24/7 Homework Help

Studykind Will Help You Write Your Essays and Term Papers

From initial topic to finished paper

Question:

Attitude Adjustment

by | Jun 5, 2022 | fresh

An attitude is an evaluative reaction (i.e., feelings), often based on belief and demonstrated through behavior. In this discussion, we will consider intergroup attitudes by examining stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination.
To inform your thinking on this topic, begin by reading “Toward a Relevant Psychology of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination: Linking Science and Practice to Develop Interventions that Work in Community Settings” (Acevedo-Polakovich, Beck, Hawks, & Ogdie, 2016), “Intergroup Contact Theory” (Pettigrew, 1998), and “Summary and Conclusions” (Sherif, Harvey, Hood, Sherif, & White, 1988).
Then, select a group.  Possible dimensions from which you may select your group include, but are not limited to:  race, gender, social class, nationality, sexual identity, (dis)ability, rural versus urban status, religious belief, incarceration/criminal history, occupational status, victim, military status, and so on.  Provide a brief summary of the group and concrete examples to illustrate.  Summarize social psychological theory and research relevant to the experiences of members of this target group (e.g., What are the origins of prejudice toward this group? What are the influences on members of this group? etc.), and explain practical, original, and specific strategies for enhancing intergroup relations.
Your initial post should be 500-1000 words in length and must contain a minimum of three scholarly, peer-reviewed references, in addition to required course resources as applicable.  Additional credible references are encouraged.
Guided Response: Respond to at least two of your classmates by Day 5 to stimulate more meaningful and interactive discourse in the discussion forum. In addition, respond to classmates (and/or the instructor, if applicable) who replied to your initial post by Day 7.  Your responses must demonstrate a sophisticated understanding or application of the concepts covered in Week 2.
At least two of your responses should be a minimum of 150 words each.
The following general suggestions may be useful as you craft your replies:

Ask clarifying or thought provoking questions.
Provide personal or professional examples that further illustrate relevant social psychological concepts identified in your classmate’s post.
Supply additional information that might influence your classmate’s interpretation. For example, recommend resources that further support their position or identify possible alternative explanations.
Relate the content in your classmate’s post to that of your own or another classmate’s initial contribution to this discussion.

317

14

Racism and other forms of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination
plague the United States in insidious ways. Research conducted on nation-
ally representative samples suggests that almost two thirds of adult U.S.
residents experience some sort of day-to-day discrimination (e.g., receiv-
ing poor service, being called names) and more than one third experience
a major discriminatory event in their lifetime (e.g., being denied or fired
from a job, being prevented from buying a home; Kessler, Mickelson, &
Williams, 1999). On the extreme end of prejudice, more than 6,216 hate
crimes involving race (46.9%), sexual orientation (20.8%), religion
(19.8%), or ethnic/national origin (11.6%) were reported to the United
States Department of Justice (USDOJ, 2012) during 2011. These reports
are likely a gross underestimate, as hate-crime estimates derived from
the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)—a yearly survey of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14852-015
The Cost of Racism for People of Color: Contextualizing Experiences of Discrimination, A. N. Alvarez,
C. T. H. Liang, and H. A. Neville (Editors)
Copyright © 2016 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.

TOWARD A RELEVANT PSYCHOLOGY
OF PREJUDICE, STEREOTYPING,

AND DISCRIMINATION:
LINKING SCIENCE AND PRACTICE

TO DEVELOP INTERVENTIONS THAT
WORK IN COMMUNITY SETTINGS

IGNACIO D. ACEVEDO-POLAKOVICH, KARA L. BECK,
ERIN HAWKS, AND SARAH E. OGDIE

Co
py

ri
gh

t
Am

er
ic

an
P
sy

ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu

rt
he

r
di

st
ri

bu
ti

on
.

318 acevedo-polakovich et al.

criminal victimization in the United States conducted by the USDOJ
and involving a nationally representative sample of 76,000 households
comprising nearly 135,300 persons—suggest that 191,000 hate crime
incidents occur each year (Rand, 2009).

