مي شوند

بحث افسردگي با توجه به شرايط خاص جامعه ما ظرفيت اين را دارد كه از قالب بحث در مورد يك بيماري رواني در حيطه پزشكي ، به جامعه شناسي پزشكي و يك بحث اجتماعي وارد شود..

شرايط خاص جامعه ما به عنوان يك كشور جهان سومي و در حال گذار همراه با گذراندن پروسه اجتماعي و سياسي انقلاب و جنگ و تحولات متأثر از ارتباط با جهان خارج ، به حتم تأثيرات خاصي در جامعه پديد مي آورد كه حجم بالاي جمعيت جوان كشور ما به شكل بارزي در معرض آن قرار مي گيرد.

اين مطلب مي كوشد تا به زواياي مختلف افسردگي در افراد جامعه بپردازد.

افسردگي، خانواده، جامعه

فرد افسرده با تجربه ذهني ناراحتي شديد، فقدان احساس كنترل بر خلق و عواطف و تغيير در سطح فعاليت ، عدم علاقه و احساس گناه، افت در عملكرد شغلي و روابط اجتماعي را تجربه مي كند. تحقيقات دال بر اين امرند كه از هر ده نفر تقريباً يك نفر از افسردگي رنج مي برد و زنان دو برابر مردان به اين بيماري مبتلا مي شوند. شيوع افسردگي در زنان جوان بيشتر است و با افزايش سن كاهش مي يابد، در حالي كه شيوع آن در مردان جوان كمتر است و افزايش آن با سن نسبت مستقيم دارد

بسياري از اختلالات رفتاري و رواني، ناشي از نوع ارتباطات غلط کلامي و غيرکلامي در درون نظام خانواده است. در اين بخش تعدادي از اين اختلالات که به طور مستقيم يا غيرمستقيم، پيامد اين گونه ارتباطات است، مورد بررسي قرار مي گيرد.

1- دروغ گويي:

شايع ترين و بارزترين اختلال در درون نظام خانواده که بين اعضا ، ايجاد عدم اعتماد و اطمينان مي کند، دروغ گويي است. اين عمل با نتيجه ي مستقيم يادگيري توسط ساير اعضاي خانواده است يا نتيجه ي ترس و شرم و حجب و حيا يا به خاطر تکبر و غروري است که معمولاً بزرگ ترها نسبت به يکديگر يا نسبت به اعضاي کوچک تر خانواده دارند.

2- اختلالات گفتاري:

اختلالات گفتاري دسته اي از اختلالات هستند که به نحوي در بيان و درک گفتار ايجاد مشکل مي نمايند. شايع ترين آن ها لکنت زبان است. اگر در ايجاد اختلال لکنت ، شيوه هاي ارتباطي نقش قاطع و تعيين کننده اي ندارند، اما در بروز و تشديد آن تأثير بسزايي دارند. نحوه ي برخورد با لکنت فرد مبتلا توسط ساير اعضا، مثلاً تکرار کلام به صورت تقليد از فرد مبتلا يا مسخره کردن او در جمع به اشکال مختلف، نه تنها مشکل گفتاري را تشديد مي کند، بلکه عزت نفس و اعتماد به نفس فرد مبتلا را کاهش مي دهد.

3- اختلالات تيک:

اختلالات تيک به حرکت يا ايجاد اصوات غيرارادي، ناگهاني، سريع، ناموزون و حرکت کليشه اي مداوم بدن، اطلاق مي شود. اختلال تيک به دو صورت گذرا و مزمن تقسيم مي شود و هر کدام شامل تيک صوتي و حرکتي است.

نحوه ي برخورد کلامي يا تقليد رفتارهاي فرد مبتلا به تيک يا مسخره کردن حرکات او هم در مورد تيک هاي صوتي ، و هم در مورد تيک هاي حرکتي، به شدت ، اختلال تيک را افزايش داده، فرآيند بهبودي را به تأخير مي اندازد.

4- بي اختياري ادرار:

مشکل بي اختياري ادرار يا شب ادراري يکي از مشکلات شايع دوران کودکي است. امروزه مشخص گرديده که مسائل و مشکلات گذرا و ديرپاي درون خانواده علاوه بر نقشي که در بروز و پديدآيي اين اختلال دارند، در تشديد و تداوم آن نقشي اساسي تر و جدي تر خواهند داشت. آموزش هاي غلط کلامي در مورد کنترل ادرار، تذکرهاي نابجا و سخت گيري هاي بي مورد از جلمه علل رواني – اجتماعي بي اختياري ادرارند. علاوه بر آن، بيان مشکل بي اختياري در بين اعضاي خانواده و ساير افراد، دادن القاب و اسامي خاص به کودکان مبتلا و هر گونه تحقير و تنبيه کلامي که در مورد فرد مبتلا به اين اختلال اعمال مي شود، در کاهش اعتماد به نفس و ارزش خود تأثير مي گذارد ، و دامنه و طول مدت بي اختياري را افزايش مي دهد.

5- اختلالات اضطرابي:

اختلالات اضطرابي به شکل هاي مختلف از جمله اضطراب منتشر، اضطراب جدايي، ترس هاي مرضي، وسواس فکري و عملي بروز مي کنند که يکي از علل مهم اضطراب، مخصوصاً در مورد ترس هاي غيرمنطقي و وسواس، عامل يادگيري است. نوع کلامي که توسط والدين و بزرگ ترها در مواجهه با موقعيت هاي خاص مثل: مواجه شدن با يک حشره، حيوان يا رعد و برق و امثال آن به کار برده مي شود يا رفتارهاي غيرکلامي که بروز داده مي شوند، در ايجاد ترس هاي مرضي يا غير منطقي نقش اساسي دارند. رفتارهاي کلامي و غيرکلامي در مورد نظافت، نظم و ترتيب، شست و شو، آداب و رسوم و امثال آن توسط اطرافيان، زمينه ساز و تشديد کننده ي وسواس هاي فکري و عملي اند. رفتارهاي تهديد آميز والدين نسبت به يکديگر، تهديد والدين براي جدايي و طلاق، گفت و گوي مداوم درباره ي مسائل بيمناک و هراس آور، ژست هاي ترسناک گرفتن، بيان ترس و شيوه ي ابراز آن، تنبيه هاي کلامي خطرناک و ... در ايجاد و تشديد اضطراب جدايي، اضطراب منتشر و ترس هاي دوران کودکي بسيار مؤثرند.

6- رفتارهاي کليشه اي و عادتي:

رفتارهاي عادتي يا کليشه اي مثل ناخن جويدن، دسته ي ديگري از اختلالات اند که نوع ارتباط کلامي يا غيرکلامي اطرافيان در تشديد و حتي پديد آوردن پاره اي از آنها نقش دارند. به عنوان مثال ناخن جويدن مي تواند ناشي از رفتار غير کلامي يکي از اعضاي خانواده در مواجهه با يک حالت هيجاني باشد که از طريق مشاهده و انتقال آن، يکي ديگر از اعضا را نيز مبتلا مي سازد.

7- کودک آزاري:

ساده ترين و در عين حال گسترده ترين عوارض ارتباط هاي کلامي و غير کلامي نامناسب در پديده ي کودک آزاري مشاهده مي شود. اگر کودک آزاري را طيف دامنه داري از غفلت و بي توجهي تا آزار جسمي، جنسي و حتي قتل تعريف کنيم، رفتارهاي ارتباطي اطرافيان، مخصوصاً والدين، خواهران و برادران بزرگ تر در اعمال آن جايگاه ويژه اي دارد. استفاده از عبارت هاي تهديد کننده، تحقير کننده و کاربرد جملاتي که در آن ها به نوعي تماميت شخصي يا شخصيتي کودک مورد خطاب واقع مي شود. سندرم ( syndromeنشانگان ، تعدادي خصوصيات ، رويدادها يا رفتارها که به نظر مي رسد با هم ديده مي شوند يا به نحوي وابسته و هماهنگ هستند ) کودک آزاري را ايجاد و تشديد مي کند. کودکي که از اين اختلال و سندرم رنج مي برد، معمولاً خودپنداره ( تصور هر کس از خود ) و عزت نفس پاييني دارد. احساس ترس، گوشه گيري، افسردگي، درماندگي آموخته شده، اضطراب و اختلالات خواب از ديگر عوارض کودک آزاري است.

