Search

This study aims to determine if self-affirmation plays a role in buffering the relationship between stereotype threat and belonging, optimism, and self-efficacy in mature-age university students. It will form the basis of an Honours project for the fourth year of the Bachelor of Psychological Sciences (Honours), at the University of Queensland, Australia. Stereotype threat is a psychosocial phenomenon that applies to group members undertaking any activity, about which a negative stereotype for their group performing said activity exists (Steele, 1997). Originally studied in the academic performance of African-American students, the theory has been extended from racial-based stereotypes to encompass both gender-based and age-based stereotypes (Pennington et al., 2016). To date, little work has focused on mature-age students in tertiary education. Qualitative research has indicated that mature-age students are stereotyped (Mallman & Lee, 2016; Richardson, 1994), making them susceptible to stereotype threat. While there is limited evidence, mature age students are often stereotyped to be “deficient in the basic skills needed for effective studying in higher education, or to be impaired by age-related intellectual deficits” (Richardson, 1994, p. 373). More recent research has delved into non-traditional students and their ‘otherness’ as a function of their age (Read et al., 2003). Common stereotypes that mature-age students experience include asking too many questions, telling too many personal stories, as well as other stereotypes consistent with ageist tropes that older adults face (Krishnan, 2019). While self-efficacy has been studied as a direct determinant of tertiary education success (Zajacova et al., 2005), optimism and belonging have both been linked with satisfaction and subjective wellbeing (Fan et al., 2021; Rand et al., 2020), which is likely to contributes to tertiary education success. For the first time, the relationship between stereotype threat and these outcomes will be explored in a population of mature-age tertiary students (30 years and older). Further to this, a brief self-affirmation intervention will be introduced to determine if the negative consequences of stereotype threat can be buffered, as it has in other populations. Mature-age students are a growing segment of the university population, and as people continue to work longer, and have more careers before retirement, it is set to expand even further. Understanding the impacts of stereotype threat, and determining strategies to ameliorate its negative effects, will provide benefits to the health and wellbeing of mature-age students.

The consequences of age-based stereotype threat are well documented yet understanding how to buffer older employees from age-based stereotype threat is presently unknown. In order to reduce disengagement amongst older employees, research needs to be conducted into factors that will mitigate the effects of age-based stereotype threat. The aim of this study is to determine if social groups can be used to psychologically buffer older employees from the negative effects of stereotype threat in the workplace.

In an attempt to help women, organizations employ a variety of gender-based preferential selection tactics, such as affirmative action. While these strategies are well-intentioned, such programs may highlight stereotypes about the women they intend to help. We investigate whether female beneficiaries of gender-based affirmative action experience stereotype threat, in turn causing them to adopt a more masculine communication style, compared to women in a merit condition. We also investigate the effect of affirmative action on self assessments of performance, self handicapping behaviours, fairness perceptions, support for affirmative action and desire to persist with a leadership position, as well as the potential moderating effects of self-efficacy and gender identification in these relationships.

Building on a qualitative study conducted by the same group of researchers, the present study aims to measure the extent to which employees experience compatibility with different scales of physical workspace and the impact of this on job attitudes.

This is a daily diary study among office-based employees. This study seeks to investigate a) how different types of workspaces are experienced and felt differently among employees, and b) the implications of these spaces and time spent in these spaces on workplace and affective outcomes.

A meta-analysis of responses to affirmative action policies/programs

PLEASE NOTE THIS STUDY WAS ON HOLD FROM APRIL 2020 UNTIL JANUARY 2021 DUE TO MATERNITY LEAVE. UPON REVISITING THE PROJECT, AN UPDATED SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED USING THE SAME TERMS AND CRITERIA OF THE ORIGINAL PREREGISTRATION. WHEN PRESENTING A META-ANALYSIS IT IS ESSENTIAL TO CONSIDER THE QUALITY AND STRUCTURE OF THE CONTRIBUTING DATA. IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THIS META-ANALYSIS WOULD BENEFIT FROM AN EXPANDED CODING AND ANALYTIC APPROACH. THEREFORE, THE FOLLOWING PREREGISTRATION CONTAINS UPDATED HYPOTHESES TO REFLECT SOME EXPANDED VARIABLES (E.G., BENEFICIARY/NON-BENEFICIARY STATUS) AND A REVISED ANALYSIS PLAN TO REORGANISE AND METHODICALLY PRESENT THE DATA. AT THE TIME OF THIS PREREGISTRATION REVIEW, ALL PAPERS FOR INCLUSION HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND THE FINAL DATA EXTRACTION IS UNDERWAY, HOWEVER, DATA ANALYSES HAVE NOT COMMENCED. THE ORIGINAL PREREGISTRATION CAN BE VIEWED USING THE FOLLOWING LINK: osf.io/jvnbf. More than four decades of research have investigated the negative effects of affirmative action programs which preferentially favour underrepresented or previously disadvantaged minorities, such as women and ethnic groups. Despite these findings, affirmative action programs are widely used in both organizational and educational settings. This study aims to review and aggregate this research to better understand the impact of different types of affirmative action programs on a range of outcomes. This goal will be achieved by conducting a comprehensive systematic search, followed by a meta-analysis and p-curve analysis. Previous meta-analyses have begun to assess some responses to affirmative action (e.g., Harrison et. al, 2006; Leslie, Mayer & Kravitz, 2014), however these studies do not examine the full range of possible responses to affirmative action programs. Therefore, many responses to affirmative action remain unknown and unable to assist in the development of a comprehensive best practice approach. Our systematic review will comprehensively search the literature to identify studies which meet our eligibility criteria. We will evaluate responses in the presence and absence of affirmative action to better understand the effects of these programs. By conducting a meta-analysis, we will be able to quantify the effect size for affirmative action and identify any factors influencing responses to these programs. We will also conduct a p-curve analysis to analyse if selective reporting may explain statistically significant results, which could impact the effect sizes contributing to the results of the meta-analysis. The primary research question of our study asks: a) Does the presence of an affirmative action program impact the magnitude of responses when compared to a control condition in which affirmative action is absent? Additionally, our study aims to explore relationships within this effect and identify conditions which change the direction or size of any observed effects. Specifically: b) Does the magnitude of responses differ for beneficiaries of affirmative action when compared to non-beneficiaries? And is there a further difference between the responses of actual and potential beneficiaries/non-beneficiaries of affirmative action? c) Do affirmative action programs have a greater impact on behavioral or attitudinal responses? And do these programs have a greater effect on attitudes about oneself or towards external factors (e.g., attitudes towards the organization)? d) Does the strength of the affirmative action program (i.e., weak, tiebreak or strong as defined below) affect the magnitude of the responses to the program? e) Does the type of sample (i.e., student or employee) affect the magnitude of responses to the programs? f) Does the context of the affirmative action (i.e., educational or workplace setting) affect the magnitude of responses to the programs? g) Does the magnitude of responses differ when the affirmative action is involving a selection process (e.g., quotas), as opposed to a developmental strategy (e.g., additional training for minority employees)? h) Is the magnitude of responses to affirmative action affected by whether the program targets women, racial/ethnic minorities or a combination of both?

Supplemental material, Supplemental_material for Attitudes of people working in mental health non-governmental organisations in Australia: A comparison with other mental health professionals by Grenville Rose, Courtney von Hippel, Loren Brener and Bill von Hippel in Health Psychology Open

Supplementary Material, JHP_supplementary_material_case_studies_Oct_2015 for Health workers’ support for hepatitis C treatment uptake among clients with a history of injecting by Loren Brener, Courtney von Hippel, Hannah Wilson and Max Hopwood in Journal of Health Psychology