Compared with victims of random crimes, victims of hate crime exhibit
higher rates of delayed effects, such as depression, stress, and anger (Herek,
Gillis, Cogan, & Glunt, 1997). This is not surprising, as even relatively milder
daily forms of discrimination can significantly affect individuals’ health and
well-being. The results of a meta-analysis that included 134 independent
samples identified a significant and negative effect of perceived discrimina-
tion on both mental health (r = -.20) and physical health (r = -.13; Pascoe &
Smart Richman, 2009). This meta-analysis also provided evidence of specific
relations between perceived discrimination and depressive symptoms, psychi-
atric distress, general well-being, and the probability of being diagnosed with
a mental illness. Such findings poignantly underscore the harm caused by the
everyday prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination encountered by most
people in the United States and disproportionately by members of ethnic or
racial minority groups.

Considering the prevalence and negative impact of prejudice, stereo-
typing, and discrimination in the United States, it is not surprising that
addressing these variables has been an important focus of both researchers
(e.g., Paluck & Green, 2009) and communities in this country (e.g., National
Research Council [NRC] & Institute of Medicine [IOM], 2000). In a meth-
odological review of the prejudice reduction literature, Paluck and Green
(2009) identified 985 studies on the topic, of which 72% were published.
Their review included nonpublished studies to facilitate a comparison of lab-
oratory-based research and field-based research. Paluck and Green identified
six prejudice-reduction approaches supported by both laboratory and field
research (i.e., cooperative learning, entertainment, peer influence, contact,
value consistency, and intercultural training), two supported mostly by labo-
ratory evidence (i.e., social categorization, and cognitive training), and four
that were often addressed in the literature but lacked research support (i.e.,
diversity training, multicultural education, cultural competence, and conflict
resolution). These authors noted that most research has been conducted in
laboratory settings, with little rigorous research occurring in field settings. As
they conclude:

Those interested in creating effective prejudice-reduction programs must
remain skeptical of the recommendation of laboratory experiments until
they are supported by research of the same degree of rigor outside of the
laboratory. (Paluck & Green, 2009, p. 351)

Co
py

ri
gh

t
Am

er
ic

an
P
sy

ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu

rt
he

r
di

st
ri

bu
ti

on
.

toward a relevant psychology of prejudice 319

THE SCIENCE–PRACTICE GAP

Given the widely documented gap between research and practice across
an alarming variety of domains of human behavior (Jansson, Benoit, Casey,
Phillips, & Burns, 2010; Morrissey et al., 1997), Paluck and Green’s (2009) find-
ings are best understood as a specific example of this broader gap. Scholars who
study the science–practice gap point out that the goals and contexts of scien-
tists and practitioners can differ notably (Jansson et al., 2010; Morrissey et al.,
1997). Practitioners are often concerned with maintaining or expanding exist-
ing services, frequently in underresourced environments; researchers are con-
cerned with conducting rigorous studies, most often with the goal of publication.
Although the ultimate aims of both practitioners and researchers may closely
overlap (e.g., effective prejudice reduction), their differing concerns can present
an obstacle for collaboration. For example, practitioners might perceive practices
that increase methodological rigor, such as randomized assignment, as anti-
thetical to their service principles (Acevedo-Polakovich, Kassab, & Barnett,
2012; Mason, Fleming, Thompson, Haggerty, & Snyder, 2014).

In the interest of promoting the development of effective prejudice-
reduction and antiracism interventions in the communities that need
them, we introduce and illustrate in this chapter some basic concepts and
approaches that promote collaboration between practitioners and researchers
when developing such interventions. We first discuss community–academic
partnerships and their role in addressing the science–practice gap, introduc-
ing an approach to the development and maintenance of these partnerships:
community-based participatory research (CBPR). After this introduction, we
use existing work to illustrate two strategies for the development of research-
supported community interventions: science-to-practice and practice-to-science.
Although the first strategy is frequently used by scholars, it has more often
than not failed to result in effective community interventions (Paluck &
Green, 2009). We discuss the second, less frequently used, strategy in greater
detail, as it is explicitly designed to overcome the limitations of the first
strategy. We conclude the chapter by offering recommendations for future
research and practice.

