Ist das (schon) Hatespeech? – Eine qualitative Untersuchung zum Verständnis von Hatespeech unter pädagogischem Schulpersonal

Ballaschk, Cindy; Schulze-Reichelt, Friederike; Wachs, Sebastian; Krause, Norman; Wettstein, Alexander; Kansok-Dusche, Julia; Bilz, Ludwig; Schubarth, Wilfried

doi:10.1007/s35834-022-00367-1

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, hate speech shares theoretical features with other well-studied phenomena, such as bullying (e.g., regarding disbalances of power). However, there are significant differences (see Ballaschk et al, 2022;Kansok-Dusche et al, 2022). Indeed, the association between school bullying and hate speech perpetration is small or moderate (Wachs et al, 2019;Blaya et al, 2020).…”

Section: A Theoretical Framework For the Study Of Hate Speech In Scho...mentioning

confidence: 98%

Hate speech in adolescents: A binational study on prevalence and demographic differences

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hate speech, or intentional derogatory expressions about people based on assigned group characteristics, has been studied primarily in online contexts. Less is known about the occurrence of this phenomenon in schools. As it has negative consequences for victims, perpetrators, and those who witness it, it is crucial to characterize the occurrence of offline (i.e., in the school) and online hate speech to describe similarities and differences between these two socialization contexts. The present study aimed to investigate the prevalence of hate speech witnessing, victimization, and perpetration, in a sample of 3,620 7–9th graders (51% self-identified as female) from 42 schools in Germany and Switzerland. We found that 67% of the students witnessed hate speech in their school, and 65% witnessed online hate speech at least once in the past 12 months. Approximately 21% of the students self-identified as offline perpetrators and 33% as offline victims, whereas these percentages were lower for online hate speech (13 and 20%, respectively). In both settings, skin color and origin were the most common group references for hate speech (50% offline and 63% online). Offline hate speech mainly came from classmates (88%), unknown sources (e.g., graffiti; 19%), or teachers (12%), whereas online hate speech mostly came from unknown persons (77%). The most frequent forms of offline hate speech were offensive jokes (94%) and the spread of lies and rumors about the members of a specific social group (84%). Significant differences by country, gender, and migration background were observed. Girls reported more offline victimization experiences, less perpetration, and a greater frequency of witnessing hate speech. This difference was larger in magnitude in the online setting. Students in Switzerland reported being exposed to hate speech more often than students in Germany. Students with a migration background reported higher hate speech victimization based on skin color and origin than students without a migration background. The high prevalence of hate speech highlights the need for school-based prevention programs. Our findings are discussed in terms of the practical implications.

show abstract

Section: A Theoretical Framework For the Study Of Hate Speech In Scho...mentioning

confidence: 98%

Hate speech in adolescents: A binational study on prevalence and demographic differences

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While we are born into and inhabit a world without meaning, we rapidly invest it with significance and order" (Barnlund, 1970a, S. 87). (Ballaschk et al, 2022). Solche Aussagen sind einerseits abwertende Bemerkungen mit humoristischer Tarnung (haha!)…”

unclassified

Kommunikations- und Interaktionsräume

Wiesner

2023

R&E-SOURCE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Der vorliegende Artikel führt in unterschiedliche Kommunikationsmodelle ein und verbindet diese mit dem didaktischen Dreieck der pädagogischen Situation, um neue, andere Einsichten in die Prozesse des Lernens, Kommunizierens und Interagierens zu gewinnen. Der Aufbau des Beitrages folgt dabei der Klärung und Beschreibung der pädagogischen Situation, aus welcher heraus das didaktische Dreieck entstanden ist. Aufbauend auf dem didaktischen Dreieck werden unterschiedliche Kommunikationsmodelle erkundet, Kommunikationsmodelle in Lehrwerken kritisch beobachtet und beurteilt und auf Grundlage der Zeichenlehre mit dem didaktischen Dreieck verbunden. Die Herangehensweise ermöglicht nicht nur das Beschreiben von Modellen der Kommunikation und Interaktion, sondern ebenso die Rede, Analyse und Klärung von Beschreibungen und Modellierungen der Kommunikation und Interaktion. Durch diese Vorgehensweise kann schrittweise ein integratives Modell angeboten werden, welches höchst unterschiedliche Spielarten des Kommunizierens und Interagierens für das Unterrichten aus dem Pluralismus heraus erkundet, aufbereitet und aufzeigt.

show abstract

Effects of the Prevention Program “HateLess. Together against Hatred” on Adolescents’ Empathy, Self-efficacy, and Countering Hate Speech

Wachs

Krause

Wright

et al. 2023

J Youth Adolescence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, there is a lack of empirically evaluated prevention programs targeting hate speech among adolescents. This is problematic because hate speech jeopardizes adolescents’ well-being and social integration. To this end, this study aims to evaluate the short-term effects of the newly developed anti-hate speech prevention program, “HateLess. Together against Hatred”, on adolescents’ empathy, self-efficacy, and counter-speech. Eight hundred and twenty adolescents between 12 and 16 (M = 13.27, SD = 1.04) from 11 German schools participated in this study. More specifically, 567 adolescents participated in the one-week prevention program, and 253 participants were assigned to the control group. Repeated measures ANOVAs showed that HateLess was successful, as there was a significant increase in empathy, self-efficacy, and counter-speech in the intervention group from the pretest (T1) to the posttest (T2) one month after the intervention. In contrast, no changes were found among adolescents in the control group. A multilevel mediation model revealed that the effect of being a member of the intervention group on counter-speech was partially mediated via empathy and self-efficacy. The findings indicate that HateLess is an effective, cost-efficient approach to enhance adolescents’ counter-speech directly and indirectly by altering the skills they need to become informed citizens in democratic societies.

show abstract

Ist das (schon) Hatespeech? – Eine qualitative Untersuchung zum Verständnis von Hatespeech unter pädagogischem Schulpersonal

Cited by 5 publications

References 34 publications

Hate speech in adolescents: A binational study on prevalence and demographic differences

Hate speech in adolescents: A binational study on prevalence and demographic differences

Kommunikations- und Interaktionsräume

Effects of the Prevention Program “HateLess. Together against Hatred” on Adolescents’ Empathy, Self-efficacy, and Countering Hate Speech

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About