8- ناهنجاري هاي جنسي:

در پديد آمدن تداوم ناهنجاري هاي جنسي، در کودکان و نوجوانان، مخصوصاً گرايش هاي جنسي زودرس و حتي بلوغ جنسي زودرس، ارتباطات کلامي و غيرکلامي افراد بزرگسال تأثير انکار ناپذيري دارد. به کار بردن اصطلاحات و عبارات تحريک آميز نسبت به کودک يا در مقابل کودک، استفاده از اشاره ها و استعاره ها و لطيفه هاي تحريک آميز ، رفتارهاي تحريک کننده ي بدني و انجام رفتارهاي جنسي هر چند خفيف و ظريف ، از جمله ارتباط هاي کلامي و غيرکلامي مؤثر بر ناهنجارهاي جنسي در کودکان و نوجوانان به شمار مي آيند.

9 - اختلال سلوک

اختلال سلوک عبارت است از الگوي رفتاري مداومِ مقاوم که در آن حقوق اساسي ديگران يا هنجارهاي اجتماعي و اصول عمده ي متناسب با سن زير پا گذاشته مي شود.

خطر ابتلا به اختلال سلوک در کودکاني که يکي از والدين حقيقي يا والد خوانده ي آنها به اختلال شخصيت ضد اجتماعي مبتلاست يا يکي از برادران يا خواهران آنها مبتلا به اختلال سلوک است، بيشتر است. اين اختلال همچنين در کودکاني که والدين آنها وابستگي به الکل، اختلالات خلقي، اسکيزوفزني يا اختلال بيش فعالي همراه با عدم توجه يا اختلال سلوک داشته اند، شايع تر است. صرفنظر از تأثيرات وراثتي والدين بر کودکان که در اين اختلال گزارش شده، بخش عمده اي از رفتارهاي ضداجتماعي و مرتبط با اختلال سلوک و بزهکاري، ناشي از آموزش توسط پيام هاي کلامي و غير کلامي والدين، خواهران و برادران است.

10 - اختلال گستاخي ( لجبازي) يا بي اعتنايي مقابله اي:

اين اختلال عبارت است از: الگوي رفتاري منفي کارانه، خصمانه و بي اعتنا که حداقل به مدت شش ماه طول مي کشد و با خصوصياتي همچون زود عصباني شدن ، با بزرگسالان مشاجره کردن، عملاً مزاحمت فراهم کردن، کينه توزي، خشمگيني و حساسيت همراه است.

اختلال بي اعتنايي مقابله اي در خانواده هايي که حداقل يکي از والدين سابقه ي ابتلا به اختلال خلقي، اختلال بي اعتنايي مقابله اي، اختلال سلوک، اختلال شخصيت ضداجتماعي يا اختلال مربوط به مواد دارد، شايع تر است. کودکاني که مادران آنها از اختلال افسردگي رنج مي برند بيشتر به رفتار مقابله اي مبتلا مي شوند. ضمن توجه به تأثيرات وراثتي در بروز و پديد آيي اين اختلال (بي اعتنايي مقابله اي) ، رفتارهاي ارتباطي والدين مبتلا به اختلالات خلقي و سلوکي ، شخصيت ضداجتماعي يا اختلال مربوط به مواد و افسردگي نيز جايگاه ويژه اي دارد. اگر رفتارهاي کلامي و غيرکلامي والدين مبتلا به اختلالات فوق را که در برگيرنده ي پيام هاي ضداجتماعي، بزهکارانه و ناتواني در ابراز مناسب عاطفه و هيجان است، در نظر بگيريم ، هر يک به نوعي در ارسال پيام هاي نامناسب و حتي متضاد که گمراه کننده يا گيج کننده و گاهي عاري از محبت و دلبستگي است، دخالت دارند که به گونه اي در ايجاد اختلال لجبازي يا بي اعتنايي مقابله اي نمودار مي شوند.

بررسي دقيق تر سبب شناسي در مورد اختلالات، مخصوصاً اختلالات دوران کودکي نشان مي دهد که ارتباط هاي کلامي و غير کلامي اعضاي خانواده، مخصوصاً والدين در سال هاي اوليه ي کودکي، در شکل گيري و تداوم اين اختلالات نقشي کليدي داشته، گاهي علت اصلي در عدم بهبودي يک اختلال مي باشد. علاوه بر اختلال هاي شناخته شده که پيام هاي کلامي و غير کلامي در آنها نقش دارند، بسياري از مشکلات زودگذر و پايدار ارتباطي بين اعضا نيز هيچ دليل واضح ديگري جز مخدوش بودن پيام هاي ارتباطي ندارند. احساس کسالت و کدورت از يکديگر، قهر کردن، بي حوصلگي در تحمل يکديگر، ناتواني در ابراز عواطف عميق نسبت به يکديگر، ناتواني در بلند خنديدن، نق زدن، غر زدن، لجبازي کردن، عواطف دوگانه ي عشق و نفرت نسبت به يکديگر داشتن، حسادت و افکار آلوده به انتقام و .. از جمله ي اين گونه مشکلات هستند.

Social Perception & Attitudes

• Perceiving and Evaluating Other People
  • Attributions
  • Appearance
  • Stereotypes
• Perceiving & Evaluating the Self [skip]
• Attitudes
  • Functions of attitudes
  • Attitude-Behaviour relationship (or lack thereof)

What is Attitude?

• Cognitive component
  • Belief, idea
• Affective component
  • Emotion, valence
• Behavioural predisposition
  • Tendency to act

Functions of Attitudes

• Value-expressive
  • Self-concept
• Social-adjustive
  • Shared attitudes
• Defensive
  • Rationalizations
• Utilitarian
  • Guide behaviour

Attitudes and Behaviour toward Sexual Activity and Condom Use by High School Students

• High schools in St. Albert, early 1990s
• Install condom vending machines in washrooms?
• 41% of Grade 11 students reported being sexually active
• Positive attitude towards condoms and their use

• 41% of sexually active students reported no or infrequent condom use
• Influences items as part of follow-up survey

Ajzen’s Model
 
 

Questionnaire Items

• Attitude
  • Towards condoms and their use
  • Engagement in other "risky" behaviours
• Norms
  • Influence of peer group
  • Family status
  • Relgious/moral beliefs
• Control
  • Self-concept
  • Knowledge
  • Concern

Attitude Items . . .

• Toward condoms and their use
  • If you carry condoms, people will think you are promiscuous (sleep around).
  • Using condoms reduces sensation.
  • I would be afraid to carry condoms in case my parents found out.
  • I would talk with my partner about using condoms before having sexual intercourse.
  • I would feel comfortable about buying condoms in a store.
• Engagement in other "risky" behaviours
  • I smoke tobacco.
  • I use prescription or non-prescription drugs for non-medical reasons.
  • If I am drinking, I/my friends use a designate driver.

Norm Items . . .

• Influence of peer group
  • I would rather be a follower than a leader.
  • I like to be part of a group.
  • The greatest influence in my life has been my friends.
  • Who or what has had an influence over your decision about whether or not to have sexual intercourse? (Answer = sexual partner or friends)
• Family status
  • The greatest influence in my life has been my family.
  • Who or what has had an influence over your decision about whether or not to have sexual intercourse? (Answer = family)
• Religious/moral beliefs
  • The greatest influence in my life has been my religious or moral beliefs.
  • Who or what has had an influence over your decision about whether or not to have sexual intercourse? (Answer = religious or moral beliefs)

Perceived Control Items . . .

• Self-concept
  • I have confidence in myself.
  • I am self-motivated.
  • I cope easily with change.
  • I feel depressed most of the time.
  • I find it difficult to make decisions.
• Knowledge about STDs, pregnancy, and their prevention
  • Condoms can be used for birth control.
  • Condoms can protect you against AIDS.
  • It is okay to use a friend’s prescription to treat yourself.
  • You can’t get pregnant if you pull out early.
• Personal concern about STDs and pregnancy
  • Who or what has had an influence over your decision about whether or not to have sexual intercourse? (Answer = concern about STDs or pregnancy)
  • If you are or were to become sexually active, how might your knowledge about AIDS and other STDs affect your behaviour?