ADDRESSING THE SCIENCE–PRACTICE GAP
THROUGH COMMUNITY–ACADEMIC PARTNERSHIPS

Overcoming the science–practice gap regarding interventions to
address racism and other forms of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimina-
tion requires careful attention to the development of partnerships between

Co
py

ri
gh

t
Am

er
ic

an
P
sy

ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu

rt
he

r
di

st
ri

bu
ti

on
.

320 acevedo-polakovich et al.

academics and community service providers (Acevedo-Polakovich et al.,
2012; Jansson et al., 2010; Morrissey et al., 1997; Paluck & Green, 2009).
The development of such partnerships is slow and deliberate and can require
changes to the traditional approaches of both academics and communities
(Acevedo-Polakovich et al., 2012). For example, community service providers
who are involved in these partnerships may have to reallocate resources (e.g.,
time, personnel) in exchange for data that support their efforts to refine,
improve, and fund their services. Similarly, scientists who are involved in
these partnerships may have to share control over the focus of research, its
design, and implementation. The reward for scientists who engage in these
partnerships is the ability to conduct field-based research that does not suffer
from the limited external validity that characterizes most prejudice reduction
research (Paluck & Green, 2009).

COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH

Various approaches to research exist that can guide the formation and
maintenance of community–academic partnerships. These include—but
are not limited to—participatory research (e.g., Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995),
participatory action research (e.g., Baum, MacDougall, & Smith, 2006),
emancipatory research (e.g., Rose & Glass, 2008), and CBPR (e.g., Israel,
Eng, Schulz, & Parker, 2005). Although community–academic partnerships
that seek to address stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination need not be
framed by formal approaches to collaboration, the approaches we have listed
are particularly worthy of consideration by such partnerships, as they repre-
sent direct attempts to rectify within the research process the very conditions
of inequality that foster racism and other forms of stereotyping, prejudice, and
discrimination (Wallerstein & Duran, 2003).

Traditional research paradigms devalue community perspectives by
reflecting the assumption that researchers are the experts who have some-
thing to offer community participants (Wallerstein & Duran, 2003). When
research is focused on historically aggrieved communities, this assumption
raises the risk that the manner in which research is conducted will perpetu-
ate the injustice experienced by these communities (Wallerstein & Duran,
2003). By emphasizing equity between researchers and the communities that
they study, the approaches that we have listed attempt to ensure that the
social conditions leading to racism and other forms of stereotyping, prejudice,
and discrimination do not exist within the research process.

The reasons to introduce CBPR as an example of formal approaches to
guide community–academic partnership development and maintenance are
both conceptual and pragmatic. Conceptually, CBPR is broadly inclusive,

Co
py

ri
gh

t
Am

er
ic

an
P
sy

ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu

rt
he

r
di

st
ri

bu
ti

on
.

toward a relevant psychology of prejudice 321

such that it is able to capture and incorporate many important elements of
other approaches (Wallerstein & Duran, 2003). Pragmatically, our extensive
discussion of the practice-to-science strategy uses an active line of CBPR as
an illustration. Introducing CBPR facilitates a richer understanding of the
practice-to-science strategy.

Rather than relying on particular methodologies or designs, CBPR
occurs when researchers and community members adhere to values and prin-
ciples emphasizing equity and shared control (Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003).
One popular articulation of CBPR includes nine fundamental values and
practices (Israel, Eng, Schulz, & Parker, 2005): (a) recognition of the com-
munity as a unit of identity, (b) a focus on building community strengths
and resources, (c) incorporation of collaborative and equitable partnerships
between scientists and community members in all phases of the research,
(d) colearning and capacity building for all partners, (e) balance between
research and action for the mutual benefit of all partners, (f) emphasis on the
multiply determined nature of problems and on the crucial role of community
context when understanding and addressing them, (g) the recognition that
ideal solutions develop through cyclical and iterative processes that involve
researchers and the researched community, (h) dissemination of findings
with a focus on relevance to all partners, and (i) committed long-term part-
nerships that extend beyond one singularly-focused project.

