Dokument

Summary:
Ethnic prejudice (i.e., negative attitudes toward members of an ethnic outgroup or toward an ethnic outgroup as a whole) is (still) a prevalent social problem. Psychology provides a substantial number of empirically supported theories (see e.g., Dovidio, Hewstone, Glick & Esses, 2010; Duckitt, 2010; Whitley & Kite, 2006) that can explain the existence of negative ethnic attitudes. However, to be able to improve interethnic relations, even more important than theoretical explanations is concrete knowledge concerning effective interventions that can diminish prejudicial tendencies. Therefore, the manuscripts included in this dissertation describe meta-analytic evaluations of two types of programs to improve ethnic attitudes. The first meta-analysis (Manuscript #1) was conducted to test the impact of interventions that are based on the intergroup contact theory. Evaluations of direct (i.e., face-to-face) as well as indirect contact programs were included. The meta-analyzed contact-control comparisons model the effect of contact shortly after the interventions (k = 115, N = 10,591) or with a delay of at least one month (k = 23, N = 1,449). As hypothesized, the results indicate that theory-driven contact interventions improve ethnic attitudes. Also as predicted, the effect is larger for ethnic majorities, contact programs, however, have a positive impact on ethnic minorities as well. I demonstrate that contact interventions are also effective in the context of an intractable conflict. In addition, both direct and indirect contact programs have a positive outcome. Furthermore, not only attitudes toward individuals involved in the contact situation are improved but also toward the entire outgroup. The second meta-analysis (Manuscript #2) was carried out to test the effectiveness of information-based interventions. The term information is used in a broad sense and refers to input that is assumed to improve ethnic attitudes without being based on intergroup contact. In order to exhaustively capture the characteristics of information interventions, I introduce a multi-axial taxonomy encompassing three conceptually independent axes: content, method, and duration. Concerning content, information programs can focus on the enhancement of knowledge, on the evocation of empathy, and/or on the sophistication of social-cognitive skills. In addition, they can utilize passive (e.g., viewing audio-visual material) and/or active (e.g., role plays) methods, can last one or multiple days, and can differ regarding the number of net treatment hours. The meta-analytic test of the general effectiveness of information initiatives is based on a total sample of 154 independent intervention-control comparisons. In line with my prediction, information programs typically improve ethnic attitudes. Interventions that include empathy-evoking content are, as hypothesized, especially effective. Contrary to my expectation, the outcome of initiatives that (also) use active methods does not differ from those that only apply passive techniques. Furthermore, again in opposition to my prediction, the impact of information interventions is not affected by the duration of the treatment. After the presentation of the two meta-analyses, their findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Bibliographie / References

1. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96–111.
3. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33– 48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
4. In einer zweiten Meta-Analyse habe ich Informationsprogramme untersucht. Also Interventionen, die Wissen vermitteln wollen, Empathie fördern möchten oder beabsichtigen, allgemeine sozial-kognitive Fähigkeiten zu trainieren. Im Rahmen dieser Analyse wurden insgesamt 154 Vergleiche untersucht. Es zeigt sich über alle Studien hinweg ein positiver Gesamteffekt der hinsichtlich seiner Höhe vergleichbar mit der Gesamtwirksamkeit von Kontaktprogrammen ist. Darüber hinaus habe ich untersucht, ob bestimmte Merkmale zu einer größeren Effektivität führen. Die Ergebnisse sprechen dafür, dass insbesondere solche Programme effektiv sind, die empathiefördernde (siehe oben) Inhalte besitzen. Entgegen meiner Erwartungen hing der Gesamterfolg der Maßnahmen nicht davon ab, ob im jeweiligen 5. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG 283
5. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
6. Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1999). Anxiety in intergroup relations: A comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23, 613–628.
7. Schiappa, E., Gregg, P. B., & Hewes, D. E. (2006). Can one TV show make a difference? Will & Grace and the parasocial contact hypothesis. Journal of Homosexuality, 51, 15–37.
8. Die Ergebnisse beider Meta-Analysen zeigen, dass ethnische Einstellungen gezielt verbessert werden können. Dabei sind sowohl Kontaktprogramme als auch Informationsinterventionen wirksam. Demgegenüber hängt der Erfolg einer Maßnahme zur Vorurteilsreduktion nicht von ihrer Länge ab (dies gilt auch für Kontaktprogramme). Es scheint auch so zu sein, dass der gezielte Einsatz von aktiven, partizipatorischen Techniken keinen bedeutsamen Einfluß auf die Programmwirksamkeit hat. Diese Aspekte sollten jedoch mit weiterführenden Untersuchungen genauer überprüft werden.
9. Die erste Meta-Analyse hat solche Programme systematisch untersucht, die auf der
10. Klink, A., & Wagner, U. (1999). Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Germany: Going back to the field. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 402–423.
11. Vogt (Eds.), Education programs for improving intergroup relations: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 227–242). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. MANUSCRIPT #2 217
12. Lipsey, M. W., & Cordray, D. S. (2000). Evaluation methods for social intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 345–375.
13. Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002). How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1559–1573.
14. Kontakttheorie basieren. Ich habe insgesamt 121 Kontraste analysiert, die jeweils eine Kontaktbedingung mit einer Kontrollbedingung verglichen haben. Der Gesamtwert zeigt, dass Kontaktprogramme ethnische Vorurteile reduzieren und, dass der Effekt zeitlich stabil ist.
15. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2001). Improving intergroup relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336–353.
17. Stephan, W. G. (1999). Reducing prejudice and stereotyping in schools (Multicultural Education Series). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
18. Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Psaltis, C., Schmid, K., Popan, J. R., Cairns, E., et al. (2010). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 282–30
19. General Discussion 4. GENERAL DISCUSSION References Cohen. J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Stephan, W. G., Renfro, C. L., Esses, V. M., Stephan, C. W., & Martin, T. (2005). The effects of feeling threatened on attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 1-19.
21. Stephan, C. W., Renfro, L., & Stephan, W. G. (2004). The evaluation of multicultural education programs: Techniques and a meta-analysis. In W. G. Stephan, & W. P.
22. Tallmadge, G. K. (1977). The joint dissemination review panel idea book. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education, and the US Office of Education.
23. Literatur Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
24. Davis, Y. A. (2008). The parasocial contact hypothesis: Implications for changing racial attitudes (Unpublished master's thesis). Ohio State University.
25. Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 261–302.
26. Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 729–743.
27. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1984). The role of ignorance in intergroup relations. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 229–257). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
28. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
29. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L .R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. London, UK: Routledge/Psychology Press.
30. Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Das Dokument ist im Internet frei zugänglich - Hinweise zu den Nutzungsrechten