How Education and Metacognitive Training May Ameliorate Religious Prejudices: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Moritz, Steffen; Krott, Nora Rebekka; Ohls, Isgard; Reininger, Klaus Michael

doi:10.1080/10508619.2020.1815994

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As both conditions involved being tested on CRT knowledge at the outset and to some extent having to acknowledge the limits of one's understanding, it is somewhat unsurprising that both conditions showed some movement. Our analysis was a fairly conservative test of the treatment's efficacy, as previous meta‐cognitive intervention studies have primarily compared treatment with no information, a fact‐sheet, or different variations on the timing and specificity of feedback (Moritz et al., 2021; Reininger et al., 2020).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has more recently been applied by researchers studying bias in intergroup contexts. For example, Moritz et al (2021) used a meta-cognitive corrective intervention to address Islamophobia. They developed a set of multiplechoice questions about Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, which included correct answers as well as answer choices that reflected common biases (i.e., lures).…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After the test, participants were given the correct answers and a short paragraph of information that corrected their misperceptions and provided evidence for the correct answer. This approach reduced Islamophobia as well as anti-Semitism in their sample of European participants (Moritz et al, 2021). Reininger et al (2020) used the same technique in an American sample to address political divisiveness.…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ignorance of critical race theory predicts White Americans’ opposition to it

Richmond,

Toosi,

Wellman

et al. 2024

Journal of Social Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acknowledging systemic racism, a key tenet of Critical Race Theory (CRT), may be threatening to many Americans but it can also reduce racial biases. However, anti‐CRT legislation prohibits learning about racism, thus highlighting the mutually reinforcing relationship between systemic racism and the production of ignorance. We assessed White Americans’ knowledge about CRT through participant‐generated definitions (Study 1, N = 199) and via a true/false questionnaire (Study 2, N = 194), and its relation to opposition to CRT. Opposition to CRT was associated with a less accurate understanding of CRT, even when controlling for political orientation. Content analyses revealed that opponents of CRT deny anti‐Black racism, believe CRT harms Whites, and view discussing race as divisive. Based on these themes, we developed a meta‐cognitive corrective intervention in Study 3 (N = 289). Participants who received corrective feedback after taking a multiple‐choice test about CRT showed a larger decrease in their opposition to CRT than those in the control condition.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ignorance of critical race theory predicts White Americans’ opposition to it

Richmond,

Toosi,

Wellman

et al. 2024

Journal of Social Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This overconfidence on the therapist’s side even leads to the observation that possibly “therapist humility may differentiate the most from least globally effective therapists, and this virtue should be cultivated in clinical trainings” (Constantino et al, 2023, p. 474). Humility and doubt (vs. overconfidence) thus seem to be an effective factor not only for social and political groups, reducing polarization and intergroup as well as interpersonal hostility (Moritz et al, 2018, 2021; Reininger et al 2023; Reininger, Krott, et al, 2020; Reininger, Schaefer, et al, 2020; Simon et al, 2019; Zitzmann et al, 2022), they seem to be relevant both on the part of patients (Hoven et al, 2019), as well as on the level of practitioners (Constantino et al, 2023). Thus, more optimally for these types of studies would be to collect independent clinical ratings of technique/outcomes and/or patient ratings of outcome (see Boswell et al, 2023; Bugatti et al, 2023; Wampold & Miller, 2023).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the German version of the Comparative Psychotherapy Process Scale.

Reininger,

Biel,

Algner-Herzmann

et al. 2024

Psychotherapy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Comparative Psychotherapy Process Scale (CPPS) is a 20-item scale which aims to capture technical features distinguishing cognitive behavioral (CBT) from psychodynamic (PD) psychotherapy (and vice versa) in two corresponding subscales (CBT and PD Subscale). Our objective was to validate a German self-report version of the CPPS regarding a previous psychotherapy session in a psychotherapist- and in a patient-version. Fifty-three psychotherapists and their 53 patients answered to the according German CPPS Scale as well as to specific subscales of the Multitheoretical List of Therapeutic Interventions self-report-instrument (MULTI-30 subscales) assessing CBT- and PD-specific intervention characteristics. We analyzed (a) the correlation of the CPPS with the MULTI-30 subscales, (b) the ability of the CPPS to distinguish whether therapy sessions were either CBT or PD using logistic regression, and (c) the correlation between psychotherapists’ and patients’ self-report regarding the preceding session (correlation). Both the psychotherapist- and the patient-version showed acceptable to good values of internal consistencies (α = .78–.84). The CBT and PD Subscales of the MULTI-30 correlated with the CPPS subscales in both versions (CBT: rs = .85 [psychotherapist-version] and .80 [patient-version], PD: rs = .79 [both versions]). Subscales correctly discriminated whether the previous session was a CBT or a PD session (correct predictions in 88.7% in the psychotherapist-version, 73.6% in the patient-version; χ2 ≥ 14.03, p < .001). The German version of the CPPS is a promising instrument to facilitate research on CBT- and PD-specific psychotherapy processes.

