Upload
dinhtruc
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Gliederung
12.10.15 Generelle Einführung 19.10.15 Aggression I 26.10.15 Aggression II 02.11.15 Hilfeverhalten 09.11.15 Enge Beziehungen I 16.11.15 Enge Beziehungen II 23.11.15 Konformität und Minderheiteneinfluss 30.11.15 Normen und Verhalten 07.12.15 Interaktion in Gruppen 14.12.15 Gruppen und soziale Identität
JAHRESWECHSEL 04.01.16 Interaktion zwischen Gruppen 11.01.16 Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen 18.01.16 Umgang mit Ungerechtigkeit und Diskriminierung 25.01.16 Angewandte Sozialpsychologie 01.02.16 Rekapitulation und Konsultation zur Prüfung 08.02.16 ab 06.02. vorlesungsfreie Zeit Kernprüfungszeit: Mo, 08.02.2016 bis Sa, 05.03.2016
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 2
Was können Sie heute lernen?
• Wie wirkt sich Kontakt zu Fremdgruppenmitgliedern auf Diskriminierung aus?
• Wie kann man „schädliche“ Kategorisierungen reduzieren? • Wie kann man Versöhnung zwischen Konfliktparteien fördern?
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 3
Die heutige Vorlesung
• Kontakthypothese • Kategorien und Kontakt • Soziale Motive
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 4
Ein einfaches Modell
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 5
Kein Kontakt
Falsche Stereo-
type
Vorur-teile
Diskri-minie-rung
Schneider (2004)
Intergruppenkontakt als Hilfsmittel?
Und eine deutliche Widerlegung
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 6
Und eine deutliche Widerlegung
1954: Oberster Gerichtshof der USA erklärt Rassentrennung für unrechtmäßig. • Wie wirkt sich verstärkter Kontakt auf Schüler aus? • Überblicksartikel Stephan (1978):
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 7 Aronson et al. (2008)
Gruppenkonflikte
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 8
Soziale Kategorisi
erung Diskrimi-nierung
Soziale Identität
Realistische(r) Konflikt/Bedrohung
„Entmensch-lichung“
Symbolische(r) Konflikt/Bedrohung
Deindividu-ation
Verzerrte Wahrneh-
mung
Reaktion
teils nach Smith & Mackie(2007)
Eskalation
Die Kontakthypothese: Allport (1954)
Bedingungen förderlichen Kontaktes nach Allport (1954): • Gleicher Status • Übergeordnete Ziele • Unterstützende Normen • Längerer, tiefer Kontakt à Wirksamkeit in vielen Studien bestätigt
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 9
„Vorurteile können ... durch einen Kontakt mit gleichem Status zwischen Majorität und Minderheit in der anstrebung gemeinsamer Ziele verringert werden. Die Wirkung ist sehr viel größer, wenn der Kontakt durch die öffentlichen Einrichtungen unterstützt wird und
vorausgesetzt, der Kontakt führt zur Entdeckung gemeinsamer Interessen und der gemeinsamen Menschlichkeit dieser
Gruppen“ (Allport, 1954; nach Aronson et al. 2008)
Kessler & Mummendey (2007); Brewer & Gaertner (2001)
Beispiel: Gleicher Status
Jackman & Crane (1986): • Befragung weißer Amerikaner zu verschiedenen Vorurteilen und
Stereotypen über schwarze Amerikaner
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 10
Beispiel: Gleicher Status
• Beobachtung: Besonders geringe negative Stereotype bei schwarzem Freund mit höherem sozioökonomischem Niveau
• Interpretation: Gleicher (oder höherer) Status fördert Vorurteilsabbau
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 11
Beispiel: Gemeinsame Ziele
Folgen: • Allmählicher Abbau der
Feindseligkeiten
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 12 Sherif (1966)
Folgen: • Verstärkung der Kohäsion • Feinseligkeit und Aggression
nehmen zu • Beleidigungen, Drohungen,
„Kampfvorbereitung“
Beispiel: Ausgedehnter Kontakt
Studie Wagner et al. (2003): • Basierend auf Befragung von 2893 West- und Ostdeutschen • Analyse mit Strukturgleichungsmodell
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 13
Beispiel: Ausgedehnter Kontakt
• Beobachtung: Nachbarn zu sein erhöht Freundschaften; Freundschaften reduzieren Vorurteile; Nachbarschaft reduziert Vorurteile nicht
• Interpretation: Ausgedehnter, tiefer Kontakt ist förderlich für Vorurteilsreduktion
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 14
Metaanalyse Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)
• 515 Publikationen • 696 Stichproben • 250.089 Versuchspersonen • Maß für Effektstärke: r(Kontakt, Vorurteil)
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 15
Durchschnittlicher Effekt: r = -.215
Pearson r :
r2= erklärte
Varianz
0.10 = klein 0.30 = mittel 0.50 = groß
Vergleichswerte für Effektstärken
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 16 Bushman & Anderson, 2001
Metaanalyse Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 17
Metaanalyse Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 18
• Bedeutsamer Effekt des Kontaktes
• In vielen Bereichen
• Allport-Bedingungen nicht notwendig, aber förderlich!
