Interparental agreement on child behavior problems was studied by having parents in 137 families complete the Child Behavior Checklist for their children age 3-13. Interparental agreement on specific behavior problems was low. Mothers consistently reported more problem behavior than fathers, but parents did not show different levels of agreement for boys and girls. Discrepancies between parental reports of problem behavior, but not kappa scores, increased as the distress level of the family increased. Child Behavior Checklist items rated high for objectivity, observability, molecularity, disturbance, and social undesirability generally obtained higher levels of parental agreement than items rated low for these qualities. Some evidence indicated that items on the externalizing scale of the checklist achieve higher agreement and are more objective, observable, and socially undesirable than items on the internalizing scale.
Hate crimes are those in which the victim is selected because of his or her actual or perceived race, color, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or national origin. Hate crime laws have frequently been met with objections. Whereas some objections are based in constitutional law, other objections invoke a variety of psychological constructs, including attitude, motivation, behavior, emotion, and intergroup relations. These objections can be illuminated by relevant psychological theory and research. Topics addressed include the measurement of motivation and intent, and distinctions among attitudes, emotions, and behavior. Hate crimes and other crimes are compared in terms of perpetrators, type and degree of violence, psychological and physical trauma suffered by victims, and community impact. Psychologically based defense strategies used by perpetrators of hate crimes are critiqued. Hate crime laws are also discussed in terms of the political and social values they reflect. Finally, research and policy implications are outlined, including implications for prevention and intervention at the individual, community, and law enforcement levels.
Cognitive, individual differences, and intergroup contact factors were examined in the formation of attitudes about human rights and ethnic bias in two studies conducted in Spain. A 7‐item scale measuring knowledge about human rights laws in Spain and the European Union was used in both studies. Participants were university students enrolled at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. In study one, participant (n = 127) knowledge about human rights laws, intergroup contact, Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), and Gough's Prejudice/Tolerance (Pr/To) scale were examined in relationship to bias towards Gitanos. Findings revealed that knowledge about human rights and social status variables (gender and age) were not significant predictors of Gitano bias, whereas Pr/To, RWA, and contact were all (R2 = .28) significant predictors of bias against Gitanos. Findings provided cross‐cultural replication (Dunbar & Simonova, in press) of the relationship of Pr/To and RWA to Gitano bias. In study two, participant (n = 100) knowledge and feelings (measured on a three‐item semantic differential scale) about human rights laws, Pr/To, and RWA were examined in relation to strategies influencing peer attitudes about human rights on the Raven Social Influence Inventory (RSII) scale. Findings indicated that knowledge about human rights laws were correlated (r = .47, p < .001) with positive feelings about these laws. Results of a hierarchical regression analysis, controlling for knowledge about human rights laws and participants' social status, found that the Prejudice/Tolerance scale and feelings about human rights were related with both hard (R2 = .11) and soft (R2 = .08) social influence strategies influencing peer human rights attitudes on the RSII. Men and higher‐scoring participants on Pr/To both employed more hard social influence strategies. Findings indicate that while knowledge of human rights laws is unrelated to ethnic bias, more accurate knowledge is correlated to more positive feelings about laws meant to protect the rights of ethnic minorities.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.