SCIENCE-TO-PRACTICE

Within the context of community–academic partnerships, the science–
practice gap can be addressed using one of two broad strategies. The first
of these, which is widely used and can be broadly characterized as a science-
to-practice strategy, guides the work of a community–academic partnership
toward understanding community needs, cross referencing these with rele-
vant scientific findings and then either developing or adapting interventions.
Typically—but not always—this intervention development or adaptation is
undergone in an academic or laboratory setting before interventions are dis-
seminated into the community (Paluck & Green, 2009).

Important challenges can arise when using the science-to-practice strat-
egy. First, interventions that are developed in laboratory settings must then be
disseminated into communities. Dissemination is an active process that requires
considerable resource investment and is not always successful (Wandersman
et al., 2008). The challenges to dissemination result in limited community use
of interventions developed in laboratory settings (Biglan, Mrazek, Carnine,
& Flay, 2003). A second challenge is that interventions that are successfully
implemented must then achieve long-term sustainability. As is the case with

Co
py

ri
gh

t
Am

er
ic

an
P
sy

ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu

rt
he

r
di

st
ri

bu
ti

on
.

322 acevedo-polakovich et al.

dissemination, ensuring the sustainability of an intervention is an active pro-
cess requiring considerable resource investment and—as such—often does
not occur (Hawkins, Shapiro, & Fagan, 2010; Spoth et al., 2011). A final, and
related, challenge of interventions developed using the science-to-practice
approach involves their ecological validity—the compatibility between the
conditions required for the intervention to be maximally effective and the
conditions in the communities in which they are to be implemented (Bernal
& Saez-Santiago, 2006). Interventions that are not responsive to community
conditions are—on average—a quarter as effective as interventions that are
responsive to those conditions (Griner & Smith, 2006). They are also much
less likely to be successfully implemented and less likely to be sustainable in
community settings (Hernandez, Nesman, Mowery, Acevedo-Polakovich, &
Callejas, 2009).

Although—as the work of Paluck and Green (2009) suggests—the chal-
lenges of the science-to-practice strategy have disproportionately prevented
the development and implementation of useful community interventions to
address racism and other forms of stereotyping, prejudice and discrimina-
tion, some community–academic partnerships have successfully used this
strategy. The development of Musekeweya (i.e., “New Dawn”; as cited in
Staub, Pearlman, Gubin, & Hagengimana, 2005), a radio-based interven-
tion in Rwanda, is one powerful example. Although the focus of much of
this chapter is on the United States, Musekeweya is an important illustration
because of the nationwide scope of the intervention and the magnitude of the
prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination that it strives to address. In this
regard, it provides a patent demonstration of the capacity of well-designed
community interventions (Paluck & Green, 2009).

The need for Musekeweya arose from the significant and longstand-
ing conflict between Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups. After taking control of
Rwanda away from Germany in the aftermath of World War I, the Belgian
government capitalized on historical differences between these groups and
enacted policies that ensured Tutsis would hold and retain positions of
authority (Sadowski, 1998). This systemic disempowerment of Hutus fueled
the escalation of interethnic conflict throughout the 20th century and led to
several periods of extreme ethnic violence, including the killing of at least
10,000 Tutsi during a 1959 retaliation for the Tutsi attack on a Hutu leader
(Sadowski, 1998); the 1972 killing of hundreds of thousands of Hutu by the
Tutsi military leadership in neighboring Burundi (Lemarchand, 1998); and
bloody civil war along ethnic lines during the 1990s that resulted in approxi-
mately 1,000,000 deaths (Kanyangara, Rime, Philippot, & Yzerbyt, 2007).
In the aftermath of the civil war, the Tutsi-led government pursued a policy
of unity, which provided the context for the development of Musekeweya
(Staub, Pearlman, Weiss, & Hoek, 2008).

