Warmth and competence stereotypes about immigrant groups in Germany

English version

Autoři: Laura Froehlich ^aff001; Isabel Schulte ^aff001
Působiště autorů: Faculty of Psychology, University of Hagen, Hagen, Germany ^aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223103

Souhrn

Germany is ethnically diverse and the social climate is more or less welcoming for different immigrant groups. The social climate can be described by stereotypes of members of the receiving society about immigrant groups, which in turn shape receiving-society members’ behavioral tendencies of support or discrimination. We investigated warmth and competence stereotypes about 17 immigrant groups in Germany. Results showed four clusters of immigrant groups in the two-dimensional space of warmth and competence. Groups who immigrated comparatively recently and from regions of conflict (e.g., the Balkans, Northern Africa) were stereotyped most negatively (moderate warmth, low competence). Across groups, path analysis investigated the socio-structural relations proposed by the stereotype content model and the BIAS map for immigrant groups in the German context. In a pre-registered model all hypothesized paths were significant but model fit was not good. Therefore, an exploratory model included additional paths as well as intercorrelations between exogenous variables and error terms. The modified model showed good fit and partly replicated the relations proposed by the BIAS map. Threat predicted warmth, whereas status predicted competence. Warmth predicted active behavioral tendencies and competence predicted passive behavioral tendencies. Additional paths from status to warmth, threat to competence, as well as from warmth to passive behavioral tendencies and competence to active behavioral tendencies were also significant. Thus, findings support receiving-society members’ active role in the process of integrating immigrant groups into German society. Based on the results, social-psychological approaches to foster immigrant integration are discussed.

Klíčová slova:

Behavior – Emotions – Culture – Germany – Religion – Social research – Egypt – German people

Zdroje

1. United Nations. International migrant stock 2017: Twenty countries or areas hosting the largest numbers of international migrants (millions): United Nations; 2017. Available from: URL: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/data/estimates2/estimatesgraphs.shtml?3g3.

2. Statistisches Bundesamt. Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit: Bevölkerung mit Migrationshintergrund: Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2016 [Population and Labor: Population with migration background. Results of the micro census 2016]. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt; 2017. (Fachserie 1 Reihe 2.2).

3. Deaux K, Verkuyten M. The social psychology of multiculturalism: Identity and intergroup relations. In: Benet-Martínez V, Hong Y-y, editors. The Oxford handbook of multicultural identity. New York: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 118–38.

4. Höhne J, Linden B, Seils E, Wiebel A. Die Gastarbeiter: Geschichte und aktuelle soziale Lage [Guest workers: History and current social situation]. Düsseldorf: Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliches Institut; 2014. (WSI Report).

5. Statistisches Bundesamt. Anzahl der Zuwanderer nach Deutschland nach Herkunftsländern im Jahr 2015 [Number of immigrants to Germany according to countries of origin in 2015]: Statista; 2017. Available from: URL: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/157446/umfrage/hauptherkunftslaender-der-zuwanderer-nach-deutschland-2009/.

6. Christ O, Asbrock F, Dhont K, Pettigrew TF, Wagner U. The effects of intergroup climate on immigrants’ acculturation preferences. Zeitschrift für Psychologie 2013; 221:252–7.

7. Fussell E. Warmth of the welcome: Attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. Annual Review of Sociology 2014; 40:479–98. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043325 26966338

8. Phelps JM, Eilertsen DE, Türken S, Ommundsen R. Integrating immigrant minorities: Developing a scale to measure majority members' attitudes toward their own proactive efforts. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 2011; 52:404–10. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00876.x 21480910

9. Phelps JM, Ommundsen R, Türken S, Ulleberg P. Intergroup perception and proactive majority integration attitudes. Social Psychology 2013; 44(3):196–207.

10. Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST, Glick P. The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2007; 92:631–48. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631 17469949

11. Kassin SM, Fein S, Markus H. Social psychology. 7th ed. Belmont, Calif., United Kingdom: Wadsworth; 2011.

12. Lee TL, Fiske ST. Not an outgroup, not yet an ingroup: Immigrants in the stereotype content model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 2006; 30:751–68.

13. Bye HH, Herrebrøden H, Hjetland GJ, Røyset GØ, Westby LL. Stereotypes of Norwegian social groups. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 2014; 55:469–76. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12141 24975918

14. Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P, Xu J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2002; 82:878–902. 12051578

15. Fiske ST. Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science 2018; 40:096372141773882.

16. Stephan WG, Stephan CW. An Integrated Threat Theory of Prejudice. In: Oskamp S, editor. Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000. p. 23–46.