Kontakt: Quantität und Valenz
Studie Barlow et al. (2012): • Fragestellung: Wie hängt die Wirkung der Kontaktmenge von der
Kontaktvalenz (positiv vs. negativ) ab? • Thesen:
• Kontaktvalenz beeinflusst die Wirkungsrichtung • Asymmetrie: Negativer Kontakt wirkt stärker als positiver
Kontakt • Methode:
• Zusammenfassung mehrerer australischer Datensätze (N = 1476)
• Prädiktoren: Kontaktmenge, Kontaktvalenz • Kriterium: Vorurteile • Gruppen: Schwarze Australier, Asylbewerber, Moslems
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 19
Kontakt: Quantität und Valenz
Studie Barlow et al. (2012) Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 20
Barlow et al. 7
The γ coefficients testing the effects of contact quantity, contact valence, and the quantity × valence interaction on prejudice are presented in Table 4. As shown, contact quan-tity (γ = .12) and valence (γ = −.43) significantly predicted prejudice. These γ coefficients represent the unstandardized effects and can be interpreted in a similar manner to unstan-dardized regression coefficients. Thus, the γ coefficient of .12 for contact quantity indicates that, while controlling for contact valence, on average, every 1 unit increase in the quantity of contact (scored on a 1-10 scale) predicted a cor-responding 0.12 unit increase in prejudice (also scored on a 1-10 scale). Likewise, the γ coefficient of −.43 for contact valence indicated that, controlling for contact quantity, each 1 unit increase in the valence of contact predicted a corre-sponding 0.43 unit decrease in racist attitudes. A coefficient of −.43 therefore suggests that the people in our sample with the highest contact valence score (which was the maximum value of 10) were predicted to be 3.87 units lower in their expression of prejudice than people with the lowest contact valence (which was the minimum value of 1). The Contact Quantity × Valence interaction term was also significant (γ = −.03). This indicates that the (group-mean centered) interac-tion of quantity and valence predicted additional variance in prejudice that was not explained by the simple linear combi-nation of contact quantity and valence. To examine the nature of this interaction, we solved the slopes representing the effect of contact quantity at different levels (±1 SD) of con-tact valence.
The relation between contact quantity and prejudice at low (−1 SD) and high (+1 SD) levels of contact valence is pre-sented in Figure 1. As shown, the simple slopes indicated that the interaction between quantity and valence occurred because quantity predicts increased prejudice when the
contact is negatively valenced (simple slope = .15, t = 5.89, p < .01). When people experience positively valenced con-tact, these respondents tended to be lower in prejudice; how-ever, increased quantity of positive contact also predicted a slight increase in racism (simple slope = .07, t = 2.58, p = .01). These analyses confirm that negative contact is the more consequential predictor of prejudice than positive contact.