Predictors of Sexual Activity & Condom Use
 

Factor	Sexual Activity	Condom Use
Attitude
toward condoms	- -	pos
risky behaviours	- -	neg
Norms
peer group	- -	neg
family status	- -	pos
beliefs	pos	- -
Control
self-concept	neg	- -
knowledge	- -	neg
concern	pos	(pos)

Predicting Sexual Activity
 
 

Predicting Condom Use

Other factors that may influence behaviour

Classical conditioning

Superficial thought (defense mechanism or lack of effort?)

Personal relevance

Information source

Social Perception: How We Come to... Learning Objectives

جملات نغز و كوتاه مهارتهاي زندگی

ــ هر گاه خود را دوست بداريد،تاييد كنيد و بپذيريد،تقريبا غير ممكن است كه به كارهاي محدود كننده،مخرب و ناراستين،كه جز شكست حاصلي ندارد،دست بزنيد.

ـ البته هميشه نمي توان در هر كاري به مقام نخست رسيد،در هر مسابقه اي برنده شد و مدال گرفت،اما بدون ترديد مي توان همواره فردي مهم،ارزنده و مفيد بود.

ـ در عزت نفس،سخن از نفس در ميان است،نه از مال و مكنت و تاييد و تحسين.

ـ هر چيزي در زندگي،يا مجالي براي رشد و بالندگي است و يا آغازي براي در جا زدن و ركود و كسالت،اختيار با شماست.

ـ وقتي ديگران را براشفته و ناراحت مي بينيد همواره به خاطر داشته باشيد كه ايشان صاحب اختيار،رنج و محنت خويشند،شما ناگزير نيستيد كه به اردوگاه آنها ملحق شويد.

ـ كسي نمي تواند بدون رضايت شما احساسي را بر شما تحميل كند.

ـ روزهاي عمر ما،ذخاير گرانبهاي زندگي ما هستند.

ـ در درون ما چاهي به عمق بي نهايت از خلاقيت،ابتكار و نوآوري وجود دارد.استعداد و نيروي بالقوه اين مخزن چنان بيكرانه است كه در حيطه تصور ما نمي گنجد.

ـ اگر فردي با رفتار ناصواب خود شما را به خشم آورد،يا به گونه اي ديگر شما را به خشم آورد،از خود بپرسيد با چه رفتاري به او آموخته ام كه مي تواند مرا آلت دست خود كند.

ـ پرداختن به كاري كه به آن عشق مي ورزيد،اساسي ترين شرط گشايش دروازه فراواني نعمت در زندگي شماست.

ـ كسي شما را براي خشمناك شدنتان مجازات نمي كند،همين خشم است كه شما را به كيفر مي رساند.

ـ اگر از اعتماد به نفس بهره نداريد،به كاري بپردازيد كه در نتيجه انجام آن نسبت به خود احساس رضايت كنيد.

ـ اگر من بخواهم براي شهامت كلمه اي متضاد پيشنهاد كنم،كلمه دنباله روي را بر واژه ترس ترجيح مي دهم.

ـ به جاي اينكه به باغ ديگران سرك بكشيد و ذهن خود را به كار ايشان معطوف كنيد به كار خود بپردازيد و هر چه مي خواهيد در باغ خويش بكاريد.

ـ براي تحول مدارس و تبديل آنها به مراكز آموزش راستين و سودمند،بايد اين مراكز به دست آموزگاران و مربيان دلسوزي سپرده شوند كه آموزشهايي از قبيل خودباوري،احساس محبت نسبت به شگفتيهاي عالم وجود و تحت كنترل در آوردن امور زندگي را دست كم به اندازه درس هندسه و دستور زبان حايز اهميت بدانند.

ـ براي كساني كه به جستجوي تجربه هاي تازه بر نمي آيند،ترس از شكست به ترس از موفقيت بدل مي شود.

Social Perception as a Mediator of the Influence of Early Visual Processing on Functional Status in Schizophrenia

Mark J. Sergi, Ph.D., Yuri Rassovsky, Ph.D., Keith H. Nuechterlein, Ph.D. and Michael F. Green, Ph.D.

OBJECTIVE: The potential of social cognition as a mediator of relations between neurocognition and functional status in schizophrenia has been suggested by correlational studies that link neurocognition to social cognition or link social cognition to functional status. The authors used structural equation modeling to test more directly whether one aspect of social cognition (social perception) mediates relations between basic visual perception and functional status in patients with schizophrenia. METHOD: Seventy-five outpatients with schizophrenia were administered measures of early visual processing (computerized visual masking procedures), social perception (Half Profile of Nonverbal Sensitivity), and functional status (Role Functioning Scale). RESULTS: Structural equation modeling supported social perception as a mediator of relations between early visual processing and functional status in schizophrenia. The mediation model indicated that early visual processing is linked to functional status through social perception, thereby supporting a significant indirect relationship. The direct relationship between early visual processing and functional status was significant in a model that did not include social perception but was not significant in the mediation model that included social perception. CONCLUSIONS: Social cognition appears to be a key determinant of functional status in schizophrenia. Using a very basic measure of visual perception, the present study found that social perception mediates the influence of early visual processing on functional status in schizophrenia.

Social perception refers to how people understand and categorize the world. Like all other perceptions, social perception is a construction. That is, people construct (or invent) their worlds. First, I'll discuss social perception of the self.

Self-Perception

Social perception applies to oneself as well. One finding is that people see themselves as having more of traits (when asked unidimensionally, or "how much of trait X do you have a little to a lot") than other people, yet rating themselves in the middle of bipolar scales. It seems that people rate themselves in the middle of bipolar scales, because they believe they have some of each trait at the end, so it balances off in the middle.

Thus, people generally see themselves as more complex than others. Also, people see others they are familar with as having more traits than people they are unfamilar with, and they see people they like as having more traits than people they dislike.

Hence, it appears that people tend to think of others in a simplistic way, rather than considering the complexity of other people. That seems especially so for people who are unfamiliar or are disliked or both.

Egocentric Biases

"Compared to other students at the University of Winnipeg, how _____ are you?"

Scale from 1 to 9, where 9 is VERY and 1 is NOT VERY.

friendly

responsible

sincere

self-disciplined

cooperative

reliable

kind

loyal

resourceful

considerate

Calculate your mean score (arithmetic average) for these 10 traits. Was your average above 5? Most people do have a mean above 5, and typically in the 7-8 range. If 5 is the average, which makes sense as it's the middle of the scale, but most people are scoring above 5, then wWhere are the average people?

Scoring above 5 on these traits is an example of an egocentric biaswhich is taking special consideration of oneself when making a judgment.

Wishful thinking is a common example of an egocentric bias. Wishful thinking is essentially the belief that one is special. For positive traits, such as those above, special means having more of the trait than others (the reverse would hold for negative traits, such as mean, or nasty). In one study, it was found that 8 out of 10 people believed they had above average driving ability. If that's true, then 2 of of 10 people must be really, really, bad drivers.

Why do people make egocentric biased judgments? The two types of classes of explanation in social psychology any behavior, including social judgments, are motivational and informational. The motivation explanation suggests that people's behavior is caused by their underlying motivation. That is, they have some desire(s) that is (are) being fulfilled by behaving in this particular fashion (being biased in this case).

The other class of social explanations suggests that people behave in the way they do, because of the information they have available to them. One example of this type of explanation for social judgment goes like this: (a) people make judgments based on the information available, and (b) people have access to more information about the judgment from their own point of view, so (c) they use more information from their own point of view than from any other point of view. Hence, people make egocentric judgments.

There is some evidence supporting this explanation. For example, (a) basketball team members suggested the outcome of a game was due to an action by one of the members of their team, regardless of whether the outcome was a win or a loss. Also, (b) graduate students who had done an undergraduate thesis rated their contribution to the thesis as greater and were more positive about the thesis if asked "how much did you contribute" than grad student who were asked "how much did your thesis advisor contribute" to the thesis.

