No description available.

No description available.

Master of Science / Department of Psychology / Donald A. Saucier / This research examines the effect of exposure to anti-gay humor on individuals’ tolerance of anti-gay discrimination. Participants were exposed to one of four conditions in a 2 (message type; joke or statement) x 2 (disparagement; anti-gay or neutral) design. They read vignettes that contained anti-gay jokes or statements, or neutral jokes or statements. Individuals’ sexual prejudice, humor styles, discrimination tolerance, feelings of compunction, and perceptions of others’ tolerance were also measured. Results showed that individuals exposed to humorous stimuli were more tolerant of discrimination, compared to those exposed to non-humorous stimuli. Further, levels of discrimination tolerance were significantly related both to individuals’ levels of sexual prejudice and their preference for an aggressive humor style. No significant interaction effects were found among these variables. These findings contribute to the literature on disparaging humor by examining its effects on targets of a different social group, and by incorporating humor style as a potential moderating variable.

Background- South Africa, the most southern country at the African continent as the name depicts, is a country where Apartheid has prevailed the historical and contemporary landscape of the nation.  The era of Apartheid, being a system of discrimination and segregation, produced racial imbalances within the South African society and polices of affirmative action was enforced as an attempt to redress the racial inequalities. Purpose- By studying a distinctive type of affirmative action in a historically ethnically distressed context (organizations in South Africa), the purpose of this thesis was to receive insight on what impact affirmative action has on employees’ attitudes towards equality. The purpose was divided into two research questions to get an understanding of the implications that shape employees’ attitudes. The first research area aimed to identify and investigate which key factors are influencing employees’ attitudes towards affirmative action. The second research area considered the underlying cause of affirmative action and thereby investigated what impact affirmative action has on individuals’ as well as groups’ attitudes towards equality. Method- In order to fulfill the purpose of this thesis we used a qualitative method approach.  The approach adopted for the qualitative study was a constructivist grounded theory approach and the research has been performed with both an inductive and a deductive approach. The empirical material has been gathered through in-depth semi-structured interviews with eight employees at four different multinational companies operating in South Africa, by informal interviews with individuals in South Africa and through parallel observations.  Results and Conclusion- We provide five key factors that influence employees’ attitudes towards affirmative action; organizational culture, top management support, incentive for teams versus individual performance, prior experience of diversity and cultural artifacts. Furthermore, we present a three-step model on how intergroup contact can impact employees’ attitudes towards equality. We found that increased exposure towards diversity, through group interactions, can decrease employees’ negative prejudices, evaluations of other groups and thus enable an understanding that can help create a more positive attitude towards equality. Practical Implications- The key influencing factors identified in this study will help increase the knowledge of how to manage affirmative action within organizations. The findings can help managers and business leaders dealing with the implementation and management of affirmative action, both for their own understanding as well as in terms of guiding their employees on their approach toward affirmative action programs.

Den här studien har för avsikt att belysa och behandla hur en allmänhet kan tänkas uppfatta och förhålla sig till fördomar, rasism och diskriminering. Hur uppfattningar om etnicitet, ras och nationalitet, relaterar till kulturella skillnader och hur andrafiering och stereotyper motiveras och betraktas. Informanterna i studien visar generellt en stor tolerans mot andra men visar också tydliga tendenser till andrafiering och ingruppsbias. I sina tolkningar av ”den kulturellt andre” märks att de baserar sina antaganden och resonemang på individuella och kollektiva gruppstereotyper. De accepterar inte interpersonella uttryck för rasism och diskriminering men är relativt omedvetna om vad som skapar strukturell diskriminering och de är också mer toleranta mot diskriminering motiverat av vinstintresse. / Through this study I will attempt to show how a public might understand and relate to prejudice, racism and discrimination. How perceptions about ethnicity, race and nationality relate to cultural differences and how othering and stereotypes are being motivated by the informants and how they view them. The participating informants generally show significant tolerance towards others, but also show clear tendencies of othering and in-group bias. In their interpretation of “the cultural other”, assumptions and reasoning suggests that they are based on collective and individual group stereotypes. They do not accept interpersonal racism and discrimination but are seemingly unaware of what constitutes and creates structural discrimination and they are more tolerant towards discrimination based on economic interest.

No description available.

