Social conditions, authoritarianism and ethnocentrism: a theoretical model of the early Frankfurt School updated and tested

Scheepers, P.L.H.; Felling, A.J.A.; Peters, Jan

doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.esr.a036543

Cited by 68 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 4 shows that, consistent with previous studies of prejudice, people with lower levels of education prove markedly more susceptible to prejudice than those with higher levels of education (for an extensive recent overview see Vogt, 1997). Similarly, people performing manual labour are more susceptible than higher managers, as are shopkeepers, the unemployed, retirees or people working in the household at home (Scha Èfer & Six, 1978;Scheepers, Felling, & Peters, 1990;Scheepers, Schmeets, & Felling, 1997). Moreover, those who attend church only a few times a year are more susceptible than those who attend frequently (Coenders & Scheepers, 1998;Eisinga, Felling, & Peters, 1990a,b).…”

Section: Different Social Determinants: Results From Multiple Regresssupporting

confidence: 78%

Blatant and subtle prejudice: dimensions, determinants, and consequences; some comments on Pettigrew and Meertens

Coenders

Scheepers

Sniderman

et al. 2001

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although it has become common to suggest a conceptual distinction between traditional and contemporary forms of prejudice, Pettigrew and Meertens have actually attempted to distinguish the two empirically and developed measures to gauge each. Replication of their study, on the distinction between blatant and subtle prejudice, discloses a number of methodological¯aws that have led to debatable substantial conclusions. We found two distinct measures, however, substantially different from the ones proposed by Pettigrew and Meertens. Our model shows, by all available indices, a better ®t to the data: a ®rst broad factor labelled general prejudice, and a small second factor labelled perceived cultural differences. The ®rst factor is well explained by a number of social characteristics; the second is rather poorly explained and has a rather poor discriminatory power. The ®rst one has strong effects on some consequential variables whereas the second has hardly any effects. Other evidence, considered to be crucial by Pettigrew and Meertens, contains other methodological¯aws, i.e. the neglect of interdependent items. After this correction, their piece of evidence turns out to be arti®cial. As a bene®t to future research, we try to clarify conditions for distinguishing empirically and conceptually between traditional and contemporary prejudice.

show abstract

Section: Different Social Determinants: Results From Multiple Regresssupporting

confidence: 78%

Blatant and subtle prejudice: dimensions, determinants, and consequences; some comments on Pettigrew and Meertens

Coenders

Scheepers

Sniderman

et al. 2001

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Authoritarianism is related to ethnocentrism, racism, prejudice, and negative attitudes toward minorities (e.g. Lutterman & Middleton, 1970;Scheepers, Felling & Peters, 1990).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scale of Ethical Attitude toward Ethnic Humor (EATEH): Development, Reliability, and Validity

Haghish¹,

Heydari²,

Pfuhl³

et al. 2013

ASS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on ethnic humor has been centered on initiators and functions of ethnic humor, ignoring people's ethical attitudes toward this type of humor. The purpose of the present article was to develop a scale measuring the ethical attitude toward ethnic humor, named EATEH (study 1). Further, we evaluated its relation to personal distress, empathic concern, perspective taking, authoritarianism, and self-efficacy (study 2). Exploratory factor analysis favored a one-factor structure, interpreted as a general ethical attitude toward ethnic humor that accounted for 55.9% of the total variance. EATEH obtained Cronbach's alpha of .94, indicating a high reliability. Multiple regression analysis showed that EATEH had considerable unique variance that was not explained by the tested psychological constructs (study 2). Hence, our scale is a novel and objective measure for evaluating ethical attitude toward ethnic humor.

show abstract

“…Tajfel heeft in een serie experimenten aangetoond dat individuen zich bij het minste of geringste al tot een groep rekenen ('social categorisation'), zich identificeren met die groep ('social identification') om dan de eigen groep te vergelijken met de andere groepen ('social comparison') en wel op zodanige wijze dat 'positive group distinctiveness' ontstaat: zij nemen bij de leden van de eigen groep vooral, dus op selectieve wijze, positieve kenmerken waar terwijl zij bij leden van de andere groepen vooral negatieve kenmerken waarnemen. Deze mechanismes worden kort aangeduid als sociale (contra-)identificatie (Scheepers, Felling & Peters, 1990).…”

Section: Theoretische Inzichten En Hypothesenunclassified

“…Daarmee openbaart zich, als het ware, een sterke onderstroom in de Nederlandse samenleving: het eens zo sterke taboe dat er rustte op negatieve uitspraken over de aanwezige of aankomende etnische minderheden is voor een (groot) deel van de bevolking irrelevant of een anachronisme geworden. Vele Nederlanders betuigen hun steun aan dergelijke 'rauwe' vooroordelen, zoals die destijds in het begin van de jaren tachtig van de vorige eeuw werden geconceptualiseerd door Hagendoorn en Janssen (1983;Scheepers et al, 1990) en destijds nog voorpaginanieuws vormden van landelijke dagbladen. Wij 'vrezen' dat zulks niet meer het geval is, ondanks de verruimde mogelijkheden die Nederlanders hebben gekregen om in contact te treden met minderheden in ons land.…”

unclassified

Trends in etnocentrische reacties onder de Nederlandse bevolking, 1979-2012

Coenders

Lubbers

Grotenhuis

et al. 2015

Mens en maatschappij

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryTrends in ethnocentric reactions among the Dutch population, 1979Dutch population, -2012 Based upon predictions from 1996 about future trends in ethnocentric reactions in the Netherlands, we investigate the trends in ethnocentric reactions among the general public from 1979 to 2012. We distinguish two forms of ethnocentric reactions: negative attitudes towards ethnic minorities and public support for ethnic discrimination. In line with one of the predictions from 1996, we find an increase in negative attitudes towards ethnic minorities. Although this relates to increasing levels of diversity in the Netherlands, this finding may also reflect a decrease in the social norm that prohibits overt negative stances towards ethnic minorities. With regard to public support for ethnic discrimination, we find no clear upward or downward trend since the mid-nineties. Lower educated and older birth cohorts show stronger ethnocentric reactions. Although there are some indications that those with secondary educational levels and the youngest birth cohorts show stronger ethnocentric reactions over time, there are no significant differences in trends across educational levels and birth cohorts. Changes in ethnocentric reactions are rather robust across different social categories.

show abstract

Social conditions, authoritarianism and ethnocentrism: a theoretical model of the early Frankfurt School updated and tested

Abstract: Please be advised that this information was generated on 2018-05-12 and may be subject to change.

Cited by 68 publications

References 10 publications

Blatant and subtle prejudice: dimensions, determinants, and consequences; some comments on Pettigrew and Meertens

Blatant and subtle prejudice: dimensions, determinants, and consequences; some comments on Pettigrew and Meertens

The Scale of Ethical Attitude toward Ethnic Humor (EATEH): Development, Reliability, and Validity

Trends in etnocentrische reacties onder de Nederlandse bevolking, 1979-2012

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About