Sozialpsychologie II: Interindividuelle Prozesse SozPsy II... · Prof. Dr. Roland Deutsch. ... •...

Sozialpsychologie II: Interindividuelle Prozesse Wintersemester 2014/2015 Prof. Dr. Roland Deutsch

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?


Folie 3

Die heutige Vorlesung

•  Kontakthypothese •  Kategorien und Kontakt •  Soziale Motive


Folie 4

Ein einfaches Modell


Folie 5

Kein Kontakt

Falsche Stereo-

type

Vorur-teile

Diskri-minie-rung

Schneider (2004)

Intergruppenkontakt als Hilfsmittel?

Und eine deutliche Widerlegung


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):


Folie 7 Aronson et al. (2008)

Gruppenkonflikte


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


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


Folie 10

Beispiel: Gleicher Status

•  Beobachtung: Besonders geringe negative Stereotype bei schwarzem Freund mit höherem sozioökonomischem Niveau

•  Interpretation: Gleicher (oder höherer) Status fördert Vorurteilsabbau


Folie 11

Beispiel: Gemeinsame Ziele

Folgen: •  Allmählicher Abbau der

Feindseligkeiten


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


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


Folie 14

Metaanalyse Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)

•  515 Publikationen •  696 Stichproben •  250.089 Versuchspersonen •  Maß für Effektstärke: r(Kontakt, Vorurteil)


Folie 15

Durchschnittlicher Effekt: r = -.215

Pearson r :

r2= erklärte

Varianz

0.10 = klein 0.30 = mittel 0.50 = groß

Vergleichswerte für Effektstärken


Folie 16 Bushman & Anderson, 2001



Folie 17



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


Folie 19


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



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


HE Quantität: ns HE Valenz: p < .001 Interaktion: p < .05

HE Quantität: ns HE Valenz: p < .001 Interaktion: p < .001



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.


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




Folie 23

Gruppenkonflikte


Folie 24

Soziale Kategorisi


Soziale Identität




Deindividu-ation

Verzerrte Wahrneh-

mun

Reaktion


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


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)


Folie 26


Studie Bettencourt et al. (1992):


Folie 27


•  Beobachtung: Weniger Diskriminierung bei Kooperation; weniger Diskriminierung bei Fokus auf die Person

•  Interpretation: Fokus auf die Person verringert Kategorieanwendung und damit Diskriminierung


Folie 28


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?



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




Studie Gaertner et al. (1989):


Folie 31


•  Beobachtung: Vereinigung zu einer übergeordneten Gruppe verringert Diskriminierung

•  Interpretation: Gemeinsame Identität verringert Diskriminierung


Folie 32


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?



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



Verlaufsmodell von Pettigrew (1998)

•  Integration der Kontakt- und Kategorisierungstheorien •  Praktische „Anleitung“ Sozialpsychologie 2 /// WiSe 15-16 /// Verbesserung von Intergruppen-Beziehungen

Folie 35




Folie 36

Gruppenkonflikte


Folie 37

Soziale Kategorisi


Soziale Identität




Deindividu-ation

Verzerrte Wahrneh-

mung

Reaktion


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


Folie 38 Shnabel & Nadler (2008)


Studie Shnabel & Nadler (2008): •  Vpn geben/erhalten (negatives) Feedback zu Kreativitätstest •  UV: Feedback zur Persönlichkeit (Akzeptanz, Kompetenz) •  AV: Bereitschaft zu Versöhnung mit Partner


Folie 39



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?


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.


Folie 42


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.


Folie 43


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.


Folie 44

Date post:	18-Sep-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dinhtruc
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Sozialpsychologie II: Interindividuelle Prozesse SozPsy II... · Prof. Dr. Roland Deutsch. ... •...

Documents