Suchergebnisse

"This book introduces a comprehensive and integrative collection of psychological intergroup interventions. These evidence-based interventions are scientifically established and tested in several real-world contexts of intergroup animosities and tensions, from prejudice and inequality reduction to peace promotion"--

"This book introduces a comprehensive and integrative collection of psychological intergroup interventions. These evidence-based interventions are scientifically established and tested in several real-world contexts of intergroup animosities and tensions, from prejudice and inequality reduction to peace promotion"--

AbstractSocial problems such as intergroup conflicts, prejudice, and discrimination have a significant effect on the world's population. Often, to facilitate constructive solutions to these problems, fundamental attitude change is needed. However, changing the beliefs and attitudes to which people strongly adhere has proven to be difficult, as these individuals resist change. In this article, we offer a new and unconventional approach, termed paradoxical thinking, to promote the change of attitudes relevant to social realities. Paradoxical thinking refers to a process of exposing individuals to amplified, exaggerated, or even absurd messages that are still congruent with their held societal beliefs. In our research program, we focused on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and found that paradoxical thinking interventions led to attitude moderation among those who were the most adamant in their held attitudes and beliefs, even in the challenging context of a harsh and prolonged intergroup conflict. We then discuss how paradoxical thinking can be utilized to facilitate attitude change in this context and provide two brief examples as preliminary evidence that this approach might work in other important societal contexts, (i.e., attitudes toward refugees and asylum seekers, and gender‐based discrimination), and conclude with policy recommendations.

Dehumanization continues to be prevalent today and predicts detrimental intergroup consequences. Thus, it is important to identify novel interventions that reduce dehumanization and explore the mechanism(s)—both established (e.g., empathy induction, intergroup contact) and relatively understudied (e.g., humor)—driving the effects. To address this issue, in Study 1 (N = 2,349), we conducted an "intervention tournament" and found that a video (i.e., "Mean Tweets") of a relatable and diverse group of young Muslims ridiculing Islamophobic comments posted on an online video of a Muslim preschool burning down effectively reduces hostility towards Muslims. Specifically, the Mean Tweets intervention significantly reduced dehumanization of Muslims and, although the effects were weaker, anti‐Muslim policy support. However, a follow‐up study conducted 1 month later revealed that these effects subsided. Next, in a preregistered study (i.e., Study 2) (N = 677), we find that our intervention reliably reduced dehumanization of Muslims, but the reduction of anti‐Muslim policy support was not replicated. While investigating our intervention's effect on anti‐Muslim policy support, we find that our intervention led participants to discount the intervention's intended message, which could have short‐circuited the intervention's effectiveness on policy support. Considering these results, we discuss the potential psychological processes (e.g., humor, message discounting, tone) underlying our dehumanization‐reducing intervention.

Self-censorship is of great importance in societies involved in intractable conflict. In this context, it blocks information that may contradict the dominant conflict-supporting narratives. Thus, self-censorship often serves as an effective societal mechanism that prevents free flow and transparency of information regarding the conflict and therefore can be seen as a barrier for a peacemaking process. In an attempt to understand the potential effect of different factors on participants' willingness to self-censor (WSC) conflict-related information, we conducted three experimental studies in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Study 1 revealed that perception of distance from potential information recipients and their disseminating capabilities lead to higher WSC. Study 2 replicated these results and also showed that fulfilling different social roles has an effect on the WSC. Finally, study 3 revealed that the type of information has a major effect on WSC.

Self-censorship is of great importance in societies involved in intractable conflict. In this context, it blocks information that may contradict the dominant conflict-supporting narratives. Thus, self-censorship often serves as an effective societal mechanism that prevents free flow and transparency of information regarding the conflict and therefore can be seen as a barrier for a peacemaking process. In an attempt to understand the potential effect of different factors on participants' willingness to self-censor (WSC) conflict-related information, we conducted three experimental studies in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Study 1 revealed that perception of distance from potential information recipients and their disseminating capabilities lead to higher WSC. Study 2 replicated these results and also showed that fulfilling different social roles has an effect on the WSC. Finally, study 3 revealed that the type of information has a major effect on WSC.

Western countries have witnessed increased hostility towards Muslims among individuals, and structurally in the ways that the media covers stories related to Islam/Muslims and in policies that infringe on the rights of Muslim communities. In response, practitioners have created media interventions that aim to reduce Islamophobia. However, it is unclear what causal effects these interventions have on reducing Islamophobia. Here, we test the effects of 11 media interventions developed by practitioners with an intervention tournament among U.S. samples. In Study 1, we identified three videos that most effectively reduced Islamophobia both immediately after watching and 1 month later. In Studies 2–4, we examined the psychological mechanisms of these successful videos and found an indirect effect of the interventions on reduced support for anti-Muslim policies through recognition of media bias against Muslims. This research highlights that drawing attention to structural biases, including biased media coverage of Muslims, is one potential strategy for ameliorating Islamophobia.

Muslims are consistently the target of dehumanization and hostile policies. Previous research shows that interventions that highlight the hypocrisy wherein people collectively blame entire groups for the heinous acts of individual members of outgroups but not ingroups are effective in reducing animosity towards Muslims. However, these interventions rely on aversive materials (e.g., terrorist acts), which can hinder the scalability of interventions due to individuals' tendency to resist/avoid challenging and aversive stimuli. In three preregistered studies (combined N = 2,635), we developed and tested a nonaversive, hypocrisy-based intervention that highlights the hypocrisy involved in attributing ingroup members' prosocial acts to the entire ingroup (i.e., Christians) but not doing the same for outgroup members (i.e., Muslims). Results indicated that this collective praise intervention reliably reduces dehumanization of Muslims, anti-Muslim policy support, and collective blame of Muslims. We argue that the intervention's use of nonaversive stimuli allows for both practical and scalable applications.

Klappentext: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh" (Ezechiel 36:26). This biblical image, particularly significant for Jews, Christians, and Muslims, gives insight into the central issues of this book: how a greater readiness to reconcile can take place among individuals and groups who experience the "suffering of the other," even in the midst of a protracted conflict such as the Israeli-Palestinian one. This book offers a collection of essays written by the team members of a transdisciplinary DFG project between Jena University, Ben Gurion University, Tel Aviv University, and the Wasatia Academic Institute.

People's actions toward a competitive outgroup can be motivated not only by their perceptions of the outgroup, but also by how they think the outgroup perceives the ingroup (i.e., meta-perceptions). Here, we examine the prevalence, accuracy, and consequences of meta-perceptions among American political partisans. Using a representative sample (n = 1,056) and a longitudinal convenience sample (n = 2,707), we find that Democrats and Republicans equally dislike and dehumanize each other but think that the levels of prejudice and dehumanization held by the outgroup party are approximately twice as strong as actually reported by a representative sample of Democrats and Republicans. Overestimations of negative meta-perceptions were consistent across samples over time and between demographic subgroups but were modulated by political ideology: More strongly liberal Democrats and more strongly conservative Republicans were particularly prone to exaggerate meta-perceptions. Finally, we show that meta-prejudice and meta-dehumanization are independently associated with the desire for social distance from members of the outgroup party and support for policies that harm the country and flout democratic norms to favor the ingroup political party. This research demonstrates that partisan meta-perceptions are subject to a strong negativity bias with Democrats and Republicans agreeing that the shadow of partisanship is much larger than it actually is, which fosters mutual intergroup hostility.