The relation between societal factors and different forms of prejudice: A cross-national approach on target-specific and generalized prejudice

Meeusen, Cecil; Kern, Anna

doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.09.009

Cited by 32 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Youth with poorer parents increased in prejudice (relative to adolescents with wealthier parents) while youth with better‐educated parents decreased in prejudice (relative to adolescents with less‐educated parents). These results are in line with previous findings showing individuals with lower education and income to express less favourable attitudes towards immigrants (Hainmueller & Hiscox, ; Meeusen & Kern, ). These effects have been explained with differences in threat perception and beliefs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of anti‐immigrant attitudes in adolescence: The role of parents, peers, intergroup friendships, and empathy

Miklikowska

2017

British J of Psychology

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ethnic and racial intergroup attitudes are assumed to develop due to the influence of socialization contexts. However, there is still little longitudinal evidence supporting this claim. We also know little about the relative importance of socialization contexts, the possible interplay between them as well as about the conditions and mechanisms that might underlie socialization effects. This longitudinal study of adolescents (N = 517) examined the effects of parents and peers’ anti‐immigrant attitudes as well as intergroup friendships on relative changes in adolescents’ anti‐immigrant prejudice, controlling for the effects of socioeconomic background. It also examined whether the effects of parents or peers would depend on adolescents’ intergroup friendships. In addition, it explored whether the effects of parents, peers, and intergroup friendships would be mediated or moderated by adolescents’ empathy. Results showed significant effects of parents, peers, intergroup friendships, and socioeconomic background on changes in youth attitudes, highlighting the role of parental prejudice. They also showed adolescents with immigrant friends to be less affected by parents and peers’ prejudice than youth without immigrant friends. In addition, results showed the effects of parents, peers, and intergroup friendships to be mediated by adolescents’ empathic concern. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of anti‐immigrant attitudes in adolescence: The role of parents, peers, intergroup friendships, and empathy

Miklikowska

2017

British J of Psychology

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The existence of a generalized prejudice factor, however, does not mean that each kind of target group automatically becomes part of this factor, nor that all types of prejudice are interlinked to the same extent ( Meeusen & Kern, 2016 ). The structure also depends on the socially offered motivations to justify (e.g.…”

Section: The Structure Of Prejudicementioning

confidence: 99%

The Structure of Prejudice and Its Relation to Party Preferences in Belgium: Flanders and Wallonia Compared

Meeusen¹,

Boonen²,

Dassonneville

2017

PSYCHOL BELG

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We test two assumptions of the generalized prejudice literature. First, that the structure of generalized prejudice (i.e. how prejudices are interrelated) is dependent on the intergroup context. Second, that different types of prejudice have similar political consequences and run via the generalized prejudice component. We perform these tests in the two main regions of Belgium – Flanders and Wallonia – and investigate the influence of differences in the history of immigration, experience of the linguistic and autonomy conflict, and the separate party system and political discourse (i.e. the societal and intergroup context) on these premises. We make use of the Belgian Election Panel (BEP) data that included measures of prejudice toward multiple target groups (immigrants, Flemings, Walloons, homosexuals, and Jews) and voting propensities for the main political parties. Our results show that, regardless of the differences in intergroup experiences, the structure of prejudice is identical in Flanders and Wallonia. Flemings are, however, more tolerant toward homosexuals and immigrants than Walloons. The political context and the set of potential political outlets does play an important moderating role in the translation of prejudices to party preferences: While negative attitudes toward the other regional group seem to divide the electorate in Flanders, it does not affect voting intentions in Wallonia. Anti-immigrant prejudice is crucial in both regions, but affects voters in different ways at the right-side of the political spectrum.

show abstract

“…Similar to Meeus et al (2009), our results show that individuals relate feelings of threat regarding material resources and cultural inequalities to specific ethnic groups; hence, perceived threat might help to explain why people prefer one ethnic group over the other. Whether someone feels symbolically or realistically threatened by a specific target group will depend on characteristics of the ethnic group (e.g., social status, language, and cultural distance; Ben-Nun Bloom et al, 2015;Hjerm & Nagayoshi, 2011) and on the personal position of the majority member (e.g., economic position, personality, and religion; Manevska & Achterberg, 2013), both of which are embedded in specific intergroup cultures (e.g., history of target group, cultural values, and political propaganda; Meeusen & Kern, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalized and specific components of prejudice: The decomposition of intergroup context effects

Meeusen

Barlow

Sibley

2017

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although different types of prejudice tend to be highly correlated, target‐specific and more generalized components can nevertheless be distinguished. Here, we analyze whether indicators of the intergroup context—threat, contact, and neighborhood composition—predict the target‐specific and/or generalized components of prejudice. Using data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (N = 4629), we build a multilevel model that captures the relationship between social dominance orientation, general levels of neighborhood heterogeneity, symbolic and realistic threat and cross‐group friendship (averaged across target groups), and generalized prejudice. Our model simultaneously estimates the relationship between target‐specific levels of these intergroup context indicators and target‐specific prejudice. Results indicated that social dominance orientation remained the strongest predictor of generalized prejudice when adjusting for other variables and that indicators of the intergroup context primarily explain differences between target group ratings. Aggregate levels of cross‐group friendship also had a small effect on generalized prejudice.

show abstract

The relation between societal factors and different forms of prejudice: A cross-national approach on target-specific and generalized prejudice

Cited by 32 publications

References 59 publications

Development of anti‐immigrant attitudes in adolescence: The role of parents, peers, intergroup friendships, and empathy

Development of anti‐immigrant attitudes in adolescence: The role of parents, peers, intergroup friendships, and empathy

The Structure of Prejudice and Its Relation to Party Preferences in Belgium: Flanders and Wallonia Compared

Generalized and specific components of prejudice: The decomposition of intergroup context effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About