Ancillary analyses of the model predicting prejudice toward Muslims and asylum seekers. We conducted ancillary OLS regressions to test the proposed contact quantity by valence interaction predicting prejudice toward two additional out-groups also assessed in two of the samples. The additional outgroups were asylum seekers (assessed in Pedersen & Watt, 2004) and Muslims (assessed in Pedersen & Griffiths, 2006). Note that the measures contained in Table 2 were also used to gauge contact quantity and valence toward Muslims and asy-lum seekers. For Pedersen and Griffiths (2006), a 16-item scale measured attitudes toward Muslim Australians (α = .92; refer also to Griffiths & Pedersen, 2009), was averaged with a feelings thermometer ranging from 0 = least warm to 100 = most warm. For Pedersen and Watt (2004), an 18-item scale measured attitudes toward asylum seekers (α = .93). Here again, for consistency, all measures were transformed to range between 1 (low levels of contact quantity, negatively valenced contact, and prejudice, respectively) and 10 (high levels of contact quantity, positively valenced contact, and prejudice, respectively). In both cases, analysis of these groups showed the predicted Valence × Quantity interaction.
When examining contact and prejudice toward Muslims, the main effect for contact quantity was nonsignificant (β = .07, p = .247), but the main effect for contact valence was again significant and negative (β = −.65, p < .001) such that negative contact was associated with more prejudice than positive contact. Critically, the interaction of valence and contact valence was once again significant (β = −.15, p = .010; refer to Figure 2). Analysis of simple slopes indicated that this interaction occurred because increased levels of neg-atively valenced contact were significantly associated with increased prejudice (b = .16/β = .20, p = .007). In contrast, the amount of positively valenced contact was associated with lower prejudice toward Muslims, but nonsignificantly so (b = −.07/β = −.05, p = .413).
When examining contact and prejudice toward asylum seekers, the main effect for contact quantity was nonsignifi-cant (β = .05, p = .280). Again, a large main effect for contact valence indicated that negative contact was associated with more prejudice than positive contact (β = −.62, p < .001). As predicted, valence and quantity of contact featured in a signifi-cant interaction (β = −.40, p < .001; refer to Figure 3). Analysis of simple slopes indicated that this interaction occurred because contact quantity, when negatively valenced, was strongly predictive of increased prejudice (b = .49/β = .42, p < .001). This time, however, contact quantity when positively valenced was moderately predictive of decreased prejudice toward asylum seekers (b = −.37/β = −.32, p < .001).
Figure 1. Study 1: Interaction between contact quantity and valence predicting prejudice toward Black AustraliansNote: MRCM = Multilevel Random Coefficient Modeling. The simple slopes presented in this figure represent average of slopes across samples estimated using MRCM.
at SLUB Dresden on January 6, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
HE Quantität: p < .001 HE Valenz: p < .001 Interaktion: p < .05
Kontakt: Quantität und Valenz
Studie Barlow et al. (2012) Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 21
8 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin XX(X)
Discussion
We used MRCM to examine the independent effects of con-tact quantity and valence on prejudice toward Black people, and to test whether valence moderated the effect of overall quantity of contact valence on prejudice in seven indepen-dent samples. This analysis provides results that are more robust than those observed in any one sample.
First, in line with multiple studies on intergroup friend-ship (e.g., Barlow et al., 2009; Paolini et al., 2004, Paolini et al., 2007) and Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2006) meta-analysis, we found that positive contact was linked to lower levels of prejudice toward Black, asylum seeker and Muslim Australians than negative contact.
Second, in line with our hypotheses, the association between contact quantity and prejudice was moderated by contact valence. That is, the relationship between contact quantity and prejudice is stronger when contact is negative than when it is positive (positive–negative contact asymmetry). In the main analysis, averaged slopes calculated across the seven studies indicated that negatively valenced contact was particularly linked to increases in prejudice. The more negative contact people reported having, the more prejudice they expressed. In contrast, increasing the quantity or amount of positive contact did not seem to always have the opposing beneficial effect. Instead, people who experienced any positive contact were sig-nificantly less racist, but 2 times out of 3, a larger amount of positive contact did not predict a reduction in prejudice any more than a small amount of positive contact.
