The Europe of Regions and Borderlands

Wilson, Thomas M.

doi:10.1002/9781118257203.ch10

Cited by 17 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our research focused on intergroup contact in border regions, a setting not well studied by social psychologists, although widely featured in sociological and especially anthropological literature (Alvarez, ; Kohli, ; Wilson & Donnan, ). According to anthropologists, people living in border regions have more occasions and need to reformulate and establish their national identity in the face of ever‐present outgroups (Wilson, ). We targeted participants in border regions because border regions provide greater opportunities for cross‐national contact as compared with central regions.…”

Section: Positive Versus Negative Intergroup Contactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries

Graf

Паолини

Rubin

2014

Euro J Social Psych

232

278

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research tested the idea that the ecological impact of intergroup contact on outgroup attitudes can be fully understood only when relative frequency and relative influence of positive and negative contact are considered simultaneously. Participants from five European countries (Austria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland and Slovakia; N = 1276) freely described their contact experiences with people of neighboring nationalities and then reported on their outgroup attitudes. Contact descriptions were coded for positive versus negative valence and for person versus situation framing. Consistently across the five participant groups, positive intergroup contact was reported to occur three times more frequently than negative intergroup contact; however, positive contact was found to be only weakly related to outgroup attitudes. On the contrary, the less frequent negative (vs. positive) contact was comparatively more influential in shaping outgroup attitudes, especially when negativity was reported around the contact person, rather than the contact situation. This research's findings reconcile contrasting lines of past research on intergroup contact and suggest that the greater prevalence of positive contact may compensate for the greater prominence of negative contact, thus leading to modest net improvements in outgroup attitudes after intergroup contact.Our research aimed to reconcile the opposing outlooks on intergroup contact of past studies by advancing an analysis that encompasses both frequency and influence of positive versus Influential negative but more common positive contact 537

show abstract

Section: Positive Versus Negative Intergroup Contactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries

Graf

Паолини

Rubin

2014

Euro J Social Psych

232

278

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Europe is a patchwork of 'borders and borderlands' (Wilson 2012), regions like Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia, where Mukachevo is located, although not all of them have experienced such a range of realignments within the scope of a single century. Eastern Central Europe has been particularly affected by radical realignments, some of which have involved largescale population movements while others have left the resident populations mostly in place.…”

Section: Cultures -Migrant and Memorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Crossing Boundaries, Exploring the Frontier

Kockel¹

2012

Anthropological Journal of European Cultures

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taking Park's postulate of a 'marginal man' as its starting point, this essay reviews some of the key ideas and approaches that have underpinned the development of the Anthropological Journal of European Cultures from its inception. It concentrates on a discussion of the concept of 'cultures' -liminal, hybrid or otherwise -in different contexts and from different perspectives -boundaries and frontiers, places and spaces, migrants and memory -before turning towards the question of what and where Europe is, and what anthropology might have to say on it, concluding with refl ections on AJEC's past, present and future contribution. An appendix provides details of the fi rst twenty-one volumes of the journal.

show abstract

“…The research project is inspired by previous ethnological and anthropological literature on borders and borderlands, in particular research focused on the changing borders within post-Cold War Europe and the impact of EU expansion on them (Borneman 1992;Alvarez 1995;Donnan and Haller 2000;Scott 2012;Wilson 2012;Wilson and Donnan 2012;Mészáros 2015a). The proposed research also builds on the extensive body of ethnological and anthropological research that has focused on the broader impacts of the rising number of protected areas across the globe (West et al 2006;Brockington et al 2008;Bajuk Senčar 2013;Fikfak et al 2014;Poljak Istenič and Kozorog 2014).…”

Section: Jurij Fikfak and Csaba Mészárosmentioning

confidence: 99%

PROTECTED AREAS ON THE SLOVENIAN-HUNGARIAN BORDER: A PLACE AND SPACE OF NATURE AND CULTURE<br>ZAVAROVANA OBMOČJA OB SLOVENSKO-MADŽARSKI MEJI</br>

Fikfak

Mészáros

2019

Traditiones

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Őrség National Park (440 square kilometers) in Hungary was established in 2002, and Goričko Nature Park in Slovenia (462 square kilometers) in 2003. Both protected areas encompass regions that were purportedly " forgotten" by progress-on the margins-but are now considered idyllic landscapes with rich cultural history and a high level of biodiversity, which have the potential to function as centers for regional sustainable development.

show abstract

The Europe of Regions and Borderlands

Cited by 17 publications

References 33 publications

Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries

Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries

Crossing Boundaries, Exploring the Frontier

PROTECTED AREAS ON THE SLOVENIAN-HUNGARIAN BORDER: A PLACE AND SPACE OF NATURE AND CULTURE<br>ZAVAROVANA OBMOČJA OB SLOVENSKO-MADŽARSKI MEJI</br>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About