show abstract

“…Die Hypothese, dass Affektualisierung (ein wichtiger Bestandteil von affektiver Mentalisierung) eine wirksame und theoretisch begründete psychotherapeutische Intervention zu sein scheint, lässt sich aus der Literatur ableiten (Lammers 2011;Shedler 2010). Die Erfassung von affektiven Mentalisierungsschwierigkeiten durch den EBQ kommt insbesondere in Anbetracht evidenzbasierter Behandlungsformen mit Fokus auf einer Förderung ebendieser Fähigkeit, wie etwa der Mentalisierungsbasierten Therapie oder auch metakognitiven Ansätze (Bateman und Fonagy 2016; Moritz et al 2018Moritz et al , 2021Reininger et al 2020;Taubner et al 2019;Volkert et al 2019), eine hohe klinische Relevanz zu.…”

Section: Diskussionunclassified

Affektive Mentalisierung als wahrgenommene Kontrollierbarkeit und Nützlichkeit von Emotionen

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Instrumente zur Untersuchung von Mentalisierung sollten die Multidimensionalität dieses Konstrukts berücksichtigen und spezifizieren. Indikativ für den Pol der affektiven Mentalisierung sind einerseits aufgrund des Verständnisses für eigene und fremde Emotionen eine wahrgenommene Kontrollierbarkeit von Emotionen, andererseits aufgrund der attribuierten Bedeutsamkeit eigener und fremder Emotionen eine wahrgenommene Nützlichkeit von Emotionen. Die wahrgenommene Kontrollierbarkeit und Nützlichkeit positiver und negativer Emotionen wird mit den 16 Items des englischsprachigen Emotion Beliefs Questionnaire (EBQ; Becerra et al. 2020) im Selbstbericht erfasst. Ziel der Studie Ziele der vorliegenden Studie waren es, eine deutschsprachige Version des EBQ als Erhebungsinstrument für affektive Mentalisierungsfähigkeit zu entwickeln sowie deren Reliabilität und Validität zu ermitteln. Material und Methoden Psychotherapeut:innen in Aus- und Weiterbildung sowie Studierende (n = 104) beantworteten den von uns in Anlehnung an die Translation Guidelines des European Social Survey übersetzten deutschsprachigen EBQ als Teil einer anonymen Online-Befragung. Wir führten eine explorative Faktorenanalyse durch und bestimmten interne Konsistenzen sowie konkurrente Validitäten in Bezug auf verwandte Konstrukte. Ergebnisse Wie in der Originalvalidierungsstudie zeigen sich eine dreifaktorielle Struktur des EBQ sowie eine gute interne Konsistenz von α = 0,87 in der Gesamtskala. Weiterhin zeigen sich Zusammenhänge zwischen der Wahrnehmung von positiven und negativen Emotionen als unkontrollierbar und nutzlos (hohe EBQ-Werte) und einer geringeren Emotionsregulation sowie höheren psychopathologischen Symptomen (konkurrente Validität). Schlussfolgerung Die Befunde decken sich mit den Ergebnissen der originalen Validierungsstudie und legen nahe, dass der EBQ auch in der deutschen Version zu empfehlen ist. Theoretisch begründet und empirisch überprüft (siehe Online-Appendix) erscheint der EBQ als ein geeignetes Verfahren zur Erhebung affektiver Mentalisierung.

show abstract

How Education and Metacognitive Training May Ameliorate Religious Prejudices: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Cited by 7 publications

References 29 publications

Ignorance of critical race theory predicts White Americans’ opposition to it

Ignorance of critical race theory predicts White Americans’ opposition to it

Validation of the German version of the Comparative Psychotherapy Process Scale.

Affektive Mentalisierung als wahrgenommene Kontrollierbarkeit und Nützlichkeit von Emotionen

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About