Political homogeneity can nurture threats to research validity.

Political homogeneity within a scientific field nurtures threats to the validity of many research conclusions by allowing ideologically compatible values to influence interpretations, by minimizing skepticism, and by creating premature consensus. Although validity threats can crop in any research, the usual corrective activities in science are more likely to be minimized and delayed.

Ideology and prejudice: the role of value conflicts.

In three studies, we tested whether prejudice derives from perceived similarities and dissimilarities in political ideologies (the value-conflict hypothesis). Across three diverse samples in study 1, conservatives had less favorable impressions than liberals of groups that were identified as liberal (e.g., African Americans, homosexuals), but more favorable impressions than liberals of groups identified as conservative (e.g., Christian fundamentalists, businesspeople). In studies 2 and 3, we independently manipulated a target's race (European American or African American) and political attitudes (liberal or conservative). Both studies found symmetrical preferences, with liberals and conservatives each liking attitudinally similar targets more than dissimilar targets. The amount of prejudice was comparable for liberals and conservatives, and the race of the target had no effect. In all three studies, the same patterns were obtained even after controlling for individual differences on prejudice-related dimensions (e.g., system justification, social-dominance orientation, modern racism). The patterns strongly support the value-conflict hypothesis and indicate that prejudice exists on both sides of the political spectrum.

What makes a hero? The impact of integrity on admiration and interpersonal judgment.

Principled and expedient ideologies affect self-regulation and guide people along divergent ethical paths. A more principled ideology, indicative of higher claimed integrity, involves a greater personal commitment to ethical beliefs, standards, and self-schemas that facilitate positive social activities and help resist the temptation of illicit activities. Two studies showed that differences in reported integrity are related to people's preferences for and judgments of others. Those higher in integrity spontaneously described their heroes as more principled, honest, spiritual, and benevolently oriented toward others (Study 1). In addition, integrity was related to people's evaluations of characters who made ethical or unethical career decisions (Study 2). The judgments of those higher in integrity were greatly influenced by whether or not the decision was ethical but were largely unaffected by the consequences (career success or failure), whereas those lower in integrity were less influenced by whether the decision was ethical and more influenced by the career consequences.

A pharmacist model of perceived responsibility for drug therapy outcomes.

Pharmacists in community and ambulatory care settings are in a unique position to reduce drug-related morbidity and to optimize patient outcomes by identifying, resolving, and preventing drug therapy problems. This particular approach to pharmacy practice expands traditional pharmacist responsibilities of dispensing pharmaceuticals and providing drug information to optimizing patients' drug therapy outcomes. However, pharmacists in general, and community pharmacists in particular, have yet to incorporate this expanded professional role into daily practice. The objective of this study was to examine the validity of a pharmacist model of perceived responsibility for drug therapy outcomes based on the triangle model of responsibility. A survey instrument was tested among community and ambulatory care pharmacists in Florida, USA. The survey instrument contained the following pharmacist-related constructs from the model: clarity of standards, personal control, professional duty, and perceived responsibility for drug therapy outcomes. The model was examined by testing hypothesized relationships between the model constructs and pharmacists' reports of providing pharmaceutical care. The survey response rate was 40.9% (525/1283). All of the study measures exhibited Cronbach alpha values greater than .70. A measurement model was tested using confirmatory factor analysis. The chi2/df ratio (3.02), CFI (.95), and residual (.051) indicated a good fit of the item data to the constructs. According to path analysis, clarity of standards, personal control, and professional duty were significantly related to perceived responsibility for drug therapy outcomes, which in turn, was significantly related to pharmaceutical care provision. Perceived responsibility for drug therapy outcomes acted as a mediator of the effects of clarity of standards, personal control, and professional duty on pharmaceutical care provision. These findings have implications for pharmacy practice and research.

Carryover effects of feeling socially transparent or impenetrable on strategic self-presentation.

The authors proposed that social orientations, such as feeling transparent or impenetrable, that are created in one context can carry over and interact with elements in a different context to influence strategic self-presentation. Participants in 2 experiments wrote narratives that made them feel transparent or impenetrable. Later, they believed they would discuss problems from a social intelligence test with other group members and believed they could do well or poorly on the problems on the basis of practice test feedback. Self-presentations of social intelligence revealed the hypothesized interactions. When transparent, participants adjusted their self-presentations to how well or poorly they expected to perform, but when impenetrable, they presented themselves positively regardless of performance expectations. These results mimic effects obtained when performance is actually made publicly accessible or inaccessible, broaden the conceptualization of strategic self-presentation, and call into question long-held assumptions surrounding public versus private manipulations.