Knowledge that Transforms

Labor strikes are often seen as battles for public support. Members of the public are asked to show respect for a strike by refusing to cross the picket line or by joining strikers on the picket line. Such public support may affect the morale of strikers and influence the strike's duration. Despite the perceived importance of the public in labor disputes, members of third parties have not been considered in previous strike research. In 2 studies, the authors show that a new measure of third-party strike support is unidimensional and highly reliable. In both cases, union attitudes and perceptions of distributive justice were significant predictors of support for strike action. Those who are more supportive of unions in general and believe that the contract offered to the strikers was unfair were more likely to support the strike by engaging in such actions as conversing with strikers, writing letters, and refusing to cross the picket line.

Students who supervised other students who tutored grade-school pupils in a university-based outreach program were randomly assigned to Pygmalion and control conditions. Experimental supervisors were told that their tutors were ideally qualified for their tutoring role; control supervisors were told nothing about their tutors' qualifications. A manipulation check revealed that the experimental supervisors expected more of their tutors. Analysis of variance of tutorial success measures confirmed the Pygmalion effect among supervisors of both sexes. No main effect or interaction involving either supervisor sex or tutor sex was significant. As predicted, the experimental supervisors also provided better leadership and the experimental tutors increased their self-efficacy. This was the first demonstration of the Pygmalion effect among women leading men. Pygmalion effects may be produced without regard for sex.

The research reported in this article examined the conditions under which persuasive arguments are most effective in changing university students' attitudes and expressed behavior with respect to affirmative action (AA). The conceptual framework was a model that integrated the theory of reasoned action and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Studies 1 and 2 established effective manipulations of positive?negative AA information, and peripheral?central routes of processing. Study 3 implemented these techniques, and a path analysis was carried out testing the differential effects of valence of information processed via different routes on AA evaluative beliefs, attitudes, intention, and expressed behavior. Results indicated that positive AA messages processed centrally (i.e., for meaning) resulted in significantly more positive evaluative beliefs. Modifications to the original model resulted in a final model with excellent fit to the data that supported the mediating role of intention in the AA attitude?behavior relationship, as predicted by the theory of reasoned action. The findings highlight potential benefits of interventions for improving support for AA policies, provided that positive information is processed at a central, evaluative level.

This study examines the reactions of African Americans and Whites to affirmative action programs (AAPs) applied to 4 human resource activities: hiring, promotion, training, and layoffs. The results of a scenario-based experimental study conducted on a large sample (N > 800) of advanced undergraduate and MBA business school participants generally supported the hypothesis that human resource activity elicited systematic differences in reaction to AAPs between African Americans and Whites. The authors also replicated previous research on the effect of AAP strength and prior discrimination by the organization on reactions to AAPs. Results indicated that AAP strength levels moderated racial differences in reaction to AAPs, while the moderating role of prior discrimination by the organization was not supported. Implications for future research are discussed.

Using a sample of 246 working adults, the authors created a 2 x 2 x 2 experimental design to isolate the influence of performance outcome, source of handicapping, and frequency of handicapping on reactions to handicapping in organizations. Dependent measures were observers' allocations of credit/blame, interpersonal affect, and the perceived credibility of the explanation. Results showed direct effects on observer impressions for all 3 independent variables, along with a significant Source x Frequency interaction. Handicapping information presented by others yielded more favorable observer impressions than did self-handicapping, and frequent handicapping decreased observer impressions. The least credible handicapping strategy was multiple self-handicaps. A significant 3-way interaction showed that source and frequency affected perceived credibility differently, depending upon whether actual performance was a success or a failure.

Bridge employment is the labor force participation pattern increasingly observed in older workers between their career jobs and their complete labor force withdrawal. It serves as a transition process from career employment to full retirement. Typical bridge employment decisions include full retirement, career bridge employment, and bridge employment in a different field. In the current study, 3 dominant theories (i.e., role theory, continuity theory, and life course perspective) on retirement processes were reviewed. On the basis of these theories, the authors proposed 4 categories of antecedents (i.e., individual attributes, job-related psychological variables, family-related variables, and a retirement-planning-related variable) of different types of bridge employment decisions. The authors used longitudinal data of a large, nationally representative sample from the Health and Retirement Study (F. Juster & R. Suzman, 1995) to test the current hypotheses. These data were analyzed with multinomial logistic regression, and most of the hypotheses were supported by the results. The implications of this study are discussed at both theoretical and practical levels.

Adverse impact evaluations often call for evidence that the disparity between groups in selection rates is statistically significant, and practitioners must choose which test statistic to apply in this situation. To identify the most effective testing procedure, the authors compared several alternate test statistics in terms of Type I error rates and power, focusing on situations with small samples. Significance testing was found to be of limited value because of low power for all tests. Among the alternate test statistics, the widely-used Z-test on the difference between two proportions performed reasonably well, except when sample size was extremely small. A test suggested by G. J. G. Upton (1982) provided slightly better control of Type I error under some conditions but generally produced results similar to the Z-test. Use of the Fisher Exact Test and Yates's continuity-corrected chi-square test are not recommended because of overly conservative Type I error rates and substantially lower power than the Z-test.