Muslim = Terrorist? Attribution of violent crimes to terrorism or mental health problems depend on perpetrators' religious background
In: The Journal of social psychology, Band 164, Heft 4, S. 447-455
ISSN: 1940-1183
11 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: The Journal of social psychology, Band 164, Heft 4, S. 447-455
ISSN: 1940-1183
In: The Journal of social psychology, Band 155, Heft 6, S. 553-558
ISSN: 1940-1183
In: GESIS-Working papers 2014/35
In: Social psychology, Band 50, Heft 1, S. 1-6
ISSN: 2151-2590
Abstract. In this article, we reflect on 50 years of the journal Social Psychology. We interviewed colleagues who have witnessed the history of the journal. Based on these interviews, we identified three crucial periods in Social Psychology's history, that are (a) the early development and further professionalization of the journal, (b) the reunification of East and West Germany, and (c) the internationalization of the journal and its transformation from the Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie to Social Psychology. We end our reflection with a discussion of changes that occurred during these periods and their implication for the future of our field.
In: The Journal of social psychology, Band 162, Heft 5, S. 540-548
ISSN: 1940-1183
In: GESIS-Working Papers, Band 2014/35
In: Group processes & intergroup relations: GPIR
ISSN: 1461-7188
More and more research is considering the effects of both positive and negative intergroup contact on intergroup attitudes. To date, little is known about what factors may differentially influence these effects. We propose that differentiating not only between positive and negative contact (i.e., its valence), but also considering the intensity (i.e., low or high positivity/negativity) of contact valence is critical to understanding contact effects. We predicted that intensifying positivity in the realm of positive contact would have a stronger effect on outgroup attitudes than intensifying negativity. We report evidence supporting this hypothesis from three experiments which manipulated the quality of feedback given during a cooperation task by a confederate who acted as a member of a student outgroup (two online: N = 87, N = 169; one in person: N = 78), summarized in an internal meta-analysis and a large survey of White British majority and Asian British minority members ( N = 2,994). Our results suggest that intensity of valenced intergroup contact may be a key factor for resolving inconsistencies in the current literature on valenced intergroup contact.
In: Methods, theories, and empirical applications in the social sciences: Festschrift for Peter Schmidt, S. 13-18
In: Methods, Theories, and Empirical Applications in the Social Sciences, S. 13-18
In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS), Band 119, Heft 44, S. 1-8
This study explores how researchers' analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers' expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team's workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers' results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.