Emotional attitude and motives of dislike as predictors of discriminatory attitudes

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅存取

详细

The emotional attitude towards outgroup representatives may differ depending on the target of discrimination. Establishing the role of emotional relationships and the motivation of dislike in adherence to certain combined types of discriminatory attitudes will contribute to the development of measures to counteract them. The aim of the study is to establish emotional attitudes towards representatives of outgroups and the motives of dislike, which are predictors of discriminatory attitudes. The study involved 190 people of both sexes (men — 36.6%), aged 20–40 years. The survey methods of direct and indirect assessment of discriminatory attitudes, affective reactions towards representatives of discriminated groups, motives of dislike, methods of mathematical data processing (descriptive statistics, correlation and regression analyses, modeling method) were used. The combination of forms of emotional attitude and motivation in the prediction of types of discriminatory attitudes, as well as direct and indirect effects of emotional relationships on generalized forms of discriminatory attitudes, has been revealed. Anger and anxiety act as emotional attitudes towards representatives of outgroups, causing a general discriminatory attitude, while interest and disgust contribute to its reduction. The predictors of discriminatory attitudes towards socially vulnerable groups are fear (positive), interest and pity (negative); dissident groups — anger and fear; outsider groups — anger and disgust; social status groups — irritation and aggression (positive), disgust and interest (negative). The strongest motivational predictors of discriminatory attitudes are the motivation of competition in the labor market in the case of dissident, socially-status and even socially unprotected groups, as well as hostility based on an emotional attitude in the case of dissident and socially-outsider groups. Various emotional attitudes and motivations of rejection towards outgroup representatives explain a significant part of the dispersion of generalized forms of discriminatory attitudes. Generalized discriminatory attitudes are characterized by heterogeneous emotional conditioning and polymotivation.

全文:

受限制的访问

作者简介

R. Shamionov

Saratov State University

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: shamionov@mail.ru

ScD (Psychology), Professor, Head of the Department of Social Psychology of Education and Development

