To broaden the understanding of interpersonal relations, the nature of nonprejudice is proposed, and a means of measuring it is developed. Nonprejudice is conceptualized, in part, as a universal orientation in interpersonal relations whereby perceivers selectively attend to, accentuate, and interpret similarities rather than differences between the self and others (cognitive integration vs. differentiation). A series of studies indicates that the Universal Orientation Scale is a reliable, valid construct, presumedly measuring nonprejudice. In 2 studies in which participants rated photographs of persons differing in ethnicity, universally oriented participants were more accepting and less discriminating between minority and nonminority control targets than were less universally oriented participants. Discussion includes an elaboration of a theory of nonprejudice.

s (1984) provocative, widely accepted analysis proposed that professional sports teams play unusually badly (choke) under the pressure created by their home fans and perform poorly in decisive home games of championship series. However, a reanalysis of the data, including the results of recent championships in baseball and basketball, finds no evidence of a home-field championship choke. The home field is an advantage, and the home team wins about as often late as early in championship series. Teams show an ability to triumph over pressure in asymmetrical "must-win" situations late in championship series. When choking occurs, it is associated with the anticipation of an important failure, not the distractions of possible success as suggested by Baumeister and Steinhilber.

Lab and field data did not support the home-choke hypothesis as it was articulated by R. F. Baumeister and A. Steinhilber (1984). Home teams do not perform poorly in key games. Furthermore, evidence favors a darker form of choking (social pressure plus self-doubts), not the kinder form (disruptive fantasies of success in front of a supportive audience) that explicitly distinguished the home choke. R. F. Baumeister's (1995) reply clouded the concept of the home choke and blurred the standards for its assessment. Even the new measure he proposed usually favored the home team. For coaches and players, the data offer a straightforward conclusion: Take the home field if you have a choice.The exquisite beauty of the scientific method lies in its demand for an interplay between ideas and data. For an idea to survive, much less prosper, its advocates must provide evidence to convince fans and skeptics that the data warrant the conclusion. In our view, the central issue here is simple and straightforward: Do the data support the home-choke hypothesis as it was articulated by Baumeister and Steinhilber (1984)? It is not whether people choke in pressure situations or whether archival data are messier than laboratory data. We looked closely at the home-field disadvantage and could not find satisfactory evidence for it. The baseball and basketball championships, on which the idea was based, usually showed a clear home-field advantage in key games. If a player or coach asks our advice, we confidently answer, "Take the home field if you have a choice."In his reply, Baumeister (1995) mentioned only the World Series data and ignored data from basketball and other baseball championships. He also took a different, more amorphous approach to choking than he did in his earlier article with Steinhilber (Baumeister & Steinhilber, 1984). Current research supports a darker form of choking, not the kinder form of the home choke. Furthermore, we do not agree that the problem is due to the sometimes messy nature of archival data. Any data set, lab or field, can be good or bad. The home-choke idea may be intriguing, but the data from both lab and field research do not support it.We agree with Baumeister (1995) about many aspects of performance pressure. Focusing attention on the details of skilled performances can be disruptive (e.g., the expert pianist concentrating on precise finger movements); social pressure can produce social anxiety; success can be problematic when it commits people to expectations that they think they cannot fulfill or do not want to

No abstract

No abstract