@article{burse_2016, title={Taking on Diversity: How We Can Move from Anxiety to Respect-A Diversity Doctor's Best Lessons from the Campus}, volume={61}, ISSN={["1545-6846"]}, DOI={10.1093/sw/sww025}, abstractNote={In the book Taking on Diversity: How We Can Move from Anxiety to Respect, Dr. Nacoste narrates a compilation of conversations shared by individuals about their anxieties in daily interactions when responding to situations about race, gender, sexual preference, and ethnicity. Nacoste’s instruction engages students and readers through the use of various music compilations, films, books, and social media to illustrate daily interactions and connections. Nacoste insists that his undertaking is to guide learners to confront intolerance and fight toward reciprocal veneration and accepting differences. The author suggests that scholars, or “young travelers,” must lead the way by engaging in daily interactions with individuals to challenge and eliminate conscious and unconscious fears, phobias, stereotypes, and racial injustices by accelerating an accessible interchange with diversity. Nacoste provides a perspective based on an interpersonal psychology framework that offers a theoretical and realistic approach on interpersonal relationships. This ideology suggests that all relationships must be dependent and intertwined together to obtain internal self-fulfillment.}, number={3}, journal={SOCIAL WORK}, author={Burse, Jacqueline R.}, year={2016}, month={Jul}, pages={281–283} }
 @book{nacoste_2010, title={Making gumbo in the university}, ISBN={9781935514299}, publisher={Austin, TX: Plain View Press}, author={Nacoste, R. W.}, year={2010} }
 @misc{oxendine_nacoste_2007, title={Who would claim to be that, who was not? Evaluations of an ethnic validation procedure}, volume={37}, ISSN={["1559-1816"]}, DOI={10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00229.x}, abstractNote={We investigated the fairness implications of a procedure designed to validate ethnic membership. In addition, procedural justifications, or justifications before the procedure were tested as the rationale for the procedure introduced. Of 2 procedural justifications—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)—the NSF justification was hypothesized as being perceived as more fair. Results showed that procedures designed to validate ethnic membership were evaluated as unfair under most conditions. Additionally, results indicated that procedural justifications influenced evaluations of the degree of fairness of the procedure. Implications for Lumbee American Indian Federal recognition are discussed.}, number={7}, journal={JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY}, author={Oxendine, David B. and Nacoste, Rupert W.}, year={2007}, month={Jul}, pages={1594–1629} }
 @article{pond_nacoste_mohr_rodriguez_1997, title={The measurement of organizational citizenship behavior: Are we assuming too much?}, volume={27}, ISSN={["0021-9029"]}, DOI={10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01611.x}, abstractNote={Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) is assessed by measuring how frequently employees display extra‐role and discretionary behaviors. One hundred forty‐four managerial employees responded to an OCB scale and indicated the number of behaviors on the scale they believed to be formally evaluated. None of the behaviors were believed to be unevaluated by all employees. Data suggest that a typical OCB scale is not measuring citizenship behaviors for everybody, and that OCB measurement needs refinement. Best prediction of other organizational variables was obtained when both the OCB and an index of “unevaluated” behaviors were used as predictors. Supervisor fairness interacted with OCB when predicting organizational commitment, and this interaction was contingent on the extent OCBs were believed to be unevaluated.}, number={17}, journal={JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY}, author={Pond, SB and Nacoste, RW and Mohr, MF and Rodriguez, CM}, year={1997}, month={Sep}, pages={1527–1544} }