Co
py

ri
gh

t
Am

er
ic

an
P
sy

ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu

rt
he

r
di

st
ri

bu
ti

on
.

toward a relevant psychology of prejudice 323

As a first step toward the development of an intervention to foster inter-
ethnic unity, the community–academic partnership that ultimately designed
Musekeweya documented local conditions among Rwandans, including the
historical context of the violence, the resulting trauma, and the reconciliation
efforts already underway (Staub, 2006; Staub et al., 2005). These local condi-
tions were then interpreted using existing scholarship on violence, trauma, heal-
ing, and reconciliation (Staub, 2006; Staub et al., 2008). In brief, the researchers
interpreted the conflict between Tutsi and Hutu as fueled by social conditions
leading to the dehumanization of the other, unjust societal arrangements, and
the creation of a passive bystander culture (Staub, 2006). To address these fac-
tors, the academic partners collaborated with Hutu and Tutsi Rwandans in the
development of a radio-based intervention, Musekeweya, which took the form
of a soap opera—followed by an estimated 85% of radio listeners in Rwanda—
that integrated themes important for reconciliation (Staub et al., 2008).

Musekeweya had positive effects on listeners’ perceptions of social
norms and on their behavior (Paluck, 2009). When compared with a control
group that listened to a health education radio show, Rwandans who listened
to Musekeweya were less likely to report that they would prohibit their chil-
dren from marrying individuals from a different ethnic group, more likely
to report that they should speak up if they disagree with someone’s actions,
and more likely to endorse talking about trauma (Paluck, 2009). Consistent
with the belief that they would speak up when they disagree with someone’s
actions, participants in the intervention group were also more likely to chal-
lenge each other during discussions (Paluck, 2009).

Musekeweya’s strong effects and broad dissemination powerfully illus-
trate the capacity of well-designed science-to-practice interventions that are
intentional about addressing the challenges that this development strategy
often encounters (Paluck & Green, 2009). Working collaboratively with
communities from the outset of the process, the researchers involved in the
development of Musekeweya were able to design an intervention with a high
degree of ecological validity and a broad, sustainable dissemination.

PRACTICE-TO-SCIENCE: EVIDENCE-BASING
COMMUNITY INTERVENTIONS

Musekeweya illustrates how a thoughtful implementation of the science-
to-practice strategy can lead to successful community interventions to reduce
racism and other forms of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination; how-
ever, the challenges associated with this strategy have often prevented the
development of useful community interventions (Paluck & Green, 2009).
In the absence of successfully scaled science-to-practice efforts, communities

Co
py

ri
gh

t
Am

er
ic

an
P
sy

ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu

rt
he

r
di

st
ri

bu
ti

on
.

324 acevedo-polakovich et al.

have frequently developed their own interventions to address racism, often
focused on improving intergroup relations (NRC & IOM, 2000).

Long-standing community-driven interventions are less likely to
encounter the challenges faced by interventions developed using a science-
to-practice strategy (Wandersman & Florin, 2003). Dissemination—at least
with a local focus—is by definition unnecessary, as these interventions are
developed in the communities that need them (Glasgow, Vogt, & Boles,
1999). Sustainability is less likely to be an issue with long-standing commu-
nity interventions, as they often remain in existence because they incorpo-
rate the sustainability infrastructures that science-to-practice programs are
challenged to develop (Mason et al., 2014). Finally, the development and
implementation of these interventions within the community usually results
in a high degree of ecological validity (Barkham & Mellor-Clark, 2003).
Despite these benefits of community-driven interventions, it is usually the
case that limited or no efforts have been made to rigorously examine whether
these interventions produce their intended effects (NRC & IOM, 2000). For
this reason, community–academic partnerships attempting to address the
science–practice gap may also adopt a practice-to-science approach focused
on the rigorous evaluation and improvement of interventions that are long-
standing within community settings (Mason et al., 2014).