One may wonder whether this was due to a floor effect—perhaps prejudice could not be further reduced. Inspection of the intercepts in Figure 1 seems to suggest otherwise, as even those who experienced high valence contact had room to express less racist attitudes. A similar pattern was found when predicting prejudice towards Muslim people in our ancillary analyses. The more negative contact people had with Muslim people, the more prejudice toward Muslims
they reported; however, the quantity of positive contact was unrelated to prejudice. When predicting attitudes toward asylum seekers, again the quantity of negative contact pre-dicted increased prejudice toward asylum seekers; however, in this analysis, people with high levels of positive contact with asylum seekers reported lower levels of prejudice than people who reported low levels of positive contact with asy-lum seekers.
These results support our primary argument that positive and negative contact are differentially powerful in predict-ing racism, and that negative contact is a stronger predictor of prejudice than positive contact. Three limitations of Study 1 can be identified, however. First, while coming from three geographically separate and independent research lab-oratories, the results are bound to a specific national setting. Second, positive and negative contact are measured on a uni-dimensional scale in all cases—Participants reported whether the contact they had (with one of the three respective groups) was positive or negative. However, positive and negative contact are not mutually exclusive. When living in a multi-cultural area, for example, participants may report high lev-els of positive and negative intergroup contact, as opposed to those who live in homogenously majority group neighbor-hoods in which they might have neither. Finally, in the pres-ent study, we used one single measure of prejudice, yet race-based attitudes and discrimination take many forms. A more valid test of positive versus negative contact should (a) be replicated across different contexts, (b) contain separate and distinct measures of the quantity of positive and the quantity of negative contact, and (c) test these as distinct pre-dictors of multiple indices of prejudice. We meet all these conditions in Study 2.
Study 2In Study 2, we measured participants’ subjective perception of how much positive and how much negative contact they
Figure 2. Study 1: Interaction between contact quantity and valence predicting prejudice towards Muslim Australians
Figure 3. Study 1: Interaction between contact quantity and valence predicting prejudice toward asylum seekers
at SLUB Dresden on January 6, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
HE Quantität: ns HE Valenz: p < .001 Interaktion: p < .05
HE Quantität: ns HE Valenz: p < .001 Interaktion: p < .001
Kontakt: Quantität und Valenz
Studie Barlow et al. (2012) Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 22
Barlow et al. 7
The γ coefficients testing the effects of contact quantity, contact valence, and the quantity × valence interaction on prejudice are presented in Table 4. As shown, contact quan-tity (γ = .12) and valence (γ = −.43) significantly predicted prejudice. These γ coefficients represent the unstandardized effects and can be interpreted in a similar manner to unstan-dardized regression coefficients. Thus, the γ coefficient of .12 for contact quantity indicates that, while controlling for contact valence, on average, every 1 unit increase in the quantity of contact (scored on a 1-10 scale) predicted a cor-responding 0.12 unit increase in prejudice (also scored on a 1-10 scale). Likewise, the γ coefficient of −.43 for contact valence indicated that, controlling for contact quantity, each 1 unit increase in the valence of contact predicted a corre-sponding 0.43 unit decrease in racist attitudes. A coefficient of −.43 therefore suggests that the people in our sample with the highest contact valence score (which was the maximum value of 10) were predicted to be 3.87 units lower in their expression of prejudice than people with the lowest contact valence (which was the minimum value of 1). The Contact Quantity × Valence interaction term was also significant (γ = −.03). This indicates that the (group-mean centered) interac-tion of quantity and valence predicted additional variance in prejudice that was not explained by the simple linear combi-nation of contact quantity and valence. To examine the nature of this interaction, we solved the slopes representing the effect of contact quantity at different levels (±1 SD) of con-tact valence.
The relation between contact quantity and prejudice at low (−1 SD) and high (+1 SD) levels of contact valence is pre-sented in Figure 1. As shown, the simple slopes indicated that the interaction between quantity and valence occurred because quantity predicts increased prejudice when the
contact is negatively valenced (simple slope = .15, t = 5.89, p < .01). When people experience positively valenced con-tact, these respondents tended to be lower in prejudice; how-ever, increased quantity of positive contact also predicted a slight increase in racism (simple slope = .07, t = 2.58, p = .01). These analyses confirm that negative contact is the more consequential predictor of prejudice than positive contact.
