آخرین توییتها از Andreas Zick (@AndreasZick). Institute for Interdisiplinary Reserach on Conflict and Violence (IKG) at Bielefeld University / Universitaetsstr. Andreas Zick ist ein deutscher Sozialpsychologe. Er ist Professor für Sozialisation und Konfliktforschung und leitet seit April das Institut für interdisziplinäre Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung an der Universität Bielefeld. The relation of formal education to ethnic prejudice: Its reliability, validity and explanation. U Wagner, A Zick. European Journal of Social Psychology 25 (1).
Andreas ZickThe relation of formal education to ethnic prejudice: Its reliability, validity and explanation. U Wagner, A Zick. European Journal of Social Psychology 25 (1). آخرین توییتها از Andreas Zick (@AndreasZick). Institute for Interdisiplinary Reserach on Conflict and Violence (IKG) at Bielefeld University / Universitaetsstr. Andreas ZICK, Director | Cited by | of Bielefeld University, Bielefeld | Read publications | Contact Andreas ZICK.
Andreas Zick Navigation menu VideoProf. Dr. Andreas Zick zu gesellschaftlichen Herausforderungen und Demokratiebildung
Auf diese Antwort mssen GZSZ-Fans Andreas Zick warten, dieses war Andreas Zick eines davon. - Experte fürZick: Nein, das nicht.
Aktuelle Forschungsthemen prejudices racism group-focused enmity radicalizaton extremism conflicts and violence between groups migration, acculturation.
Forschung und Lehre Aktuelle Forschungsthemen Publikationen Lehrveranstaltungen Wochenplan Modulverantwortlichkeiten. Curriculum Vitae Curriculum Vitae.
Fehler gefunden? From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification.
Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately , especially if potentially libelous or harmful.
Authority control BNF : cbc data GND : ISNI : LCCN : n NKC : osa NTA : SUDOC : VIAF : WorldCat Identities : lccn-n Categories : births Bielefeld University faculty German social scientists Living people Ruhr University Bochum alumni University of Marburg alumni.
Another direct predictor of solidarity are generalized prejudices against a wide range of groups, i.
Model tests SEM confirm our hypotheses about the relations between values, deprivation, prejudices and solidarity.
However, data show differences when we try to predict solidarity toward foreigners or needy groups. The model of anti-solidarity against needy groups, i.
For respondents with low-income crisis-threat or prejudices are not predictors for anti-solidarity against welfare-recipients.
Respondents with high income remove solidarity for welfare-recipients, especially those who are prejudiced.
Analyses show that deprivation of solidarity occurs when prejudices are present, which not only legitimize the removal but even enforce it.
Publication Date: Publication Name: PsycEXTRA Dataset. Wahrheiten und einem starken Gemeinschaftsgefühl an — mit Erfolg more. Violence Prevention , Measures of Prevention , and Prevention of Radicalisation.
Remember me on this computer. Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.
Need an account? Click here to sign up. Help Center Find new research papers in: Physics Chemistry Biology Health Sciences Ecology Earth Sciences Cognitive Science Mathematics Computer Science.
We assume that this common core is strongly determined by an ideology of inequality. SDO should reflect an ideology of inequality, and if individuals accept this ideology, they tend to devalue multiple out-groups.
However, which out-groups become targets of prejudice and discrimination depends on the options a specific society offers. Therefore, while means can vary between individuals according to their unique acceptance of the ideology of inequality, the syndrome's structure i.
The same is expected for the content of the single GFE components. However, research shows that the content of single GFE components like anti-Semitism or racism varies over time, and that the content of the structure varies between societies or cultures.
Thus, while prejudice toward homosexual persons are supposed to be part of the GFE syndrome in Germany nowadays, it might not be part of a GFE syndrome in a more liberal country or it might, with increasing social acceptance of homosexuality, be excluded of the GFE syndrome in Germany, in the future.
Common Causes and OutcomesIf a GFE syndrome does exist, it is reasonable to assume that the same personal and situational factors will predict different types of prejudices.
Agnew, Thompson, and Gaines proved several distal and proximal factors to have an impact on a generalized negative attitude toward several out-groups.
This article exemplifies a test of two empirically very powerful predictors that were available in the data set: authoritarianism as a personal factor and GRD as a perceived situational factor.
Since Adorno et al. Ekehammer et al. Prejudice is also a consequence of situational influences such as an individual's perceived social position Smith, Many studies show that especially GRD defined as the perceived disadvantage of one's own group in comparison to other relevant groups Runciman, functions as an important predictor of prejudice see Pettigrew et al.
Pursuing the idea of a GFE syndrome, we expect the impact of authoritarianism on specific prejudices to be mediated by a generalized ideology of inequality as a second-order factor explaining several types of prejudices-that is, authoritarianism influences single prejudices via their common core.
As a more critical test of the GFE syndrome, we test the same assumption for GRD focused on immigrants. We also expect different components of the GFE syndrome to have similar consequences such as the intention to discriminate out-groups see.