Mason et al. (2014) recently described a framework to guide community–
academic partnerships that pursue the practice-to-science strategy, which
we summarize in Figure 14.1. The framework assumes the existence of

Figure 14.1. Mason et al.’s (2014) Practice-to-science framework. From “A Frame-
work for Testing and Promoting Expanded Dissemination of Promising Preventive
Interventions That Are Being Implemented in Community Settings,” by W. A. Mason,
C. B. Fleming, R. W. Thompson, K. P. Haggerty, and J. J. Snyder, 2014, Prevention
Science, 15, pp. 674–683. Copyright 2013 by Springer. Reprinted with permission.

Co
py

ri
gh

t
Am

er
ic

an
P
sy

ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu

rt
he

r
di

st
ri

bu
ti

on
.

toward a relevant psychology of prejudice 325

community–academic partnerships and recognizes that their development
and maintenance are effortful processes that should be guided by best prac-
tices as documented in the literature. We describe and illustrate the appli-
cation of Mason et al.’s framework for the evidence-basing of community
interventions to address racism and other forms of prejudice using examples
from active CBPR involving ANYTOWN™, an intervention for high-
school-age youth in the United States, with the goals of promoting diver-
sity acceptance, intergroup contact, social responsibility, and community
involvement. Because the practice-to-science strategy is implemented much
less often than its science-to-practice alternative, we focus on providing one
well-developed example of its application, and we hope that our discussion
can better inform researchers and practitioners considering the application
of a practice-to-science strategy in different contexts.

ANYTOWN™—the focus of our practice-to-science work—is a time-
limited residential intervention typically lasting one week. For the week,
youth are assigned to dormitories and discussion groups such that they are
maximally exposed to peers whose background differs significantly from their
own in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, socioeconomic status, and
sexual orientation. ANYTOWN™ includes workshops and activities on var-
ious foci of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination (e.g., race, sexual ori-
entation, gender, socioeconomic status), dialogue, social responsibility, and
community involvement. Along with the workshops and activities, youth
participate in small dialogue groups to discuss the implications of the work-
shops and activities for their attitudes and their behavior.

EXAMINING AND DOCUMENTING
CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION

Intervention Promise

As seen in Figure 14.1, a first step in the practice-to-science strategy
is documenting current implementation efforts, specifically attending to an
intervention’s promise, its service provision networks, and its service provi-
sion resources (Mason et al., 2014). Examining and documenting an inter-
vention’s promise involves three important considerations, the first of which
is examining whether it includes components associated with other success-
ful interventions (Mason et al., 2014).

ANYTOWN™ was developed in the 1950s on the basis of Gordon
Allport’s (1954) intergroup contact theory, which at the time provided the
state-of-the-science understanding of the conditions under which stereo-
typing, prejudice, and discrimination could be overcome. More than 60 years

Co
py

ri
gh

t
Am

er
ic

an
P
sy

ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu

rt
he

r
di

st
ri

bu
ti

on
.

326 acevedo-polakovich et al.

of research suggest that intergroup contact is among the most reliable and
powerful influences on intergroup attitudes (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).
A meta-analysis that included 713 independent samples from 515 stud-
ies conducted between 1940 and 2000 found that the average effect size
of intergroup contact upon prejudice was between r = -.20 and r = -.21
(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). To the extent that ANYTOWN™ successfully
implements intergroup contact, it appears to include at least one compo-
nent that is associated with successful interventions. Cooperative learning,
peer influence, contact, and value consistency—all of which were identi-
fied by Paluck and Green (2009) as components of effective interventions
to decrease prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination—are also part of
ANYTOWN™.

The second consideration in determining an intervention’s promise is
ascertaining whether it is evaluable (Mason et al., 2014). The existence of
documentation of the intervention—including intervention manuals, proto-
cols for interventionist selection and training, and tools for the monitoring
of implementation fidelity—informs this consideration. The implementation
of ANYTOWN™ is guided by a carefully developed curriculum; interven-
tionists are selected and prepared according to established and documented
practices; and although limited in their current form, tools exist—and can be
improved—that can be used to track fidelity.