Judgments of traits are subject to wishful thinking or egocentric bias more if they are ambiguous than if they are unambiguous. For example, people believe themselves to be more fair (or just) than others, and they think of themselves as more emotional than others. However, people don't necessarily think of themselves as more competent (having more ability) than others.

Consider that fairness and emotionality are hard to judge, esp. in other people versus oneself. However, ability can be more easily tested or demonstrated. Thus, people's wishful thinking tendency is lower for traits that are less ambiguous, or more demonstrable (easier to demonstrate).

Also, people tend to rate themselves highly, when the domain is easy, and rate themselves lowly, when the domain is difficult. That is, it seems people use their own absolute ability as the basis for their judgment of how their ability compares to others. This confuses absolute and comparative performance. People are anchoring on their own (absolute) performance and not adjusting to account for the performance of others when making the comparative judgment.

A study demonstrating this manipulated when a test was easy or difficult. The test was a integrative associates test (what concept links these three concepts: (a) elephant-lapse-vivid, (b-easy) athletes-web-rabbit, (c-difficult) bass-complex-sleep, answers below). That is, participants did a test that was either easy or difficult. The participants who got the easy test perceived themselves as skilled, and those who got the difficult test perceived themselves as unskilled, so the former judged themselves to be above average, and the latter to be below average. People took their absolute level of performance on the test as indicative of their ability in that area.

Wishful Thinking: Events

People also tend to use wishful thinking for events. For example, even though the divorce rate is 50%, people do not think that the likelihood of their marriage ending in divorce is 50%. People will even apply wishful thinking to events they cannot control. For example, people will think their team can come back from a halftime deficit, even though the likelihood of doing so is low.

Wishful thinking works in the opposite direction for negative events. Compared to the average person, people believe they are less likely to be at risk for negative events, such as developing cancer, or getting divorced, or having an automobile accident.

Some people label wishful thinking as a self-serving bias, as people are thinking of events in such a way that they look good. Thus, people take credit for their successes, and deny responsibility for their failures.

However, it's not clear that people are always self-serving in their judgments of acheivement. People do seem to take credit for their successes, even when the success is the result of a group effort. However, people do not seem to shirk responsibility for failure, as the self-serving bias position would suggest.

Social Perception - Others

Of course, we can also perceive others. In social psychology, the question regarding our perceptions of others has been on whether people perceive the actions of others to be a result of their dispositions or a their situations. That is, did Mike kick the cat, because he's a mean and nasty person, or because he's just been passed over for a promotion again?

Evidence suggests that people will tend to attribute people's actions to their individual dispositions. That is, we will perceive others to act in particular ways, because they are that type of person. This bias to assigning the cause of people's actions to their dispositions is known as the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) (this has also been called correspondence bias). According to the FAE, people underestimate the effect that situations have on the behavior others, and they overestimate the effect that dispositions have on others' behavior.

Hence, people may judge others more harshly when bad things happen, because they perceive the bad things to be a result of others' dispositions. Similiarly, people may judge others more favorably when good things happen, because they perceive the good things to be a result of others' dispositions. For example, people who lose their jobs may be perceived to be poor at their job, when in fact the company was simply trying to change direction, or had incurred a drastic reduction in revenue, so it had to reduce its number of employees.

Another way people have been shown to misjudge others involves claims about who is responsible for an outcome. People don't see themselves as claiming more credit when something good happens or not claiming more blame when something bad happens than others, but they do see others doing so. That is, I am not biased when taking credit or blame for outcomes, but everyone else is. The exceptions to this were when another person was cooperating with me on the task, and spouses weren't more biased than me about our common actions.

When asked to make judgments of what the opinions of others are on the whole, people will respond that the opinion they hold is the common belief. For example, people asked whether they are for or against Proposition Z, believed that about 2/3 of the population as a whole held the same opinion as they did regardless of whether they were for or against the proposition. False consensus describes this phenomenon, as people believe that the consensus opinion (or majority opinion) is consistent with what they themselves believe, regardless of their belief.

There is also the result labelled false uniqueness, which describes the misjudgment of one's similarity to others. For example, people are given a choice between two uncomfortable, or painful, situations, A and B. Then they are asked how much discomfort they expected to experience in the situation they chose. Also, they are asked which experience they believed most people would choose, and how much discomfort most people would experience. Subjects responded that they believed others would choose the same alternative they did (evidence of false consensus, as subjects are suggesting that most people would make the same choice they did), but that other people would not experience as much discomfort as they would (false uniqueness). Thus, people's responses suggest others would have the same opinion as they did (make the same choice), but others would not feel as much as they would (experience as much discomfort).

Interestingly, people seem to believe the ability they are best at is not shared by many people. However, the same people also believe that the opinion that is the most important to them is commonly held. Thus, people seem to be saying that they are unique and common simultaneously. Unique in ability, and common in belief.

حشيش چيست ؟

شايع ترين ماده غيرقانوني در سراسر جهان از گياهي به نام شاهدانه هندي كه شبيه گزنه است به دست مي آيد. بخش هاي مختلف اين گياه حاوي مواد فعال بوده و بسته به محلي كه مورد استفاده قرار ميگرد قدرتهای مختلفي دارند . صمغ چسبنده اي كه از گياه شاهدانه بدست مي آيد را به صورت قالبي در مي آورند که به رنگ سبز خاكستري و يا قهوه اي مايل به سبز است و به آن حشيش مي گويند. از برگهاي خشك شده نيز ماري‌جوانا حاصل مي شود كه ضعيف تر است . روغن حشيش قوي ترين فرم اين ماده است.

نام هاي رايج :

ماري جوآنا، گراس، علف، بنگ، جرس، Joint، ‌سيگاري، حشيش.

راههاي مصرف :

حشيش معمولاً به روش تدخيني استفاده ميشود. معمولاً با توتون سيگار مخلوط شده و به عنوان joint يا سيگاري مي‌كشند. خوردن حشيش روش نامعمولتري است. گاهی نيز حشيش را در غذا يا شيريني و يا نوشابه مي‌ريزند و ميخورند.

آثار مصرف :

عوارض جسماني به دنبال مصرف حشيش عبارتند از: افزايش فشارخون، گيجي، افزايش اشتها، قرمز شدن چشم ها، تند شدن ضربان قلب، اختلال حافظه، گيجي، بي توجهي، تغييردر درگ و رنگ و صدا.  علائم  رواني شديد مثل شنيدن صداهاي غيرواقعي، صحبتهاي نامربوط و رفتارهاي غيرعادي، اضطراب و افسردگي در عرض چند دقيقه شروع ميشود و بسته به ميزان مصرف چند ساعت طول ميكشد. چنانچه خورده شود علائم ديرتر شروع ميشود اما مدت طولانيتری مي ماند. حشيش اثر خواب‌آوري خفيفي نيز دارد. اما  اين اثر به شدت به وضعيت خلقي و توقع مصرف كننده مربوط ميشود. يك مصرف كننده تازه كار بعد از يك بار مصرف Joint   و يك مصر ف كننده سابقه دار تا روزانه 20 بار مصرف joint به علائم  دلخواه ميرسند. اين علائم عبارتند از سرخوشي، احساس اعتماد به نفس، احساس عمومي خوب بودن. البته چنانچه فرد به هنگام مصرف افسرده و يا مضطرب باشد علائم ناخوشانيد تشديد ميشود. در مقادير بالا خطر بروز حملات اضطرابي هول و بدبيني و توهم نيز وجود دارد. با توجه به كاهشي كه در ميزان مهار در فرد ايجاد ميشود خطر آسيب رساندن به خود بالا مي رود. افرادي كه از اين ماده استفاده مي‌كنند به دليل عدم تعادل ناشي از آن نبايد رانندگي كنند.

