Search

After intergroup conflicts end, beliefs about past suffering of the ingroup compared to an outgroup influence relations between former adversaries. In Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina, we simultaneously examined the effects of inclusive victimhood (i.e., a belief that both the ingroup and a former adversary suffered similarly) and competitive victimhood (i.e., a belief that the ingroup suffered more than a former adversary) on willingness to engage in contact with a former adversary, a precursor of positive changes in postconflict societies. In one correlational (N Albanians = 159; N Croat s = 227) and two experimental studies (N Albanians = 161; N Croats = 341, preregistered), inclusive victimhood was linked to higher willingness to engage in contact with former adversaries through higher empathy (Studies 1 to 3) and trust (Studies 1 and 2). In contrast, competitive victimhood was associated with lower willingness to engage in contact through lower empathy (Study 1) and trust (Studies 1 and 3). We discuss the practical implications of our findings for interventions in postconflict societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a longitudinal two-wave study we examined the effects of positive and negative intergroup contact on outgroup attitudes in participants who perceived positive, negative, or ambivalent group stereotypes. We focused on stereotype-consistent contact, occurring when the valence of participants' contact matches the valence of the perceived group stereotype (e.g., negative–negative), and on stereotype-inconsistent contact, occurring when the valence of contact contradicts the valence of the group stereotype (e.g., positive–negative). In relations of the Czech majority (N = 890) with two distinctly stereotyped minorities, the Roma and the Vietnamese, stereotype-inconsistent contact predicted changes in attitudes better than stereotype-consistent contact. In the case of negatively stereotyped groups, positive intergroup contact is a viable way to improve attitudes. For positively stereotyped groups, negative contact can worsen attitudes, while positive contact does not have any attitude-improving effect. Interventions aimed at improving outgroup attitudes need to be applied with caution, considering the valence of group stereotypes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Past research is limited by a focus on intimacy in positive intergroup contact. This study tested whether intergroup intimacy counteracts or amplifies the detrimental effects of negative intergroup contact on outgroup attitudes. Participants from five Central European countries (N = 1,276) described their intergroup contact with, and attitudes towards, citizens from neighboring nations. We coded the contact descriptions for presence (vs. absence) of intimacy (intimate, casual, or formal relationships) and contact valence (negative, positive, or ambivalent). The results indicated that those who reported negative contact in the context of intimate relationships displayed more positive outgroup attitudes than those who reported negative contact in the context of nonintimate relationships. This protective function of intimacy extended to instances of ambivalent contact. Our findings speak of the additive value of intimacy and positivity for intergroup relations; they underscore the benefits of intimacy as part of not only positive but also negative intergroup contact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: We compared different methodological approaches in research on the accuracy of national stereotypes that use aggregated mean scores of real people's personality traits as criteria for stereotype accuracy. Our sample comprised 16,713 participants from the Central Europe and 1,090 participants from the Baltic Sea region. Participants rated national stereotypes of their own country using the National Character Survey (NCS) and their personality traits using either the Revised NEO Personality Inventory or the NCS. We examined the effects of different (i) methods for rating of real people (Revised NEO Personality Inventory vs. NCS) and national stereotypes (NCS); (ii) norms for converting raw scores into T‐scores (Russian vs. international norms); and (iii) correlation techniques (intraclass correlations vs. Pearson correlations vs. rank‐order correlations) on the resulting agreement between the ratings of national stereotypes and real people. We showed that the accuracy of national stereotypes depended on the employed methodology. The accuracy was the highest when ratings of real people and national stereotypes were made using the same method and when rank order correlations were used to estimate the agreement between national stereotypes and personality profiles of real people. We propose a new statistical procedure for determining national stereotype accuracy that overcomes limitations of past studies. We provide methodological recommendations applicable to a wider range of cross national stereotype accuracy studies. Copyright © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a study on national stereotypes in central Europe-composed of Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland and Slovakia-2241 participants rated their autostereotype (a typical representative of their own country) and heterostereotypes (typical representatives of the other countries) by using National Character Survey (NCS). Existing data from 17377 participants including self-reports or observer ratings on Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NCS were compared with the national autostereotypes and heterostereotypes. Although national autostereotypes converged with personality traits of real people in Poland and an adult subsample in the Czech Republic, national heterostereotypes did not correspond to personality traits of real people in any of the studied countries. National stereotypes were shared within as well as across countries. In heterostereotypes, raters from similar cultural backgrounds speaking similar languages agreed better as compared with raters from more distant cultures. Target country played a role in agreement of raters from different countries, showed in the highest convergence between autostereotypes and heterostereotypes of a typical German. Sharing of national stereotypes is influenced by political and economic significance of the target country. Although national autostereotypes clearly differentiated between typical representatives of central European countries, the comparison of personality profiles of their inhabitants showed remarkable resemblance. Copyright © 2013 European Association of Personality Psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Three studies examined the effect of nouns and adjectives for designations of nationality on intergroup bias. In Study 1, participants (N = 237) evaluated group artifacts whose authors’ nationality was labeled with nouns or adjectives. Use of nouns enhanced in-group favoritism, manifested as a preference of the in-group artifact. Study 2 (N = 431) tested the effect of nouns and adjectives on attitudes toward the in-group and out-group focusing on the moderating role of in-group identification. Use of nouns led to a stronger relative preference of the in-group, pronounced especially in low identified group members. Study 3 (N = 979) examined the effect of nouns and adjectives in a more applied survey setting. Intergroup bias concerning material restitution for confiscated property was stronger when the ethnicity of the former owners was labeled with nouns. The article emphasizes that subtle variation in language use has a consistent impact on intergroup evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a response to the article "Whatever Happened to the ‘European’ in European Social Psychology? A Study of the Ambitions in Founding the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology," by Sandra Schruijer. Topics addressed include the research methodology for an evaluation of the organization, the research of European social psychologists, and the role of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology (EASP) in establishing social psychology in Europe.