Infra-humanization: The Wall of Group Differences

Infra-humanizing outgroups involves considering outgroups less human and more animal-like than the ingroup, which is perceived, in essence, as fully human. In this article, the first section presents the theoretical background of infra-humanization and distinguishes it from related concepts, such as dehumanization. The three basic hypotheses of the theory are then presented with a summary of empirical evidence. Social implications follow. Reasons for the pervasiveness of the phenomenon are examined as well as conditions that lead a specific outgroup to be infra-humanized. We also explore the consequences of infra-humanization, such as a lack of forgiveness for the outgroup and the ingroup's justification for past misdeeds against the outgroup, rather than guilt. Policy issues center on ways to combat essentialism, walls of difference between groups, and irrational symbols of superiority. The roles of egalitarian values and of deprovincialized intergroup contact are emphasized.     

Comprehensive college student suicide assessment: application of the BASIC ID

Whether one knows someone who is thinking of suicide, has attempted suicide, or has completed suicide, nearly all individuals who encounter suicide are affected. The influence and residual affects of suicide are further amplified as the issue reaches across communities such as college or university campuses. College and university staff must improve their response to suicidal ideation with comprehensive assessment and intervention. The authors discuss risk factors and basic screening methods for suicide risk. They present Lazarus' BASIC ID tool (ie, Behavior, Affective Responses, Sensations, Images, Cognitions, Interpersonal Relationships, and Drugs or Biological Influences) as a method for conducting a comprehensive suicide assessment. The authors demonstrate assessment procedures through a case vignette.     

Encouraging workers to save: the 2005 Retirement Confidence Survey

This Issue Brief reports findings of the 15th annual Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS), which points to potential solutions to the American retirement savings problem, specifically ways that could help workers save more through their employment-based retirement plans. IMPORTANCE OF EMPLOYER MATCH: More than 7 in 10 workers not currently contributing to their employer-sponsored retirement plan say an employer contribution of up to 5 percent of their salary would make them much more or somewhat more likely to participate (72 percent). SIMPLIFIED OPTIONS: Other retirement plan options that nonparticipants say would make them more likely to contribute are an investment option that automatically becomes more conservative as their retirement date approaches (66 percent) and a feature that automatically raises workers' contributions by a fixed amount or percentage when they receive a pay raise (55 percent). Two-thirds of nonparticipants indicate they would be very or somewhat likely to remain in their employer's plan if they were automatically enrolled (66 percent). SOCIAL SECURITY: Nearly 7 in 10 of today's workers are skeptical that Social Security will continue to provide benefits of at least equal value to those received by current retirees (68 percent). This proportion has remained relatively constant in recent years, but is below the 1995 level (79 percent). Workers continue to be unable to identify the age at which they will be eligible for full Social Security benefits. MOST BEHIND SCHEDULE IN SAVING: A majority of workers believe they are behind schedule when it comes to planning and saving for retirement (55 percent). Most of those behind schedule say that high expenses, particularly everyday expenses (49 percent), child-rearing expenses (39 percent), and medical costs (35 percent), are a major factor in keeping them from saving. LESS THAN HALF HAVE TRIED TO CALCULATE NEEDED SAVINGS: Approximately 4 in 10 workers say they have tried to calculate how much they need to accumulate for retirement. More than one-third of these workers say they asked a financial advisor to calculate this number or used their own estimates; 10 percent say they simply guessed how much they will need in retirement.