چگونه كمك كنيم :

مصرف حشيش امكان بروز يا تشديد حالات جنون را زياد مي‌كند و چنانچه چنين حالتي بروز كرد حتماً بايد بيمار را به بخش روانپزشكي ارجاع داد. بايد مصرف كننده را مطمئن كرد كه علائم تحريك‌پذيري، كسالت و اختلال الگوي خواب پس از خروج دارو از بدن مرتفع خواهد شد. نيازی به تجويز دارو مگر به توصيه پزشك وجود ندارد.

ساير اطلاعات :

-        بدليل آنكه حشيش در چربي حل ميشود تا 4 هفته پس از مصرف در ادرار قابل تشخيص است.

از جمله عوارض طولاني مدت مصرف حشيش وضعيتي است كه فرد دچار بي انگيزگي، عدم تمايل براي شروع هركاري، بي احساسي، بي انرژي بودن و چاق شدن ميگردد.

دانشجوياني كه تماس ضعيفي با واقعيت دارند در جداسازي "تخيل" از زندگي واقعي مشكل دارند . تفكر شان نوعاً غير منطقي، آشفته، يا نامعقول است (براي مثال، الگوهاي گفتاري كه از يك موضوع به موضوع ديگر مي پرد بدون هيچ ارتباط معني دار)؛ واكنش‌هاي هيجاني آنها نامتجانس و نامناسب است و رفتارشان ممكن است غريب و آشفته باشد.

 دانشجويي كه تماس ضعيفي با واقعيت دارد ممكن است توهماتي ، اغلب شنوايي را تجربه كند. يعني گزارش كند صداهايي را مي شنود (براي مثال، صدا اين چنين القاء مي كند كه كسي قصد دارد به او آسيب بزند يا او را كنترل كند). در چنين وضعي دانشجو ممكن است نسبت به ديگران وضع دفاعي بگيرد يا از ديگران بترسد. يعني از اشخاصي كه به طور كلي به هيچ وجه خشن نبوده اند. گاه در برخي موقعيت ها چنين دانشجوياني ممكن است دست به خشونت بزنند خصوصاً وقتي "توهمات فرمان دهنده" را تجربه كنند. اين توهمات به آنها مي گويند  چه انجام دهند مانند "تو بايد آن شخص شيطاني را از بين ببري." وقتي با دانشجوياني كه تماس ضعيفي با واقعيت دارند سر و كار داريد:

Social Perception: The process through which we seek to know and understand other persons. (p.38)

• What do nonverbal cues tell us?
• How do we explain other’s behavior?
• What types of errors bias our thinking?
• How do we form first impressions of others?

I. Nonverbal Communication: The Language of Expressions, Gazes, and Gestures (http://members.aol.com/nonverbal2/center.htm#Center%20for%20Nonverbal%20Studies)

• Nonverbal Communication: Communication between individuals that does not involve the content of spoken language. It relies instead on an unspoken language of facial expressions, eye contact, and body language. (p.39)

• Two ways to find out how others are feeling right now: Ask people directly or pay attention to nonverbal cues. (p.39)

A. Nonverbal Communication: The Basic Channels

• Six basic emotions: anger, fear, happiness, sadness, surprise, and disgust. Additional emotion includes contempt. Even though there may be only a small number of basic themes in facial expression, the number of variations on theses themes is immense. See Figure 2.2 on p.41. (p.40)

• Are facial expressions universal? - Need to consider cultural and contextual differences. When situational cues and facial expressions are consistent, then maybe. (p.41)

• Can you tell this face?

• Although facial expressions may not be as universal as once believed, they do often provide useful information about others' emotional states. Useful information is also provided by eye contact body language, and touching. (p.49)

• Staring: A form of eye contact in which one person continues to gaze steadily at another regardless of what the recipient does. (p.41)

• A stare is often interpreted as a sign of anger or hostility - as in cold stare - and most people find this particular nonverbal cue disturbing. (p.41)

• Example: Road rage

• Body Language: Cues provided by the position, posture, and movement of other's bodies or body parts. (p.42)

• Body language often reveals others' emotional states. Large numbers of movements suggest emotional arousal (e.g., scratching). The greater the frequency of such behavior, the higher the level of arousal or nervousness.

• Larger patterns of movements, involving the whole body, can provide information about others' emotion, and even about their apparent traits. E.g., bear hug.

• More specific information about others' feelings is often provided by gestures. The most important gestures are "emblems" - body movement carrying specific meanings in a given culture. See Figure 2.3 on p.42. (http://coral.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/Classes/Winter97/PhonMM/phonmm/node43.html)

Social Perception and Attraction 

Module 32

What is social psychology

l      How do situations influence people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. 

–     Emphasis is on the power of the situation rather than the predictive power of individual differences. 

l      Topics of study

–     How do we form impressions of others?

–     How do we infer the causes of our own and others’ behaviors?  (attribution)

–     What causes interpersonal attraction?

–     What are attitudes? What causes attitude change?–     What causes people to conform to behaviors (conformity) or to orders (obedience) that they know are wrong

–     Does being a member of a group change behavior

Learning Objectives

l    How do we understand other people and why they do what they do?

l    What errors do we make when trying to understand others?

l    Do you ever get a second chance to make a first impression?

l    To whom are we attracted and why?

Attribution processes

l    Attribution is an inference that people make about the causes of their own and others’ behavior

–    Usually make attributions when behavior is unexpected and negative

–    Personal or internal attributions

l   Behavior is attributed to personal dispositions or traits

–    Situational or external attributions

l   Behavior is caused by the situation or the environment

Covariation model of attribution

l     Three types of information influence our perceptions about the causes of others’ behavior

l     Consistency

–     is the actor’s behavior consistent across time?

–     Does Jack always flirt with Janet or is this the first time?

l     Distinctiveness

–     is the actor’s behavior specific to this target?

–     Does Jack flirt with everyone or only with Janet?

l     Consensus

–     do other actors respond to the target in a similar way?

–     Does everyone flirt with Janet or only Jack?

So why did Jack flirt?

l     Internal attribution

–     Jack flirted because he is a player

–     ­ consistency (Jack always flirts with Janet)

–     ¯distinctiveness (Jack flirts with all women)

–     ¯ consensus (No one else flirts with Janet)

l     External attribution

–     Jack flirted because of the situation (e.g., Janet)

–     ­ consistency (Jack always flirts with Janet)

–     ­ distinctiveness (Jack only flirts with Janet)

–     ­ consensus (Everyone flirts with Janet)

Attributional biases 

l    Do we always perceive the causes of behavior accurately or do we systematically mess up?

l    Fundamental attribution error

–    People tend to make dispositional attributions even when situational causes are salient

–    People appear to make dispositional attributions first, then correct for situational influences

–    Insufficient correction for the situation

Self Serving Attributions

l     Do we bias our attributions in a way that favors us or people close to us?

l     Success => Internal Attribution

–     I passed the test because I am smart

–     G.W. Bush beat Gore because he was the better candidate (Republican sentiment)

l     Failure => External Attribution

–     I failed the test because it was too hard

–     G.W. Bush beat Gore because the Supreme Court handed him the election (Democratic sentiment)

Are attributions consistent across cultures?

l    No ---

–    Western cultures focus on the individual

–    Non-Western cultures are more likely to focus on relationships among people (communal concerns)

l    What attributions do you make when you see one fish swimming in front of a group of fish?

