Human rights and ethnic attitudes in Spain: The role of cognitive, social status, and individual difference factors

Abstract

Cognitive, individual differences, and intergroup contact factors were examined in the formation of attitudes about human rights and ethnic bias in two studies conducted in Spain. A 7‐item scale measuring knowledge about human rights laws in Spain and the European Union was used in both studies. Participants were university students enrolled at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. In study one, participant (n = 127) knowledge about human rights laws, intergroup contact, Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), and Gough's Prejudice/Tolerance (Pr/To) scale were examined in relationship to bias towards Gitanos. Findings revealed that knowledge about human rights and social status variables (gender and age) were not significant predictors of Gitano bias, whereas Pr/To, RWA, and contact were all (R2 = .28) significant predictors of bias against Gitanos. Findings provided cross‐cultural replication (Dunbar & Simonova, in press) of the relationship of Pr/To and RWA to Gitano bias. In study two, participant (n = 100) knowledge and feelings (measured on a three‐item semantic differential scale) about human rights laws, Pr/To, and RWA were examined in relation to strategies influencing peer attitudes about human rights on the Raven Social Influence Inventory (RSII) scale. Findings indicated that knowledge about human rights laws were correlated (r = .47, p < .001) with positive feelings about these laws. Results of a hierarchical regression analysis, controlling for knowledge about human rights laws and participants' social status, found that the Prejudice/Tolerance scale and feelings about human rights were related with both hard (R2 = .11) and soft (R2 = .08) social influence strategies influencing peer human rights attitudes on the RSII. Men and higher‐scoring participants on Pr/To both employed more hard social influence strategies. Findings indicate that while knowledge of human rights laws is unrelated to ethnic bias, more accurate knowledge is correlated to more positive feelings about laws meant to protect the rights of ethnic minorities.

Opposition to the Legitimacy of Hate Crime Laws: The Role of Argument Acceptance, Knowledge, Individual Differences, and Peer Influence

“…Positive feelings about hate crime laws would be predicted by possession of accurate knowledge of human rights laws, when controlling for participant age, gender, and political orientation. This would cross‐culturally replicate the Dunbar et al (2004) findings.…”

“…Gender differences have also been found to influence endorsement of social power strategies (Carli, 2001). Dunbar et al (2004) found that men and women differed in their effort to influence a peer's beliefs concerning the civil rights of ethnic minorities, with men using more hard influence strategies. In this study it was also found that efforts to influence a peer's beliefs about human rights was predicted by the endorsement of explicit ethnic and gender bias, as well as an orientation toward bias as measured on the Gough Pr measure.…”

“…There is some evidence that possession of accurate knowledge about human rights in general may be related to attitudes about laws protecting minority groups. Research in the European Union has found a relationship between knowledge of human rights laws and positive feelings about these laws (Dunbar, Blanco, Sullaway, & Horcajo, 2004). In a subsequent study, knowledge about policies pertaining to human rights enforcement was predictive of more positive feelings about human rights laws in general (Dunbar, Sullaway, Blanco, Horcajo, & Cortes, 2003).…”

“… Positive feelings about hate crime laws would be predicted by possession of accurate knowledge of human rights laws, when controlling for participant age, gender, and political orientation. This would cross‐culturally replicate the Dunbar et al (2004) findings. Negative feelings about hate crime laws would be correlated with the Gough Pr scale, the Machismo scale, and the Selznick and Steinberg anti‐Semitism scale, when controlling for demographic differences of the participant. Both hard and soft strategies to influence a peer's attitudes about hate crimes would be predicted by participant age, gender, and political orientation, the Pr scale, the Machismo scale, and the Selznick and Steinberg anti‐Semitism scale. It was anticipated that women and (self‐referenced) politically liberal participants would demonstrate more effort to use soft influence strategies.…”

“…Human Rights Knowledge Scale The 23‐item measure of human rights laws and policies in California and the United States was developed by the first author. Scale items consisted of factual statements about human rights laws that were evaluated on a 7‐point Likert scale, with statements rated from “very certain this is true” to “very certain this is not true.” The current scale is a revision of the measure employed in the Dunbar et al (2004) study. The statements examined knowledge concerning human rights policies (“California does not have an agency responsible for monitoring the civil rights of minority groups”) and civil laws (“There are laws in the United States against the advocacy of violence against minority groups”), as well as knowledge of federal human rights practices (“The U.S. does not have a policy concerning the human rights of social groups such as Jews”).…”