In‐group favouritism and the reflection of realistic dimensions of difference between national states in Central and Eastern European nationality stereotypes

Poppe, Edwin; Linssen, Hub

doi:10.1348/014466699164059

Cited by 88 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Low status groups often acknowledge superiority of the high status groups on status defining criteria, e.g. economic conditions in the case of European countries, but often claim superiority on alternate (often moral) criteria (Ellemers & van Rijswicjk, 1997;Poppe & Linssen, 1999;Schmit & Maes, 2002;Vadinu & Cerchioni, 2001). High status groups are generally more prototypic of the superordinate group, and low prototypicality of low status groups constitutes justification for their low status and inferior reward allocations (Wenzel, 2001).…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Intergroup Situationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Values, identities and social constructions of the European Union among Turkish university youth

Hortaçsu

Cem-Ersoy

2004

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study aimed to investigate Turkish university youth's constructions concerning the European Union (EU) and their reactions to the EU's December 2002 Copenhagen summit decision to delay discussion of Turkey's entry to the EU. Specifically it aimed to show that socio-political identities among Turkish youth were related to historical developments in Turkey's past and that these identities had associations with values of ethnocentricism, patriotism, and secularism. Furthermore it was predicted that constructions of the EU reactions to the decision would be related. Students (400) from five universities at the three largest cities of Turkey participated in the study. Three identities, Nationalist-Islam, Kemalist, and Western; three constructions of the EU, Europe as Different, Impermeable Boundaries, and Different but Advantageous, and two perceived causes for the decision, Differences-Conflict and Justification emerged from factor analyses. Second order factor analysis revealed that Nationalist-Islam identity and authoritarian, ethnocentric and antisecular values formed a cluster whereas Kemalist and Western identities were grouped with low levels of patriotism. Positive and negative constructions of the EU and reactions to the Copenhagen decision were also grouped under two separate factors. Further analyses revealed that an index of urbanization composed of parental education and rural-urban origin predicted the Authoritarian-Nationalistic cluster and that this value-identity cluster predicted positive and negative views of the EU.

show abstract

Section: Characteristics Of the Intergroup Situationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Values, identities and social constructions of the European Union among Turkish university youth

Hortaçsu

Cem-Ersoy

2004

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They were then presented with a list of traits used in previous research (e.g., Poppe & Linssen, 1999), including peaceful, hostile, rude, honest, deceitful, smart, and show initiative. Responses were given on a scale that ranged from 0% to 100%.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generality and specificity in stereotypes of out‐group power and benevolence: Views of Chechens and Jews in the Russian federation

Leach

Minescu

Poppe

et al. 2008

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the ascription of five characteristics (moral, peaceful, antagonistic, smart, show initiative) to Chechens and Jews in a large, diverse, sample of participants in the Russian Federation. Factor analysis showed these five characteristics to fit within the expected two-dimensional structure of power (smart, show initiative) and benevolence (moral, peaceful, antagonistic). Consistent with historical stereotypes, Factor analysis showed power to be the more empirically important dimension regarding Jews, whereas benevolence was the more empirically important dimension regarding Chechens. Although the two-dimensional model of judgment was supported, attention to the specific characteristics that fell along these dimensions offered complementary information. For example, the ascription of high benevolence to Jews was more pronounced on the characteristics antagonistic and peaceful than on morality. In contrast, the ascription of low benevolence to Chechens was more pronounced on the characteristic peaceful than on antagonistic or moral. Together, the two general dimensions of power and benevolence, and the specific characteristics that fall along these dimensions, offer a comprehensive model of the content of out-group stereotypes.

show abstract

“…De la même manière, le contenu des stéréotypes a souvent été décrit sur base de ces deux dimensions de compétence et de sociabilité, ou moralité pour certains auteurs (voir par exemple Phalet & Poppe, 1997 ;Poppe & Linssen, 1999). En ce qui concerne les stéréotypes de genre, Spence et Helmreich (1978) ont avancé l'idée qu'ils se structuraient selon les dimensions d'expressivité, qui correspond à la sociabilité, et d'instrumentalité, qui correspond à la compétence.…”

Section: Les Dimensions De Sociabilité Et Compétenceunclassified

Stéréotypes prescriptifs et avantages des groupes dominants

Delacollette¹,

Dardenne²,

Dumont³

2010

Année psy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RÉSUMÉLa composante prescriptive des stéréotypes est définie comme un ensemble de croyances à propos des caractéristiques auxquelles les membres d'un groupe doivent se conformer. Elle a été principalement étudiée dans le cadre des stéréotypes sexuels. Nous pensons que la fonction principale de cette composante prescriptive est de permettre aux membres des groupes dominants de maintenir les membres des groupes subordonnés dans une position qui leur est avantageuse. Nous illustrons notre propos en présentant différents articles théoriques et empiriques qui montrent que le statut relatif de différents groupes sociaux détermine en grande partie les caractéristiques prescrites aux membres de ces groupes, que les subordonnés qui ne se conforment pas aux prescriptions dont ils font l'objet sont sanctionnés, et que les dominants prescrivent aux subordonnés des caractéristiques qu'ils jugent bénéfiques pour leur propre groupe. Prescriptive stereotypes and dominant groups' benefits ABSTRACTThe prescriptive component of stereotypes is defined as a set of beliefs about the characteristics group members should possess. It has mainly been studied regarding gender stereotypes. We believe that the main function of this prescriptive component is to allow dominant group members to maintain subordinate group members in an advantageous position for themselves. To illustrate our proposal, we present several theoretical and empirical papers, showing that the relative status of social groups is a determinant of which characteristics are prescribed to the members of these groups; that subordinates who fail to conform to the prescription are sanctioned; and that dominants prescribe to subordinates characteristics they see as beneficial to their own group.

show abstract

In‐group favouritism and the reflection of realistic dimensions of difference between national states in Central and Eastern European nationality stereotypes

Cited by 88 publications

References 25 publications

Values, identities and social constructions of the European Union among Turkish university youth

Values, identities and social constructions of the European Union among Turkish university youth

Generality and specificity in stereotypes of out‐group power and benevolence: Views of Chechens and Jews in the Russian federation

Stéréotypes prescriptifs et avantages des groupes dominants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About