–    Americans saw a fish leading other fish

–    Chinese saw a fish being chased by other fish

Person Perception   

l      Primacy effect = Early information is more influential

–     Warm, intelligent, industrious, critical, stubborn

–     Cold, intelligent, industrious, critical, stubborn

l      Behavioral confirmation

–     Perceiver expectations influence perceiver behavior

–     perceiver behavior influences target behavior

Interpersonal attraction

l      Similarity

–     Race, Age, Social class, Intelligence, Attitudes

–     We avoid those who are different

–     We seek those who are similar

–     Similarity predicts relationship longevity

l      Physical attractiveness

–     Matching  hypothesis - people select mates who are similar in attractiveness

–     Halo effect--What is beautiful is good

l      Attractiveness trumps similarity (computer date study)

Factors influencing social perception of new religious movements

by Tadeusz Doktór (Warsaw University)
Preliminary version - Do not reproduce without the consent of the author. A paper presented at The 2001 Conference in London

Religious minorities are often perceived as a controversial phenomenon and social problem. Some of their activities are seen as problematic, as in the case of two movements which are the object of this study: Jehovah's Witnesses and Scientologists, which are often involved in court cases related to their attitude to blood transfusion (Jehovah's Witnesses) or charging high fees for their courses promising extraordinary results in optimizing psychological functioning (Scientologists). Very often, it leads to negative stereotypization, prejudice and discriminatory attitude as, which were often observed in the history of religion. Theoretical interpretations of this phenomenon, which is a specific form of more common phenomenon of prejudice, stress various psychological and social factors: from general cognitive and emotional mechanisms of its formation (frustration-aggression, social identification, ultimate attribution error, illusory correlation, cognitive availability) to more specific mechanisms regulating their transmission and activation in a particular sociocultural and psychological context (pressures of conformity, social conflicts, personality traits). These factors may interact in various ways in emergence and activation of prejudice and discrimination.

Some of these factors, especially those which procesual and situational factors are most often studied experimentally: ultimate attribution error manifesting in interpreting negative actions of 'outgroup' members as the consequence of their dispositions and positive actions as the consequence of the situation, illusory correlation manifesting in overvaluation of correlation with extreme phenomena and the effect of cognitive availability manifesting in overvaluation of exceptional than ordinary factors in the interpretation of a given phenomenon and social identification, which involves subordination of information processing about other groups to tendencies maintaining the positive image of one's own social identity (Tajfel 1981).

Among correlational studies of prejudice and discriminatory attitudes, the most common are those, which look for traits related to this phenomena such as personality traits especially authoritarianism, dogmatism and moral development prejudice. Authoritarianism or authoritarian-conservatism is a personality trait conceptualized originally by Adorno et al. (1950) in psychoanalytical terms. The concept is meant to capture uncritical submission to authority, strict adherence to conventional norms, and ethnocentrism.

Milton Rokeach (1954;1960) has modified the theory of authoritarianism by introducing the concept of dogmatism or closed mindedness, for which general cognitive factors were more central, although were treated as a reaction to anxiety. New cognitive approach was intended to be more 'culture free' and independent of ideological content, stressing less content of beliefs and more general style or manner in which these beliefs are held according to three basic dimensions: belief-disbelief, central-peripheral and time perspective. Dogmatism in his view is related to: 1) relatively closed cognitive organizations of beliefs and disbeliefs about reality, 2) organized around a central set of beliefs about absolute authority, 3) which provides a framework for intolerance toward others (Rokeach 1954:195).

Lee A. Kirkpatrick, Ralph W. Hood, Jr., And Gary Hartz (1991) interpret fundamentalism in terms of Rokeach's theory stressing mainly central-peripheral dimensions of the belief system. 'Given the attributes of centralized or dogmatic belief systems as articulated in Rokeach's theory, it is not difficult to see some conceptual overlaps with religious fundamentalism. Indeed, fundamentalist religion seems to be essentially prototypical of the centralized belief system as conceptualized here. Theologically, fundamentalists tend to oppose "modernist" interpretation of scripture in favor of some variety of literalism, inerrancy, infallibility or authoritativeness of scripture. From a purely psychological perspective, using Rokeach theory, such a belief system entails a strong commitment to authoritative sources and as such is "centralized." The "authority beliefs" around which the centralized system is organized represent belief in the ultimate authoritativeness of Scripture, and the peripheral beliefs concern specific tenets of the belief system that "emanate from" (Rokeach's term) or derive from this belief' (Kirkpatrick et al. 1991:170).

Fundamentalism has been shown to correlate with right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer 1988; Altemeyer and Hunsberger 1992), intolerance, prejudice and discriminatory attitudes (Altemeyer and Hunsberger 1992; Hunsberger 1995, 1996). In case of controversial religious groups, fundamentalism is also a significant predictor of discriminatory attitudes although weaker than education (O'Donnell 1993).

Cognitive aspects are also stressed in the theory of moral development formulated by Lawrence Kohlberg (1984). According to this author, higher levels of moral development are related to evaluation of moral conflicts not from the conventional and particularistic perspective of their own social group but are able to imagine which ethical principles make social life possible and to evaluate them from the more universalistic perspective. Moral development could be also seen as a necessary condition for the communicative competence leading to a rational political discourse (Habermas 1976, 1984) which was empirically confirmed by van IJinzendorn (1989) in relation to antidemocratic attitudes toward minority groups. Therefore we could expect its influence also in the case of discriminatory attitudes toward controversial religious groups.

The strength of state regulation of religion is an important factor influencing religious activity according to market model of religion (Chaves and Cann 1992). Its lower level is conducive to higher level of religious vitality by stimulating greater mobilization similar to its influence in economy. It may also be conducive to see other religious groups as a positive challenge to ones own religious identity instead of seeing it as possible object for elimination by the regulatory function of the state.

On the basis of social categorization, authoritarianism and dogmatism theory we could predict that when religion is the main factor contributing to differentiation between ingroup and outgroup, we may expect greater devalorization of the religious outgroup among more religious persons. Negative attitude toward these groups should be greater among persons which are religious in a fundamentalistic way, which is more authoritarian and dogmatic and in which the boundaries between ingroup and outgroup are more pronounced and. We could also expect stronger negative discriminatory attitudes among Catholics, because of more authoritarian/dogmatic type of authority structure and religiosity of the Catholic Church.

On the basis of dogmatism theory we could also expect that threat and anxiety as conducive to dogmatism will be also significant predictors of negative attitude towards religious minorities. In our study, it will be ethnocentric threat (which was also emphasized by Adorno as important element of authoritarianism and the F-scale was in fact constructed to discover ethnocentric views on minority groups such as the Jews in the USA ) and threat resulting from aggravated perception of moral decay, which may be related to discriminatory attitudes.

Elements of sociodemografic characteristics, may be also related to discriminatory attitudes towards controversial religious minorities. Among them female sex, older age and lower level of education may foster prejudice as the compensation of less favorable social position. This is one of the possible theoretical mechanisms, which, however predict similar direction of this relationships. Older age and lower education may be also related to cognitive factors as more narrow knowledge, possibility of cognitive evaluation of this phenomenon and understanding principles of democracy and higher authoritarianism/dogmatism often observed in these groups. Females, which are usually more prone to social conformity and less risk avoiding (Miller and Hoffman 1995), may discriminate controversial groups on this basis.

We could therefore formulate the following hypotheses:

H1 Tolerant attitude towards controversial religious groups is positively related to younger age, male sex and higher level of education.

H2 Tolerant attitude towards controversial religious groups is positively related to general religiosity and protestant denomination and negatively to fundamentalist religiosity and catholic religious identification

H3 Tolerant attitude towards controversial religious groups is negatively related to perceived ethnic and moral threat

H4 Tolerant attitude towards controversial religious groups is positively related to higher level of moral development

H5 Tolerant attitude towards controversial religious groups is positively related to lower level of state regulation of religion

Sample

The research is based on the data from RAMP (Religious and Moral Pluralism) including representative samples of 11 countries studied in the year 1998. The total sample include 12342 respondents.

Measurement

Measurement include variables, which usually were constructed from the items of the RAMP questionnaire by summing up the scores of each item after standardization.

1. Attitudes toward religious 'outgroups'.

The degree of discriminatory attitude will be measured by two items will be used (seven points Likert scale: 1- strongly disagree, 7 - strongly agree): 'How strongly do you agree or disagree that, as long as they keep within the law of the land, A) Jehovah's Witnesses should be allowed to practice their religion in [ OWN COUNTRY], B) Scientologists should be allowed to practice in [ OWN COUNTRY]'. They will be used as a scale (Cronbach Alpha - .77).

2. Religiosity

Measurement of religiosity includes four variables: fundamentalism, general religiosity and to dummy variables related to catholic and protestant denomination.