A final consideration is reviewing any preliminary evidence of an
intervention’s success (Mason et al., 2014). Evaluations of ANYTOWN™
published in the peer-reviewed literature document pretreatment to post-
treatment changes in single-item measures of knowledge and attitudes
regarding sexual orientation, gender identity, and race (Boulden, 2005, 2006)
and on psychometrically derived multi-item assessments of self-concept, per-
sonal and civic responsibility, race-based prejudice, heterosexism, and gender
equality (Otis & Loeffler, 2005).

Service Provision Networks

Two levels of networks are involved in the provision of ANYTOWN™.
The first involves a national network associated with the dissemination
of the intervention. The second involves local networks associated with
ANYTOWN™’s implementation in specific communities. At the national
level, ANYTOWN™ was originally developed by the National Conference
of Christians and Jews (NCCJ; later renamed the National Conference for
Community and Justice), an organization founded in 1927 to promote
interfaith unity, which later expanded its scope to promote intergroup unity
across races, social classes, genders, sexual orientations, and ability levels.
Between 1927 and 2005, the NCCJ was structured as central organization

Co
py

ri
gh

t
Am

er
ic

an
P
sy

ch
ol
og
ic
al
A
ss
oc
ia
ti
on
.
No
t
fo
r
fu

rt
he

r
di

st
ri

bu
ti

on
.

toward a relevant psychology of prejudice 327

with regional chapters. It was through these chapters that ANYTOWN™
was originally disseminated. Although the structure of NCCJ changed after
2005 such that regional chapters became autonomous and independent,
ANYTOWN™ continues to be implemented in local communities by some
of the now autonomous organizations that previously functioned as NCCJ
chapters.

At the local level, the implementation of ANYTOWN™ relies on the
community networks of each NCCJ chapter (or their descendant organiza-
tions). For instance, within the Tampa Bay area of Florida, the local NCCJ
chapter was rebranded as Community Tampa Bay Inc. (CTB), a nonprofit
organization with a mission to promote dialogue and respect among all cul-
tures, religions, and races by cultivating leaders to change communities. The
local implementation of ANYTOWN™ depends on established relations
between CTB and community stakeholders—such as religious congregations,
schools, civic groups, and youth-serving organizations—each of which sup-
port ANYTOWN™ by referring youth and/or providing volunteers or other
tangible forms of aid (e.g., funding).

Service Provision Resources

Funding for the implementation of ANYTOWN™ in the Tampa Bay
area depends on a variety of sources, including donations, grants, contracts
and volunteer support. This is particularly the case as—to guarantee access
to as diverse a pool of participants as possible—until 2012 the program had
avoided charging participants despite per-participant costs of …

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Intergroup contact theory
Pettigrew, Thomas F
Annual Review of Psychology; 1998; 49, ProQuest Central
pg. 65

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

HOME TO CERTIFIED WRITERS

Why Place An Order With Us?

  • Certified Editors
  • 24/7 Customer Support
  • Profesional Research
  • Easy to Use System Interface
  • Student Friendly Pricing

Have a similar question?

Services that we offer

Your Paper Is In Safe Hands

PLAGIRAISM FREE PAPERS

All papers we provide are well-researched, properly formatted and cited.

TOP QUALITY

All papers we provide are well-researched, properly formatted and cited.

HIGHLY SECURED

All papers we provide are well-researched, properly formatted and cited.

Related Assignments

Study more efficiently

Quickly get your essay from idea to final graft save time, money and effort.

Boost your grade

Get through your toughest problem and learn how to solve them from expert writers

Essay Writing Service Ready to Help Online 24/7

Hire a professional just from $9.99

Click here

Chat now
1
Powered by Studykind
Hello! Welcome to to our whatapp support.

We offer READY solutions, HIGH QUALITY PLAGIARISM FREE essays and term-papers.

We are online and ready to help.