17. Kervyn N, Fiske ST, Yzerbyt V. Forecasting the primary dimension of social perception: Symbolic and realistic threats together predict warmth in the Stereotype Content Model. Social Psychology 2015; 46:36–45. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000219 30555596

18. Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST, Kwan VSY, Glick P, Demoulin S, Leyens J-P et al. Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology 2009; 48(1):1–33.

19. Durante F, Fiske ST, Kervyn N, Cuddy AJC, Akande AD, Adetoun BE et al. Nations' income inequality predicts ambivalence in stereotype content: How societies mind the gap. Br J Soc Psychol 2013; 52:726–46. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12005 23039178

20. López-Rodríguez L, Navas M, Cuadrado I, Coutant D, Worchel S. The majority's perceptions about adaptation to the host society of different immigrant groups: The distinct role of warmth and threat. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 2014; 40:34–48.

21. Asbrock F. Stereotypes of social groups in Germany in terms of warmth and competence. Social Psychology 2010; 41:76–81.

22. Froehlich L, Martiny SE, Deaux K, Mok SY. “It’s their responsibility, not ours”: Stereotypes about competence and causal attributions for immigrants’ academic underperformance. Social Psychology 2016; 47:74–86.

23. Hellmann JH, Berthold A, Rees JH, Hellmann DF. "A letter for Dr. Outgroup": On the effects of an indicator of competence and chances for altruism toward a member of a stigmatized out-group. Frontiers in Psychology 2015; 6:1422. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01422 26441792

24. Eckes T. Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles 2002; 47(3/4):99–114.

25. Kotzur PF, Friehs M‐ T, Asbrock F, van Zalk MHW. Stereotype content of refugee subgroups in Germany. European Journal of Social Psychology 2019.

26. Kotzur PF, Forsbach N, Wagner U. Choose your words wisely: Stereotypes, emptions, and action tendencies toward fled people as a function of group label. Social Psychology 2017; 48:226–41.

27. Pettigrew TF, Tropp LR. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2006; 90(5):751–83. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 16737372

28. Kotzur PF, Schäfer SJ, Wagner U. Meeting a nice asylum seeker: Intergroup contact changes stereotype content perceptions and associated emotional prejudices, and encourages solidarity-based collective action intentions. Br J Soc Psychol 2018.

29. Allport G. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1954.

30. Kotzur PF, Tropp LR, Wagner U. Welcoming the Unwelcome: How Contact Shapes Contexts of Reception for New Immigrants in Germany and the United States. Journal of Social Issues 2018; 74(4):812–32.

31. Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST, Glick P. Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 2008; 40:61–149.

32. Becker JC, Asbrock F. What triggers helping versus harming of ambivalent groups? Effects of the relative salience of warmth versus competence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 2012; 48(1):19–27.

33. Kunst JR, Thomsen L, Sam DL, Berry JW. "We are in this together": Common group identity predicts majority members' active acculturation efforts to integrate immigrants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2015; 41:1438–53. doi: 10.1177/0146167215599349 26276500

34. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie. Berufsethische Richtlinien des Berufsverbandes Deutscher Psychologinnen und Psychologen e.V. und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie e.V.: [Professional ethics guidelines of the Professional Association of German Psychologists and the German Psychology Association]; 2016 [cited 2018 Nov 6]. Available from: URL: https://www.dgps.de/fileadmin/documents/Empfehlungen/berufsethische_richtlinien_dgps.pdf.

35. Stürmer S, Rohmann A, Froehlich L, van der Noll J. Muslim immigration, critical events and the seeds of majority members' support for radical responses: An interactionist perspective. Manuscript submitted for publication 2017.

36. Zhang C, Conrad F. Speeding in web surveys: The tendency to answer very fast and its association with straightlining [127–135 Pages / Survey Research Methods, Vol 8, No 2 (2014)] 2014.

37. Greszki R, Meyer M, Schoen H. Exploring the effects of removing “too fast” responses and respondents from web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 2015; 79(2):471–503.

38. American Psychological Association. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct, effective June 2010 [cited 2018 Nov 6]. Available from: URL: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf.

39. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User's Guide: Sixth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2011.