A fundamentalism scale (Cronbach's alpha =.60) consists of four items:

a) biblical literalism (consisting of three forced choice items: 'The Bible records the actual word of God, so everything it says should be taken literally, word for word' (1), 'The Bible was written by humans who were inspired by God, but not everything in it should be taken literally' (2), 'The Bible is simply an ancient book of religious stories, historical events and moral teachings' (3) (answers 'I don't know' were excluded from the analysis)),

b) religious particularism (consisting of four forced choice items: 'There is only one true religion' (1), 'There is only one true religion, but important truths can be found in some other religions as well' (2), 'There are important truths to be found in some religions' (3), 'There are important truths to be found in all religions' (4) (the last answer possibility: 'There aren't any important truths to be found in any religion' was excluded from the analysis)),

c) religious exclusivism (consisting of single item 'Even if people belong to a particular religion, they should still feel free to draw on teachings from other religious traditions'),

d) punishing God image ('Most human suffering in this world is because of God punishing us for our sins').

General religiosity scale (Cronbach's alpha =.85) is composed of three items:

a) Religiosity-self assessment: 'Whether or not you go to a church or place of worship, to what extent would you say that you are a religious person ?' measured on the seven-point scales: ( 1 - not at all religious to 7 - very religious),

b) frequency of attendance: 'Apart from ceremonies for birth, marriage or death, roughly how often do you attend religious services these days?' measured on the eight-point scales: 'every day' (0), 'more than once a week'(1), 'once a week' (2), 'at least once a month'(3), 'a few times a year' (4), 'once a year'(5), 'less than once a year' (6), 'never'(7).

c) frequency of prayer: 'About how often do you pray?' measured on the eight-point scales: 'every day' (0), 'more than once a week'(1), 'once a week' (2), 'at least once a month'(3), 'a few times a year' (4), 'once a year'(5), 'less than once a year' (6), 'never'(7). Both general religiosity and fundamentalism scales are inversely coded (higher scores represent lower fundamentalism and general religiosity).

Religious denomination will be a dummy variable distinguishing between Catholics (against all others) and mainline Protestants (against all others).

3. As a measure of ethnocentrism three seven-point items will be used: 'The arrival of immigrants in [OWN COUNTRY] poses a threat to our own way of life', 'Immigrants are getting jobs at the expense of the [NATIONALS]', and, 'On the whole [OWN COUNTRY] has suffered from the arrival of immigrants' (Cronbach's alpha is .77).

4. As a measure of moral decay (DECAY) will be used a scale consisting of four statements with five-point items: 'Is there more or less (1) violence on the streets, (2) bribery, (3) adultery, and, (4) tax evasion today than there was in [OWN COUNTRY] 10 years ago?' (Cronbach's alpha is .64).

5. As a measure of higher level of moral development as interpreted by Kohlberg a following two items will be used: 'Imagine that a big private enterprise has advertised a job, for which the nephew of the employer has applied. The nephew is not as well qualified as another applicant, Mr. Miller. Whatever actually happens: Do you think that the following reasons, which might be given for employing or not employing the nephew, are bad or good reasons? A. The nephew is not employed because fairness demands that the applicant with the best qualification is recruited.

B. The nephew is not employed because it is in the economic interest of the company to recruit the best candidate' with answer possibilities from 1 (absolutely wrong ) to 7 (absolutely right) (Cronbach's Alpha .77).

6. Sociodemographic characteristics:

a) sex: (0=male 1=female),

b) age: (year of birth),

c) education: (1) incomplete primary, (2) primary completed, (3) incomplete secondary, (4) secondary completed, (5) university incomplete, to (6) university degree completed'.

7. Contextual characteristics related to the degree of state regulation of religion will be measured by a six- point scale proposed by Chaves and Cann (1992): '(a) there is a single, officially designated state church, (b) there is official state recognition of some denominations but not others, (c) the state appoints or approves the appointment of church leaders, (d) the state directly pays church personnel salaries, (e) there is a system of ecclesiastical tax collection, and (f) the state directly subsidizes, beyond mere tax breaks, the operating, maintenance, or capital expenses for churches. Each item is coded 1 if answered in the affirmative and 0 if answered in the negative'. The scale was extended to Portugal, Poland and Hungary. (Netherlands - 0; Poland - 1; Portugal and Hungary -2; Belgium, Great Britain and Italy - 3, Norway and Denmark - 5, Finland and Sweden - 6).

Results

Tab.1. Means of analyzed variables by countries

	procult	fund	rel	cath	prot	decay	threat	moral
Belgium	-.05	.42	.20	.56	.01	-.13	-.03	-.04
Denmark	.06	.35	.45	.01	.92	-.42	-.33	.20
Finland	-.10	.00	.10	.00	.83	.10	-.28	.01
Great Britain	.07	.34	.21	.09	.06	-.03	.23	-.02
Hungary	-.52	-.21	.23	.54	.19	.57	.49	.02
Italy	-.17	-.57	-.49	.79	.00	.02	.05	-.12
Netherlands	.32	.54	.28	.23	.19	-.33	-.29	.24
Norway	-.12	.00	.45	.01	.88	-.01	-.41	03
Poland	-.16	-.83	-.86	.94	.00	.12	.30	-.09
Portugal	.37	-.49	-.22	.71	.00	.15	.20	-.01
Sweden	.32	.73	-.58	.01	.88	-.09	-.47	.04

Nondiscriminatory attitude towards controversial religious groups is significantly diversified among respondent in different countries (the less tolerant in Hungary and most tolerant in Portugal).

Tab.2. Bivariate correlation of analyzed variables

	procult	sex	age	educ.	fund.	rel.	cath.	prot.	decay	threat
Procult	1.00
sex	-.08	1.00
age	.14	.01	1.00
educ.	.22	-.03	.21	1.00
fund.	.32	-.07	.12	.38	1.00
rel.	.14	-.18	.20	.22	.52	1.00
cath.	-12	.04	-.03	-.27	-.33	-.48	1.00
prot.	.05	-.01	-.04	.24	.12	17	-.55	1.00
decay	-.15	.12	-.08	-.24	-.22	-.15	.10	-.06	1.00
threat	-.19	.03	-.09	-.34	-.28	-.14	.19	-.18	.25	1.00
moral	.15	.02	.02	06	.13	.03	-.04	.05	.02	.02

Bivariate correlations support our hypotheses (all correlation coefficient are significant).

Tab. 3. Regression with tolerant attitude towards controversial religious groups as dependent variable (method enter).

Variable	Beta	Significance
sex	-0,66	,000
age	,092	,000
education	,081	,000
general religiosity	-0,60	,000
fundamentalism	,248	,000
Protestant	,029	,047
Catholic	-,038	,006
moral decay	-,048	,000
ethnocentrism	-,085	,000
moral development	,112	,000
state regulation of religion	-,098	,000
Adj. RSQ	,15

In regression analysis all hypotheses were confirmed except the relationship between general religiosity and non discriminatory attitude towards controversial religious groups. Contrary to our expectations general religiosity is related to more tolerant attitude towards these groups.

Tab. 4. Regression with tolerant attitude towards controversial religious groups as dependent variable in particular countries 

Variab.	Belg.	Denm.	Fin.	GB	Hung.	Italy	Neth.	Norw.	Pol.	Port.	Sweden
sex	-,09*	-,02	-,12*	-,05	-,14*	-,02	-,10*	-,09	-,03	-,04	-,06
age	,09*	,11*	,06	,14*	,16*	,07*	,08*	,05	-,03	,02	,03
educ.	-,01	,12*	,09*	,05	-,04	,10*	,16*	,17*	,01	-,03	,12*
rel.	-,09*	,02	-,10*	-,11*	-,14*	-,04	-,11*	-,01	,09*	,07	-,06
fund.	,16*	,17*	,37*	,21*	,08	,29*	,16*	,15*	,28*	,32*	,13*
prot.	-,02	,04	-,01	,02	-,03	-,01	-,07	-,11	-,02	,00	,03
cath.	-,01	,10*		,04	-,02	-,05*	-,02	,02	-,03	,02	-,06
decay	-,05	-,14*	-,09*	-,13*	,02	-,03	-,03	-,02	-,01	,06	-,05
etn.	-,13*	-,12*	-,15*	-,15*	-,05	,01	-,11*	-,12*	-,11*	-,10*	-,20*
moral.	,12*	-,01	,02	,02	,05	,24*	-,01	-,04	,00	,08*	,01
Adj. Rsq.	,08	,14	,23	,15	,03	,23	,11	,11	,13	,15	,10

* - p <,05

Results of regression analysis perform separately for each country are not significant for all variables and show interesting differences between countries.