We go beyond these findings and assume that GFE directly predicts discriminatory intentions toward different groups, even controlling for the direct link between prejudices toward a specific group and discriminatory intentions toward the respective group.
Empirical Tests of the Syndrome of GFETo sum up, we claim that different types of prejudices constitute a syndrome of GFE.
Thus, we expect that the nine GFE components are moderately to highly intercorrelated, and that they can be attributed to a single second-order factor labeled GFE.
We presume that this factor is strongly predicted by the individual's acceptance of a generalized ideology of inequality.
However, we do not anticipate that different types of prejudice are interrelated to an identical strength and contribute with the same weight as the common factor across time.
The whole GFE syndrome should be predicted by authoritarianism and GRD, and in turn it should predict discriminatory intentions toward specific groups.
Causes as well as outcomes show their influence via the second-order factor GFE. Samples and MeasuresAnalyses were conducted within the German project on "Group-Focused Enmity" Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit headed by Heitmeyer Items focused either the dominant or the subordinate group.
Based on the pretests the best items were selected for the main surveys. See Table 1 for final items, means, standard deviations and intercorrelations.
In our basic data set, xenophobia was measured by eight items, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia by four items each the latter was extended and improved in , devaluation of newcomers and racism by three items each, and the devaluation of homosexuals, disabled, and homeless persons by two items each.
Sexism was measured by only one item in but in the following measuring times with two items, as well. Three SDO items taken from Sidanius and Pratto e.
Authoritarianism employed four indicators based on Altemeyer e. GRD was assessed by the single question: "If you compare the economic situation of Germans with that of the immigrants living in Germany, how well off are Germans by comparison?
For greater clarity, we have presented each set of specific hypotheses and their corresponding analyses step by step see also Table 2. Our analyses used the statistical program AMOS 5.
Internal Structure of GFEGeneralized prejudice as a second-order factor. According to our hypotheses, responses to the prejudice items toward nine different groups can be explained by nine first-order factors racism, xenophobia, etc.
External validation: Common causes, common consequences H8: The effect of authoritarian orientation on eight prejudice components of GFE is fully mediated by the second-order factor of GFE.
SEM, mediation models. Cross-section 2 H9: GRD predicts prejudice factors via the second-order factor of GFE. H The second-order factor of GFE predicts specific discriminatory attitudes.
In turn, the nine first-order factors are explained by one second-order factor GFE in each data set and at each point of time H2.
This prediction requires the covariation among the nine first-order factors to be completely explained by the second-order factor of GFE.
To make sure that respondents did not evaluate different out-groups distinctively just because of less complex cognitive abilities, which are related to education Zaller, , we tested H1 and H2 controlled for all levels of education H3.
Furthermore, we did not expect the meaning of the GFE components to vary depending on the level of education metric invariance. Therefore, we postulate that the relationship between the GFE components and their indicators is the same across educational groups.
Finally, it remains an open question as to whether the meaning or composition of the second-order GFE factor is the same across the different educational levels; that is, whether the loadings of the first-order prejudice factors on GFE are equal across these groups.
However, we will also test for the invariance of the second-order factor GFE. We tested H1 and H2 using second-order confirmatory factor analyses CFA on the bases of Study 1 and cross-sectional Study 2 and cross-validated the results in the other data sets cross-sectional Study 3 and panel Wave 2 and 3.
The best two items per construct were selected on the basis of their factor loadings for a parsimonious model of GFE. Seventeen items in Study 1 and 18 items in crosssectional Study 2 were the basis for the subsequent second-order CFA with GFE as a second-order factor hypothesized to explain the latent first-order prejudice constructs.
As predicted, the second-order CFA based on Study 1 and cross-sectional Study 2 clearly revealed separable first-order prejudice constructs explaining responses to the items H1 and one second-order factor labeled as GFE explaining the intercorrelations of the different measures of prejudices.
According to Hu and Bentler and to Marsh, Hau, and Wen , the fit of the model is acceptable for model fits see Figure 1 and Table 2.
A test of the two panel models with data that included only individuals, who took part in all three waves, did not produce different results.
Nevertheless, two problems occurred. First, prejudice toward disabled people does not belong to GFE; the factor loading of the first-order construct on the second-order factor was rather low.
The different measure might explain the deviant structure. Therefore, we removed this component from further analyses. A second problem involves the close relationships between some of the components as indicated in their residual correlations, concerning sexism and devaluation of homosexual persons, sexism and racism, and xenophobia and Islamophobia.
For all of these intercomponent correlations the overlapping of content offers a possible explanation. Both sexism and the devaluation of homosexual persons stress conservative attitudes toward gender roles.
However, the strong relationship between the two components may simply reflect that sexism is represented by only one item.
A recalculation of the model using the panel studies of Wave 2 and 3 and the cross-sectional studies 2 and 3 including two items for sexism showed improved model fits by adding sexism into the CFA.