It is widely accepted that the LGB (Lesbian, gay and bisexual) population have a higher risk of psychological distress compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Meyer (2003) proposed the minority stress model to explain this increased prevalence. This model proposed that the LGB population are subjected to additional stressors due to their minority status which results in the increased psychological distress observed. The purpose of this study was to investigate some of the risk factors proposed by this model, specifically experiences of sexual prejudice, negative internalised beliefs about homosexuality/bisexuality, coping strategies and how these factors interact to influence the development of psychological distress. This study included 542 LGB individuals who completed measures of sexual prejudice, internalised homophobia, coping strategies and current levels of psychological distress using an online survey. The study found a high prevalence of sexual prejudice within the sample, with 84% of the sample reporting at least one experience of sexual prejudice. 67% reported being verbally abused and 17% reported being physically assaulted. A high number of participants scored above the cut-off for a diagnosis of depression (27%) and anxiety (19%). Regression and path analysis revealed that maladaptive coping had the strongest effect on psychological distress. Sexual prejudice and internalised homophobia, also both had a significant direct impact upon psychological distress, and they were also partially mediated by maladaptive coping. Problem-focused coping was found to be a protective factor with a direct, albeit weak, effect on psychological distress. Problem-focused coping also partially mediated the relationship between sexual prejudice and psychological distress, slightly reducing the negative impact of sexual prejudice. The results suggest that maladaptive coping was the greatest risk factor, out of the ones measured, in the development of psychological distress in the LGB population. The outcomes suggest that clinical psychologists may wish to target their interventions at the development of more adaptive coping strategies, and the reduction of internalised homophobia. They should consider ways to reduce experiences of sexual prejudice by working at a community level to reduce the stigma of homosexuality/bisexuality.

Can social cohesion and solidarity persist in the face of large-scale migration? One particularly contentious hypothesis states that native majorities will be unwilling to support the provision of government-funded welfare to those whom they do not consider to be part of their own sociocultural ingroup, especially when sociocultural or ethnic otherness and socioeconomic disadvantage overlap. Consequently, majorities’ willingness to accept disadvantaged immigrant groups as legitimate and trusted members of the welfare community is central to the social cohesion of societies diversifying through migration. The dissertation consists of a comprehensive summary, followed by four original studies addressing the interplay between migration-induced diversity and social cohesion through the lens of majority attitudes and the micro and macro contexts within which they are embedded. The studies focus on Sweden and Germany, two European societies that host strong welfare states and large immigrant populations. Together, they seek to answer two central questions: First, does social distance between native-born citizens and immigrants lead the former to withdraw support from all redistributive policies, or are some types of welfare more affected than others? Second, how does the migration-induced diversification of societies come to matter for majority attitudes toward the welfare state and, as they are closely related, for majority attitudes toward the trustworthiness of others? Looking at the case of Germany, Study 1 shows that the conflict between diversity and welfare solidarity is not expressed in a general majority opposition to welfare, but rather in an opposition to government assistance benefiting immigrants – a phenomenon sometimes referred to as welfare chauvinism. Study 2 turns to the case of Sweden and investigates three pathways into welfare chauvinism: via the first-hand experience of immigrant unemployment and putative welfare receipt in the neighborhood context; via exposure to immigrant competition at the workplace; and via negative prejudice against immigrants. We find that the direct observation of immigrant unemployment in the neighborhood increases natives’ preference for spending on other Swedes over spending on immigrants, while competition with immigrants at the workplace does not. Using the same Swedish data, Study 3 hypothesizes that ethnically diverse workplaces imply trust-fostering inter-group contact. Yet, like in Study 2, we find a negative relationship between majority Swedes’ exposure to certain immigrant groups in the neighborhood and their trust in neighbors, while diverse workplaces neither seem to increase trust nor to affect the negative neighborhood-level association. Both Studies 2 and 3 show that negative attitudes toward immigrants increase welfare chauvinism and lower trust, even disregarding majority Swedes’ actual experience of immigrant presence or unemployment. Study 4 thus turns to a social force outside the realm of first-hand experience and explores German online news media debates on the welfare deservingness of various sociodemographic groups – among them, immigrants (as refugees in particular). However, rather than observing the persistent and particular stigmatization of immigrants as undeserving recipients or untrustworthy abusers of welfare, we find much more nuanced descriptions in our vast corpus of news stories. / <p>At the time of the doctoral defense, the following papers were unpublished and had a status as follows: Paper 2: Manuscript. Paper 3: Manuscript. Paper 4: Manuscript.</p>

Based on the Stereotype Content Model, the current study uses dimensions of competence and warmth along with out-group specific stereotypical traits predicted by SDO, RWA and In-group ID to predict prejudice towards Jews and the elderly. Two groups of 101 non-Jewish, non-elderly American undergraduates and 199 Amazon Mturk workers completed a questionnaire. The study found that out-group specific stereotypes positively predicted envious prejudice towards Jews and paternalistic prejudice towards the elderly across both samples. Additionally, it was found that dimensions of competence and warmth were not consistent in predicting prejudice towards Jews and the elderly, however we still believe these stereotypes as relevant predictors of ambivalent styles of prejudice. Perceived status positively predicted stereotypes of competence across all samples and target groups. Perceived competition was significant in predicting stereotypes of warmth only with our Mturk sample, but not with our undergraduate sample. As a whole, it was determined that individual level predictors SDO, RWA and In-group ID were not relevant in predicting perceived competence, perceived warmth, and out-group specific stereotypes.