The influence of sex is significant only in Belgium, Finland, Hungary and Netherlands, where females are, as we expected, less tolerant towards controversial religious groups.

The influence of age (year of birth) is significant in all countries except Finland, Norway, Portugal, Poland and Sweden. Younger respondent are less discriminatory which confirms our hypothesis in these countries.

The influence of education is significant only in Denmark, Finland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden (in all cases in the predicted direction).

The influence of general religiosity on tolerance is positive in Belgium, Finland, Great Britain, Hungary, Netherlands, Norway and negative in Poland. Therefore only Poland confirms our hypothesis, and other countries falsify it.

The influence of fundamentalism on discriminatory attitude is usually the greatest from all variables and is significant in all countries except Hungary.

The influence of Protestant denomination is not significant in any country (approaching significance only in Norway p=.062).

The influence of Catholic denomination is significant only in Denmark (where it inclines to a greater tolerance and therefore falsifies our expectations) and in Italy (where it confirms our expectations concerning its influence on discrimination).

The influence of perception of moral decay is significant in Denmark, Finland and Great Britain, which confirms our hypothesis in relation to this samples.

The influence of ethnocentric threat is significant in all countries except Hungary and Italy. It therefore confirms our expectations as the second predictor of intolerance after fundamentalism.

The influence of moral development is significant in Belgium, Italy and Portugal.

Discussion

The results of this study confirm the predictions based on the authoritarianism/dogmatism theories. Discriminatory attitudes are most significantly related to fundamentalism and ethnocentrism, which may be interpreted as manifestations of authoritarian/dogmatic orientation in religion and attitudes towards ethnic outgroups. The only country where these variables are not influential is Hungary, in which some other factors seems to be relevant, not included in our set of explanatory variables.

Additional support, however less directly related to the theory of dogmatic and authoritarian personality, is given by the influence of moral threat and catholic affiliation, which is significant for the total sample and in some national samples. According to Milton Rokeach, dogmatism is a response to anxiety (in this case it is a moral threat related to a heightened perception of moral decline, especially in Denmark, Finland and Great Britain). Catholic affiliation may be also interpreted as leading to more dogmatic attitude mainly because of the its authority structure. Negative attitude towards 'sects' is also relatively more visible in statements of the representatives of the Catholic Church than in Protestant Churches. This is , however, rather weakly supported in our data (only in total sample as one of the weakest predictors and in Italian national sample). In Denmark the direction of relationship is reversed. The Catholics, which are only a tiny minority in this country are more tolerant contrary to Italy, where they constitute the majority. The results observed here may be therefore related also to the fact of religious affiliation in religious minority or majority.

The influence of age and education may be also interpreted in terms of authoritarianism/dogmatism theory and especially its cognitive aspects as a more narrow, simplified and rigid cognitive perspective. Education, however, may also influence discriminatory attitude due to its content. In some countries, elements of antidiscriminatory programs are included in educational curricula and may influence attitudes towards discriminated groups in a specific way.

The discriminatory tendencies towards sects observed among women are not so easily interpretable in terms of authoritarianism/dogmatism theory. They are, however, less risk prone than man, which is manifested in many areas including religiosity (Miller and Hoffman 1995) and may perceive controversial religious groups as a source of possible threat for society (especially for the family, which is often stressed by the anticult rhetoric present in the media) and this may lead to their discriminatory attitude towards these groups.

The higher levels of moral reasoning incline to greater tolerance. According to Kohlberg they manifest in upholding the basic rights, values, and legal contracts of a society, even when they conflict with the concrete values of the individual. Reasons for right decisions are based on a social contract to make and abide by laws for the good of all and to protect their own rights and the rights of others and related to the rational calculation of overall utility: "the greatest good for the greatest number". Controversial religious groups do not constitute any exception in this universalistic perspective. It would be, however, interesting to replicate such study in a countries like France and Germany, where some laws related to religious minorities may be considered as discriminatory. Unfortunately, although scholars from these countries were involved in the preparation of RAMP project, they were not been able to gather appropriate funding if this research in their own countries.

The level of state regulation of religion in a country is also a significant predictor of discriminatory attitude. It may be, however, noted that the scale proposed by Chaves and Cann (1992) is designed for measuring the general state regulation of religion and is not specific for the judicial regulation of religious minorities. Although the results obtained indicate that it is also relevant for the discriminatory attitudes, we can suppose that with a more specific measurement, the results will be more significant indicating more strongly the expectations concerning the regulatory role of the state towards religious minorities in the individual attitudes.

Contrary to the expectations based on the social identification theory, the discriminatory attitude is not related to general religiosity in an expected way. In the total sample and in the majority of countries general religiosity 'unmakes prejudice' to paraphrase famous statement of Gordon Allport. Strength of religious identification and the frequency of attendance and prayer, which constitute the scale of general religiosity are positively related to tolerant attitude in almost all countries, except Poland where the relationship is reversed. It may be interpreted as due to the fundamentalistic character of Polish religiosity. But the correlation of fundamentalism and general religiosity is not higher in Poland than in other countries so this is probably not adequate explanation. The other factor, which could be also influential here is the content of the church teachings on the controversial religious groups. Although they are rarely the subject of official statements of bishops, they appear more often in the teachings of local priests and in the catholic press, as the dangerous phenomenon. There are no comparative data on the style and content of the Catholic Church teachings in this matter, but perhaps symptomatic is the fact that Poland is probably the only country with well organized Catholic countercult movement in the form of a network of Dominican information centers on sects and new religious movements.

Such specific contextual factors may be present in each country influencing the attitudes towards controversial religious groups. One of them may be the media coverage of this phenomenon, which may explain existing differences such as in Hungary, where the percent of explained variance in this attitude by the proposed variables is the smallest and where the discriminatory attitude is the most pronounced. It suggests that other important factors may be here relevant and more detailed study using other explanatory variables and more sophisticated measurement of prejudices will be helpful.

References

ADORNO T.W., FRENKEL-BRUNSWIK E., LEVINSON D., SANFORD N.(1950) The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers.

ALTMEYER, R. (1988). The enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

ALTMEYER, R., B. HUNSBERGER (1992) Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 2:113-33.

CHAVES M., CANN D.E. (1992) Religion, pluralism and religious market structure. Rationality and Society 4: 272-290.

HABERMAS, J. (1976). Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.

HABERMAS J. (1984) A Theory of Communicative Action, Boston, Mass., Beacon Press.

HUNSBERGER, B. (1995) Religion and prejudice: The role of religious Fundamentalism, quest, and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Social Issues 51(2): 113-29.

HUNSBERGER, B. (1996) Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and hostility toward homosexuals in non-Christian religious groups. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 61(1): 39-49.

KIRKPATRICK, L A., R. W. HOOD, Jr., and G. HARTZ (1991) Fundamentalist Religion Conceptualized in Terms of Rokeach's Theory of the Open And Closed Mind: New Perspectives On Some Old Ideas. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, v. 3: 157-179.

KOHLBERG, L. (1981) The Philosophy of Moral Development. Moral Stages and the Idea of Justice. San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers, Volume l.

KOHLBERG, L. (1984) The Psychology of Moral Development: Moral Stages and the Life Cycle, San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers, Volume 2.

MILLER, A. S. HOFFMAN, J. P. (1995) Risk and Religion: An Explanation of Gender Differences in Religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34: 63-75.

O'DONNELL J. P. (1993) Predicting tolerance of new religious movements: A multivariate analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 4: 356-366.

ROKEACH, M. (1954) The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism. Psychological Review 61:194-204.

 ROKEACH, M. (1960) The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Hooks.

TAJFEL H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

VAN IJZENDOORN M.H. (1989). `Moral judgement, authoritarianism, and ethnocentrism'. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 37-45.