Bystander Antiprejudice: Cross-Cultural Education, Links With Positivity Towards Cultural ‘Outgroups’ and Preparedness to Speak Out

Pedersen, Anne; Paradies, Yin; Hartley, Lisa; Dunn, Kevin

doi:10.1375/prp.5.1.19

Cited by 24 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using the results of both methods, the paper gives anti‐prejudice researchers some direction as to what may be useful in carrying out such an intervention. In fact, some recent research using the principles outlined in this paper has found not only an increase in positive attitudes towards Muslim Australians, but a willingness to speak out against everyday prejudice against Muslim Australians (Pedersen, Paradies, Hartley, & Dunn, in press).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Prejudice Against Muslim Australians: The Role of Values, Gender and Consensus

Pedersen

Hartley

2011

Community & Applied Soc Psy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data from an Australian community survey (n = 189) examining the predictors of prejudice against Muslim Australians was analysed. Using thematic analysis, we investigated the specific values our participants reported regarding their perceptions of Muslim Australians and Islam. We then investigated the relationship between prejudice against Muslim Australians, the most important value priorities given by our participants, and other prejudice-related variables. After entry into a regression analysis, participants high in prejudice were found to be significantly more likely to have lower educational levels and more right-wing views. They were also significantly more likely to report high levels of national attitudes (i.e., stronger identification with Australian identity), concern about gender equality within the Muslim community, less concern about equality generally, and report that Muslims were not conforming to Australian values. High prejudiced participants also scored higher in the reporting of negative media-related beliefs, were more likely to perceive higher support in the community for their views than was the case, and were more negative towards Muslim men than Muslim women.The implications for anti-prejudice interventions are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Prejudice Against Muslim Australians: The Role of Values, Gender and Consensus

Pedersen

Hartley

2011

Community & Applied Soc Psy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Giving more accurate and balanced information may reduce the tendency to denigrate a group of people; certainly, there have been some success in reducing prejudice against asylum seekers in educational settings both with a student population (Pedersen, Paradies, Hartley, & Dunn, ) and in the community with older participants (Hartley, Pedersen, & Dandy, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Tell me what I want to hear’: Motivated recall and attributions in media regarding asylum seekers

Croston

Pedersen

2013

Australian Journal of Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] AbstractWithin Australia, divisive debates regarding the processing of asylum seekers have delivered increasing polarisation rather than convergence on an evidence-based, humane approach. In order to investigate the role of motivated reasoning (the idea that our judgment is based on our motivations) with respect to attributions of warmth and competence, 186 participants indicated the extent to which they accepted false beliefs regarding asylum seekers. They read an article rebutting such false beliefs and then reported their attitudes towards the author, and the extent to which the author possessed warmth and competence traits. They then reported whether they agreed with the information in the article before completing a test of recall. Participants who disagreed with the article recalled less accurate information and rated authors significantly lower on warmth and competence. These findings suggest that motivated reasoning plays an important role in the way stereotypes are applied and in the way information is processed.

show abstract

“…Type of outgroup did not moderate the generalization effects when the analyses focused on most frequently investigated types of outgroup in this research tradition, Q(3) ≤ 1; there were no statistical differences in generalization between ethnic/national, aging/disability, student and occupation groups (rs between .19 and .27, gs between 0.39 and 0.55, all ps < .052). The inclusion of the unclassified/other experiments (n = 13), which had visibly larger effects (r = .39, g = 0.85, p < .001; see, for example, Corley & Pollack, 1996;Hamill et al, 1980;Pedersen, Paradies, Hartley, & Dunn, 2011;Swift et al, 2013), made the moderation effect marginally significant, Q(4) = 8.93, p = .063. Hence, this diverse set of experiments investigating a range of outgroups (e.g., lesbians, welfare recipients, asylum seekers, obese people) included at least some with large generalizations.…”

Section: Checking Moderation By Additional Design Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bad Is Stronger Than Good for Stigmatized, but Not Admired Outgroups: Meta-Analytical Tests of Intergroup Valence Asymmetry in Individual-to-Group Generalization Experiments

Паолини

McIntyre

2018

Pers Soc Psychol Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Theories of risk aversion, epistemic defense, and ingroup enhancement converge in predicting greater impact of negative (vs. positive) experiences with outgroup members on generalized evaluations of stigmatized outgroups. However, they diverge in predictions for admired outgroups. Past tests have focused on negative outgroups using correlational designs without a control group. Consequently, they have not distinguished between alternative explanations or ascertained the direction of causality/generalization, and they have suffered from self-selection biases. These limitations were redressed by a meta-analysis of experimental research on individual-to-group generalization with positive and negative outgroups (59 tests; 3,012 participants). Controlling for modest confounds, the meta-analysis found a generalization advantage of negative experiences for stigmatized outgroups and a generalization advantage of positive experiences for admired outgroups. These results highlight the centrality of valenced expectations about outgroups, consistent with epistemic defense and ingroup enhancement and inconsistent with risk aversion. Implications for positive changes in intergroup dynamics are discussed.

show abstract

Bystander Antiprejudice: Cross-Cultural Education, Links With Positivity Towards Cultural ‘Outgroups’ and Preparedness to Speak Out

Cited by 24 publications

References 36 publications

Prejudice Against Muslim Australians: The Role of Values, Gender and Consensus

Prejudice Against Muslim Australians: The Role of Values, Gender and Consensus

‘Tell me what I want to hear’: Motivated recall and attributions in media regarding asylum seekers

Bad Is Stronger Than Good for Stigmatized, but Not Admired Outgroups: Meta-Analytical Tests of Intergroup Valence Asymmetry in Individual-to-Group Generalization Experiments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About