Ancillary analyses of the model predicting prejudice toward Muslims and asylum seekers. We conducted ancillary OLS regressions to test the proposed contact quantity by valence interaction predicting prejudice toward two additional out-groups also assessed in two of the samples. The additional outgroups were asylum seekers (assessed in Pedersen & Watt, 2004) and Muslims (assessed in Pedersen & Griffiths, 2006). Note that the measures contained in Table 2 were also used to gauge contact quantity and valence toward Muslims and asy-lum seekers. For Pedersen and Griffiths (2006), a 16-item scale measured attitudes toward Muslim Australians (α = .92; refer also to Griffiths & Pedersen, 2009), was averaged with a feelings thermometer ranging from 0 = least warm to 100 = most warm. For Pedersen and Watt (2004), an 18-item scale measured attitudes toward asylum seekers (α = .93). Here again, for consistency, all measures were transformed to range between 1 (low levels of contact quantity, negatively valenced contact, and prejudice, respectively) and 10 (high levels of contact quantity, positively valenced contact, and prejudice, respectively). In both cases, analysis of these groups showed the predicted Valence × Quantity interaction.
When examining contact and prejudice toward Muslims, the main effect for contact quantity was nonsignificant (β = .07, p = .247), but the main effect for contact valence was again significant and negative (β = −.65, p < .001) such that negative contact was associated with more prejudice than positive contact. Critically, the interaction of valence and contact valence was once again significant (β = −.15, p = .010; refer to Figure 2). Analysis of simple slopes indicated that this interaction occurred because increased levels of neg-atively valenced contact were significantly associated with increased prejudice (b = .16/β = .20, p = .007). In contrast, the amount of positively valenced contact was associated with lower prejudice toward Muslims, but nonsignificantly so (b = −.07/β = −.05, p = .413).
When examining contact and prejudice toward asylum seekers, the main effect for contact quantity was nonsignifi-cant (β = .05, p = .280). Again, a large main effect for contact valence indicated that negative contact was associated with more prejudice than positive contact (β = −.62, p < .001). As predicted, valence and quantity of contact featured in a signifi-cant interaction (β = −.40, p < .001; refer to Figure 3). Analysis of simple slopes indicated that this interaction occurred because contact quantity, when negatively valenced, was strongly predictive of increased prejudice (b = .49/β = .42, p < .001). This time, however, contact quantity when positively valenced was moderately predictive of decreased prejudice toward asylum seekers (b = −.37/β = −.32, p < .001).
Figure 1. Study 1: Interaction between contact quantity and valence predicting prejudice toward Black AustraliansNote: MRCM = Multilevel Random Coefficient Modeling. The simple slopes presented in this figure represent average of slopes across samples estimated using MRCM.
at SLUB Dresden on January 6, 2013psp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Beobachtungen • Kontaktvalenz hat starken Einfluss auf
Vorurteile und moderiert die wirkung der Kontaktmenge!
• Negativer Kontakt „wirksamer“ als positiver Kontakt
Interpretation: • Auch wenn die Allport-Bedingungen nicht
zwingend sind, so ist anscheinend die eine positive Valenz des Kontaktes sehr wichtig
Die heutige Vorlesung
• Kontakthypothese • Kategorien und Kontakt • Soziale Motive
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 23
Gruppenkonflikte
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 24
Soziale Kategorisi
erung Diskrimi-nierung
Soziale Identität
Realistische(r) Konflikt/Bedrohung
„Entmensch-lichung“
Symbolische(r) Konflikt/Bedrohung
Deindividu-ation
Verzerrte Wahrneh-
mun
Reaktion
teils nach Smith & Mackie(2007)
Eskalation
Kategorisierung als Problem
• Kategorisierung und Identifikation als Quelle von Diskriminierung
• Wie soll in Kontaktsituationen mit Kategorien umgegangen werden?