Mit der Querschnittsstudie „Wir und die Anderen – Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit im organisierten Sport in Sachsen“ wurde erstmals das Syndrom Gruppenbezogener Menschenfeindlichkeit im organisierten Sport untersucht. Das Konzept der Gruppenbezogenen Menschenfeindlichkeit – ausgehend von einer Ideologie der Ungleichwertigkeit – wurde von Prof. Wilhelm Heitmeyer (Universität Bielefeld) entwickelt. Die Ergebnisse ermöglichen explizite Aussagen über Ausmaß und Ursachen Gruppenbezogener Menschenfeindlichkeit für den gesellschaftlichen Bereich des Sports. Die Studie wurde im vereinsorgansierten Sport im Bundesland Sachsen durchgeführt. Insgesamt wurden 1.502 Sportlerinnen und Sportler in der ersten Hälfte des Jahres 2012 befragt. In der Stichprobe spiegeln 147 Sportvereine mit 38 Sportarten die Vielfalt der Sportpraxis wider. Es wird der Frage nachgegangen, wie Menschen im Sport auf Grund ihres Geschlechts, ihrer sexuellen Identität, Religion oder ihrer kulturellen und ethnischen Herkunft wahrgenommen werden und ob diese Merkmale mit feindseligen Mentalitäten im Sport einhergehen können. Vorurteile gegenüber Menschen mit diesen bestimmten Gruppenzugehörigkeiten teilen einen gemeinsamen Kern, der sich auch im Gesellschaftsbereich Sport als Ideologie der Ungleichwertigkeit empirisch identifizieren lässt. Das Syndrom der Gruppenbezogenen Menschenfeindlichkeit setzt sich in dem vorliegenden Bericht aus den Elementen Fremdenfeindlichkeit, Islamfeindlichkeit, der Abwertung von Homosexuellen (Homophobie), Rassismus, Antisemitismus, Sexismus und der Abwertung von Menschen mit Behinderung zusammen. Die untersuchten Vorurteile hängen empirisch eng miteinander zusammen. Im Ergebnis zeichnen sich zwar Fremdenfeindlichkeit, Rassismus, Islamfeindlichkeit und die Abwertung von Homosexuellen im organisierten Sport als vorrangig handlungsrelevante Dimensionen ab, gleichwohl lässt sich feststellen, dass Sporttreibende, die einer bestimmten Gruppe gegenüber feindselige Mentalitäten haben, auch häufiger dazu neigen, andere Gruppen wie Frauen, Juden/Jüdinnen oder Menschen mit Behinderung abzuwerten. Das Ausmaß Gruppenbezogener Menschenfeindlichkeit lässt sich teilweise durch soziodemografische und strukturelle Faktoren (Alter, Geschlecht, Bildung, Einkommen, Gemeindegröße) und (sport-) spezifische Faktoren wie Nationalismus, Demokratiekritik und -feindlichkeit, Autoritarismus und Gewaltbilligung erklären. / The cross-sectional study “Us and Them – Group-Focused Enmity in Organized Sports in Saxony” is the first study to investigate the syndrome of group-focused enmity in organized sports. The concept of group-focused enmity, at the heart of which is an ideology of inequality, was developed by Prof. Wilhelm Heitmeyer at the University of Bielefeld, Germany. The findings now put us in a position to make substantiated statements about the extent and causes of group-focused enmity in the social domain of sports. The study was conducted in organized club sports in the German state of Saxony. A total of 1,502 athletes were surveyed in the first half of 2012. The sample includes respondents from 147 sports clubs and covers 38 different sports so as to reflect the diversity of everyday sports. The study pursues the question of how people are perceived in sports in terms of gender, sexual identity, religion, or cultural and ethnic background and whether these attributes are associated with hostile mentalities in sports. Prejudice towards people belonging to these groups shares as its common core an ideology of inequality, which can be identified empirically also in the social sphere of sports. The syndrome of group-focused enmity addressed in this report consists of the elements of xenophobia, islamophobia, homophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, and the devaluation of handicapped persons. These prejudices are closely interconnected. Although we do see that xenophobia, racism, islamophobia, and homophobia are the primary motives that are ultimately translated into action, athletes who harbor a hostile mentality toward a particular group frequently tend to express prejudice against other groups such as women, Jews, or people with handicaps as well. The extent of group-focused enmity can be explained, in part, by socio-demographic and structural factors (age, gender, education, income, size of the municipality) and (sports-)specific factors such as nationalism, criticism of democracy and anti-democratic sentiment, authoritarianism, and acceptance of violence.