The aim of this article is to present empirical findings about language use and attitudes in intergroup contact from one of the European borderlands along the former Iron Curtain more than twenty years after it fell. The data was collected as part of an international research project Intergroup attitudes and intergroup contact in five Central European countries, which concentrates on the interplay of intergroup contact and perceptions between members of neighbouring nations in the border regions of the Czech Republic and each of the neighbouring states—Slovakia, Poland, Austria and Germany. The main data collection method used is an online questionnaire with different attitude and evaluation scales, as well as a feeling thermometer of emotional relations and open statements (N=2900). In this text I use thematic and basic critical discursive analysis only on the open statements from the Czech (N=210) and German (N=152) borderlands about the situations of contact and the following evaluation of the Others. I show how the linguistic competence and also the interest in the language of the Other are distributed very unevenly; the implicit norm almost always being that the Czechs should speak German. Of course, this situation has in some cases strong emotional consequences.
We report the process of adapting and validating the BIAS Map (Behaviors from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes) used to measure perceived stereotypes and related social structure, emotions, and behavioral tendencies toward the Roma—Slovakia's most stigmatized ethnic minority group. In two surveys (Studies 1 and 4, n = 705) and group‐based (Study 2, n = 92) and individual (Study 3, n = 12) cognitive interviews, we integrated quantitative reliability, scalability, factor structure analysis, and qualitative inductive thematic analysis. We identified potential problems in the instruments’ ecological validity and explored the limits of intergroup context‐specific interpretation to improve its psychometric properties. Besides developing a more reliable and valid measure, we make an argument for utilizing the emic‐etic mixed methods approach to enhance the intergroup context‐sensitive adaptation and validation procedure of universal measurement instruments in social psychology research.
The paper deals with cognitive interview, a method for pre-testing survey questions that is used in pilot testing to develop new measures and/or adapt ones in foreign languages. The aim is to explore the usefulness of the method by looking at two questionnaires measuring anti-Roma prejudice. The first, the Stereotype Content Model (SCM), contains questions that are dominantly used to test two dimensions of social perceptions of various groups: warmth and competence. The second, Interventions for Reducing Prejudice against Stigmatized Minorities (INTERMIN) consists of the items most frequently used in contact research to measure attitudes, social distance, anxiety, trust and behavioural intentions towards outgroups. Two rounds of cognitive interviews were held on both questionnaires to verbally evaluate participants’ understanding and/or interpretation of the draft questions. The first round was attended by university students, while the second round (with improved versions of the questionnaires) was done with high school students, as they are the target group for planned interventions based on the contact paradigm. The paper explains the problems/difficulties the participants had answering some of the questions and our attempts at improving the questionnaires. The problems can be grouped around six issues: The first two deal with the strategies participants used to answer our questions – whom exactly did they have in mind when answering the questionnaires and whose viewpoint did they represent in their answers. The next four problems are around nuances in the formulations of our questions and generally have to do with how the participants interpreted our questions – they concern assumptions that distinct items were logically interconnected, the period of time and locality referred to in our questions, translation and transferability of meanings from one language to another and double negation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.