• Drei Modelle: • Dekategorisierung • Gemeinsame Eigengruppe • Wechselseitige Distinktheit
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 25 Kessler & Mummendey (2007)
Modell der Dekategorisierung
Brewer & Miller (1984): • Kategorien möglichst nicht benutzen • Personalisierung des Kontaktes Studie Bettencourt et al. (1992): • Vpn werden in minimale Gruppen eingeteilt (Punkteschätzung),
dann werden gemischte Teams gebildet • UV 1: Ziel des Spiels (konkurrieren, kooperieren) • UV 2: Mentaler Fokus beim Spiel (Aufgabe, Person, nichts) • AV: Zuteilung von Wertmarken an Teammitglieder (ingroup,
outgroup)
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 26
Modell der Dekategorisierung
Studie Bettencourt et al. (1992):
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 27
Modell der Dekategorisierung
• Beobachtung: Weniger Diskriminierung bei Kooperation; weniger Diskriminierung bei Fokus auf die Person
• Interpretation: Fokus auf die Person verringert Kategorieanwendung und damit Diskriminierung
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 28
Modell der Dekategorisierung
Brewer & Miller (1984): • Kategorien möglichst nicht benutzen • Personalisierung des Kontaktes Personalisierung kann • Diskriminierung reduzieren • Vorurteile reduzieren Probleme • Generalisierung auf neue Situationen? • Verlust wichtiger sozialer Identitäten?
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 29 Kessler & Mummendey (2007)
Modell der gemeinsamen Eigengruppenidentität
Gaertner et al. (1989): • Neue gemeinsame Kategorie akzentuieren • Beispiel: Europäer statt Deutsche vs. Briten vs. Franzosen etc.
Studie Gaertner et al. (1989): • Personen werden zunächst in 2 Gruppen eingeteilt • Danach Neueinteilung:
• Vereinigung zu einer Gruppe • Repräsentation als Individuen • Kontrollgruppe
• AV: Einschätzung der Eigen- und Fremdgruppe hinsichtlich verschiedener Traits
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 30 Kessler & Mummendey (2007)
Modell der gemeinsamen Eigengruppenidentität
Studie Gaertner et al. (1989):
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 31
Modell der gemeinsamen Eigengruppenidentität
• Beobachtung: Vereinigung zu einer übergeordneten Gruppe verringert Diskriminierung
• Interpretation: Gemeinsame Identität verringert Diskriminierung
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 32
Modell der gemeinsamen Eigengruppenidentität
Gaertner et al. (1989): • Neue gemeinsame Kategorie akzentuieren • Beispiel: Europäer statt Deutsche vs. Briten vs. Franzosen etc.
Gemeinsame Identität kann • Diskriminierung reduzieren • Vorurteile reduzieren Probleme • Gefahren für neue Fremdgruppen (z.B. Nicht-Europäer) • Verlust wichtiger sozialer Identitäten?
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 33 Kessler & Mummendey (2007)
Modell der wechselseitigen Distinktheit
Hewstone & Brown (1986): • Ziel: Positive Distinktheit für beide Gruppen herstellen • Mittel: Wechselseitige Überlegenheit auf unterschiedlichen
Dimensionen anerkennen Vorteile (Brown & Hewstone, 2005): • Starke Generalisierung positiver Kontakterfahrungen • Erhalt sozialer Identitäten Nachteil: • Womöglich schwierig, gleichwertige und nicht negativ
interdependente Eigenschaften zu finden
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 34 Kessler & Mummendey (2007)
Verlaufsmodell von Pettigrew (1998)
• Integration der Kontakt- und Kategorisierungstheorien • Praktische „Anleitung“ Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 35
Die heutige Vorlesung
• Kontakthypothese • Kategorien und Kontakt • Soziale Motive
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 36
Gruppenkonflikte
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 37
Soziale Kategorisi
erung Diskrimi-nierung
Soziale Identität
Realistische(r) Konflikt/Bedrohung
„Entmensch-lichung“
Symbolische(r) Konflikt/Bedrohung
Deindividu-ation
Verzerrte Wahrneh-
mung
Reaktion
teils nach Smith & Mackie(2007)
Eskalation
Motivationale Erweiterungen
• Bisherige Modelle fokussieren auf Identität und Verzerrungen
• Aktuelle Erweiterungen: Soziale Motive und Eskalationsfolgen
• Versöhnungsmodell Nadler (z.B. Nadler, 2002): - Grundlegende Bedürfnisse:
Macht, Akzeptanz - Wichtigkeit emotionaler
Barrieren - Unterschiedliche Bedürfnisse
von Tätern und Opfern
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 38 Shnabel & Nadler (2008)
Motivationale Erweiterungen
Studie Shnabel & Nadler (2008): • Vpn geben/erhalten (negatives) Feedback zu Kreativitätstest • UV: Feedback zur Persönlichkeit (Akzeptanz, Kompetenz) • AV: Bereitschaft zu Versöhnung mit Partner
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 39
Motivationale Erweiterungen
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 40
• Beobachtung: Opfer zeigen mehr Versöhnungsbereitschaft nach Kompetenz-Feedback; Täter zeigen mehr Versöhnungsbereitschaft nach Akzeptanzfeedback
• Interpretation: Täter und Opfer haben unterschiedliche Motive/Motivgewichtungen im Versöhnungsprozess
Was sollten Sie nun wissen?