40. Binggeli S, Krings F, Sczesny S. Stereotype content associated with immigrant groups in Switzerland. Swiss Journal of Psychology 2014; 73(3):123–33.

41. Martiny SE, Froehlich L. Integration durch Bildung? Eine sozialpsychologische Analyse vorhandener Hindernisse für jugendliche Geflüchtete und Jugendliche mit Migrationshintergrund im deutschen Bildungssystem: [Integration via education? A social-psychological analysis of barriers for fled adolescent and adolescents with migration background in the German educational system]. In: Rohmann A, Stürmer S, editors. Beiträge zur angewandten Psychologie: Die Flüchtlingsdebatte in Deutschland—Sozialpsychologische Perspektiven. Berlin: Peter Lang; 2018. p. 107–26.

42. Caprariello PA, Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST. Social structure shapes cultural stereotypes and emotions: A causal test of the stereotype content model. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2009; 12(2).

43. Fiske ST, Xu J, Cuddy AC, Glick P. (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues 1999; 55(3):473–89.

44. Yoo HC, Gee GC, Takeuchi D. Discrimination and health among Asian American immigrants: Disentangling racial from language discrimination. Soc Sci Med 2009; 68(4):726–32. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.11.013 19095340

45. Safi M. Immigrants' Life Satisfaction in Europe: Between Assimilation and Discrimination. European Sociological Review 2010; 26(2):159–76.

46. PINCUS FL. Discrimination comes in many forms: Individual, institutional, and structural. American Behavioral Scientist 1996; 40(2):186–94.

47. Reyna C. Lazy, dumb, or industrious: When stereotypes convey attribution information in the classroom. Educational Psychology Review 2000; 12(1):85–110.

48. Pettigrew TF. The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport's cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1979; 5(4):461–76.

49. Steele CM, Aronson J. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1995; 69:797–811. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.69.5.797 7473032

50. Froehlich L, Martiny SE, Deaux K, Goetz T, Mok SY. Being smart or getting smarter: Implicit theory of intelligence moderates stereotype threat and stereotype lift effects. British Journal of Social Psychology 2016; 55:564–87. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12144 27117190

51. Martiny SE, Mok SY, Deaux K, Froehlich L. Effects of activating negative stereotypes about Turkish-origin students on performance and identity management in German high schools. International Review of Social Psychology 2015; 3:205–25.

52. Brambilla M, Ravenna M, Hewstone M. Changing stereotype content through mental imagery: Imagining intergroup contact promotes stereotype change. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2012; 15(3):305–15.

53. Brambilla M, Hewstone M, Colucci FP. Enhancing moral virtues: Increased perceived outgroup morality as a mediator of intergroup contact effects. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2013; 16(5):648–57.

54. Sengupta NK, Sibley CG. Perpetuating one's own disadvantage: Intergroup contact enables the ideological legitimation of inequality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2013; 39(11):1391–403. doi: 10.1177/0146167213497593 23963970

55. Durrheim K, Jacobs N, Dixon J. Explaining the paradoxical effects of intergroup contact: Paternalistic relations and system justification in domestic labour in South Africa. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 2014; 41:150–64.

56. McKeown S, Dixon J. The “contact hypothesis”: Critical reflections and future directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2017; 11(1):e12295.

57. Brambilla M, Leach CW. On the importance of being moral: The distinctive role of morality in social judgment. Social Cognition 2014; 32(4):397–408.

58. Leach CW, Ellemers N, Barreto M. Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2007; 93(2):234–49. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234 17645397

59. Brambilla M, Rusconi P, Sacchi S, Cherubini P. Looking for honesty: The primary role of morality (vs. sociability and competence) in information gathering. European Journal of Social Psychology 2011; 41(2):135–43.

60. Brambilla M, Sacchi S, Rusconi P, Cherubini P, Yzerbyt VY. You want to give a good impression? Be honest! Moral traits dominate group impression formation. British Journal of Social Psychology 2012; 51(1):149–66. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02011.x 22435848

61. Koch A, Imhoff R, Dotsch R, Unkelbach C, Alves H. The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socioeconomic success, conservative-progressive beliefs, and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2016; 110:675–709. doi: 10.1037/pspa0000046 27176773

Warmth and competence stereotypes about immigrant groups in Germany

Souhrn

Klíčová slova:

Zdroje

PLOS One

Získaná hemofilie - Povědomí o nemoci a její diagnostika

Eozinofilní granulomatóza s polyangiitidou