俄罗斯联邦, 410012, Saratov, Astrakhanskaya str., 83

参考

  1. Barsukov V.N. Ocenka rasprostranennosti diskriminacionnyh nastroenij po otnosheniju k pozhilym ljudjam v stranah mira. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Tomsk State University Journal. 2018. V. 429. P. 82–90. doi: 10.17223/15617793/429/10 (In Russian)
  2. Grigor’ev D.S. Model’ soderzhaniya stereotipov i etnicheskie stereotipy v Rossii. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial’noi antropologii. 2020. V. 23. № 2. P. 215–244. doi: 10.31119/jssa.2020.23.2.9 (In Russian)
  3. Grigor’eva M.V. Affektivnye faktory proyavleniya diskriminatsionnykh ustanovok lichnosti v povedenii. Obshchestvo: sotsiologiya, psikhologiya, pedagogika. 2020. № 11 (79). P. 51–56. doi: 10.24158/spp.2020.11.9 (In Russian)
  4. Labunskaya V.A. Vidy diskriminatsii i situatsii aktualizatsii diskriminatsionnykh praktik. Etnolukizm: empiricheskaya model’ i metody issledovaniya. Ed. V.A. Labunskaya. Rostov-na-Donu: Mini Taip, 2018. 254 p. (In Russian)
  5. Shamionov R.M. Determinanty diskriminatsionnykh ustanovok po vneshnim priznakam i proyavleniyam. Eksperimental’naya psikhologiya. 2020. V. 13. № 4. P. 163–179. doi: 10.17759/exppsy.2020130412 (In Russian)
  6. Shamionov R.M. Individual’nye tsennosti i ideologicheskie ustanovki kak prediktory predubezhdennosti po otnosheniyu k Drugim. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Psikhologiya i pedagogika. 2019. V. 16. № 3. P. 309–326. doi: 10.22363/2313-1683-2019-16-3-309-326 (In Russian)
  7. Shamionov R.M., Grigor’eva M.V. Metodika izmerenija diskriminacionnyh ustanovok. Strahovskie chtenija. 2020. № 28. Р. 362–367. (In Russian)
  8. Aberson C.L. Indirect effects of threat on the contact-prejudice relationship: A meta-analysis. Social psychology. 2019. V. 50 (2). P. 105–126. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000364
  9. Badaan V., Hoffarth M., Roper C., Jost J.T. Ideological asymmetries in online hostility, intimidation, obscenity, and prejudice. Scientific Reports. 2023. V. 13 (1). P. 22345. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-46574-2
  10. Cantal C., Milfont T.L., Wilson M.S., Gouveia V.V. Differential effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation on dimensions of generalized prejudice in Brazil. European Journal of Personality. 2014. V. 29 (1). P. 17–27. doi: 10.1002/per.1978
  11. Chaney K.E., Forbes M.B. We stand in solidarity with you (if it helps our ingroup). Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2023. V. 26 (2). P. 304–320. DOI: 10.1177/ 13684302211067143
  12. Cook C.L., Li Y.J., Newell S.M. et al. The world is a scary place: Individual differences in belief in a dangerous world predict specific intergroup prejudices. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2018. V. 21 (4). P. 584–596. doi: 10.1177/1368430216670024
  13. Crawford J.T., Brandt M.J. Ideological (A)symmetries in prejudice and intergroup bias. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2020. V. 34. P. 40–45. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.11.007
  14. Cuddy A.J.C., Fiske S.T., Glick P. The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2007. V. 92. P. 631–648.
  15. Day M.V., Fiske S.T. Understanding the nature and consequences of social mobility beliefs. Eds. J. Jetten, K. Peters. The social psychology of inequality. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2019. P. 365–380.
  16. Duckitt J., Sible C.G. Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality. 2007. V. 21 (2). P. 113–130. doi: 10.1002/per.614
  17. Ferguson M.A., Branscombe N.R., Reynolds K.J. Social psychological research on prejudice as collective action supporting emergent ingroup members. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2019. V. 58 (1). P. 1–32. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12294
  18. Fiske S.T. Stereotype Content: Warmth and Competence Endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2018. V. 27 (2). P. 67–73. DOI: 10.1177/ 0963721417738825
  19. Huber C., Brietzke S., Inagaki T.K., Meyer M.L. American prejudice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientific Reports. 2022. V. 12. P. 22278. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-26163-5
  20. Koehn M.A., Jonason P.K., Davis M.D. A person-centered view of prejudice: The Big Five, Dark Triad, and prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences. 2019. V. 139. P. 313–316. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.038
  21. Miglietta A., Rizzo M., Testa S., Gattino S. Does existential flexibility associate with individuals’ acceptance of inequality? A Study relating existential questing to values and to prejudice. Europe’s Journal of Psychology. 2023. V. 19 (4). P. 321–334. doi: 10.5964/ejop.9999
  22. Moss A.J., Blodorn A., Van Camp A.R., O’Brien L.T. Gender equality, value violations, and prejudice toward Muslims. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2019. V. 22 (2). P. 288–301. doi: 10.1177/1368430217716751
  23. Pascal E., Holman A.C., Miluț F.M. Emotional relevance and prejudice: Testing the differentiated effect of incidental disgust on prejudice towards ethnic minorities. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023. V. 14. P. 1177263. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1177263
  24. Schneider L.J. Stereotyping, Prejudice, and the Role of Anxiety for Compensatory Control. Social Psychological Bulletin. 2022. V. 17. P. 1–25. doi: 10.32872/spb.7875
  25. Wagner U., Christ O., Pettigrew T.F. Prejudice and group-related behavior in Germany. Journal of Social Issues. 2008. V. 64 (2). P. 403–416. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00568.x
  26. White M.H., Crandall C.S. Perceived authenticity as a vicarious justification for prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 2023. V. 26 (3). P. 534–554. doi: 10.1177/13684302221080466

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载
2. Fig. 1. Path model. Discrimination motives are indicated by bold rectangles; negative relationships are indicated by bold directional lines.

下载 (155KB)
索引源数据

版权所有 © Russian Academy of Sciences, 2024
##common.cookie##