• Definitionen/Erklärungen: Kontaktbedingungen nach Allport; Dekategorisierung, gemeinsame Eigengruppe, wechselseitige Distinktheit, Verlaufsmodell nach Pettigrew
• Zusammenhänge: • Wie hat sich die Aufhebung der Rassentrennung in den USA
unmittelbar auf rassistische Vorurteile ausgewirkt? • Sind die von Allport postulierten Bedingungen notwendig für eine
vorurteilsreduzierende Wirkung von Kontakt zwischen Gruppen? • Wie wirkt sich die Valenz des Intergruppenkontaktes auf dessen
Wirkung aus? • Welches sind Chancen und Gefahren der Dekategorisierung,
Schaffung gemeinsamer Eigengruppen und der Herstellung wechselseitiger Distinktheit?
• Welche Motive liegen bei Opfern und Tätern im Versöhnungsprozess vor?
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 41
Literatur zur heutigen Sitzung
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Social psychology (3rd ed.). New
York: Psychology Press. (Kapitel 13). Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2008). Social psychology (5th ed.).
Harlow, UK: Pearson. (Kapitel 11) Jonas, K., Stroebe, W., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Sozialpsychologie: Eine
Einführung (5. Aufl.). Heidelberg: Springer. (Kapitel 14: Kessler & Mummendey).
Pettigrew, T.F., & Tropp, L.R. (2006). A meta-analytictest of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 42
Literatur zur heutigen Sitzung
Weitere Literatur Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice (Vol. 25th anniversary edition). Cambridge, MA: Perseus. Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2008). Sozialpsychologie. Pearson Education. Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J., Radke, H. R. M., Harwood, J., … Sibley, C. G.
(2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629–1643. doi:10.1177/0146167212457953
Bettencourt, B. A., Brewer, M. B., Croak, M. R., & Miller, N. (1992). Cooperation and the Reduction of Intergroup Bias - the Role of Reward Structure and Social Orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(4), 301–319.
Brewer, M. B., & Gaertner, S. L. (2001). Toward reduction of prejudice: Inergroup contact and social categorization. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 451–472). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In Miller, N. & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281–302). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Brown, Rupert, & Hewstone, M. (2005). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Contact. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 37. (pp. 255–343). San Diego, CA US: Elsevier Academic Press.
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 43
Literatur zur heutigen Sitzung
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 56(6-7), 477–489.
Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 239–249.
Jackman, M. R., & Crane, M. (1986). “Some of my best friends are Black…”: Interracial friendship and Whites’ racial attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(4), 459–486. doi:10.1086/268998
Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2007). Vorurteile und Beziehungen zwischen sozialen Gruppen. Sozialpsychologie: Eine Einführung. Heidelberg: Springer, 487–531.
Nadler, A. (2002). Postresolution processes: Instrumental and socioemotional routes to reconciliation. In G. Salomon & B. Nevo (Eds.), Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the world. (pp. 127–141). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.
Pettigrew, Thomas F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65–85. Schneider, D. J. (2004). The Psychology of Stereotyping. New York: Guilford Press. Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation.
Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential
emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 116–132. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.116
Stephan, W. G. (1978). School desegregation: An evaluation of predictions made in Brown v. Board of Education. Psychological Bulletin, 85(2), 217.
Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen
Folie 44