Original ArticleJ. M. Phelps et al.

Original Article

J. M. Phelps et al.: IntergrSooucpiaPl ePrscyecphtoiloongya©n220d011I3n2;tVeHgol.orgart4ei4(ofen3P)A:u1tb9tli6its–uh20dine7gs

Intergroup Perception and Proactive
Majority Integration Attitudes

Joshua M. Phelps, Reidar Ommundsen, Salman Türken, and Pål Ulleberg

University of Oslo, Norway

Abstract. Few social psychological investigations have focused on the potential active role of the majority in integration. The present study examines the relationship between intergroup perception and majority attitudes toward the proactive integration of immigrant minorities in Norway. It assesses how and whether perceived entitativity of immigrants, endorsement of counterstereotypic portrayals of immigrants and metaperspectives along the appraisal dimensions of warmth/competence predict the integration attitudes of majority members in Norway as measured by the Majority Integration Efforts (MIE) scale. Correlational and multiple regression analysis yielded two strong (perceptions of positive immigrant integration intentions and perceived entitativity) and two moderate (perceptions of high immigrant competence in Norwegian society and metawarmth) predictors of these attitudes. Further analysis indicated that the main effect of perceived immigrant entitativity on MIE attitudes was partially mediated by perceptions of counterstereotypic intentions and competence. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. We conclude by highlighting how the perception of immigrants’ positive integration intentions and their heterogeneity as a group may best promote majority support for proactive inte- gration efforts.

Keywords: majority attitudes, integration, intergroup perception, entitativity, stereotypes

Integration may be viewed as a multifaceted process for establishing better intergroup relations in multicultural so- cieties. It ideally involves adaptation by both the immigrant minority and the dominant majority groups (Berry, 1997; Common Basic Principles [CBP], 2010; Eriksen, 2007; Penninx, 2003). “Traditional” social psychological re- search that may contribute toward understanding integra- tion has predominantly focused on reducing majority prej- udice (see Paluck & Green, 2009) or in acculturation psy- chology on a strategy of immigrant adaptation (Berry,
1997). Prejudice-reduction strategies often aim to trans- form negative intergroup attitudes and stereotypes in order to promote tolerance via positive intergroup contact (Dix- on, 2001), or by changing group boundaries and social cat- egories to reduce intergroup bias (Gaertner et al., 1999; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Yet, these efforts may be too passive and insufficiently effective to produce long-lasting changes in social structure to improve the collective status of disadvantaged groups (Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux,
2005, 2007; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009; Park &
Judd, 2005; Phelps, Eilertsen, Türken, & Ommundsen,
2011). In acculturation psychology, meanwhile, integration is conceived of mainly as an adaptation strategy made by immigrants within an adaptation context framed by “dom- inant” majority members and their ideologies (Berry, 1997; Bourhis, Möise, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997; Montreuil & Bourhis, 2001). However, the few empirical studies from the standpoint of the majority in the acculturation paradigm

usually focus upon which strategies majority members want immigrants to choose – not on their own role or re- sponsibility (Phelps, submitted).
In contrast, some social scientists (e.g., Penninx, 2003; Ringen, 2005) argue for advocating a more central, respon- sible, and active role for majority members in their rela- tionships with immigrants. This goes beyond tolerance pro- motion, prejudice reduction, or the endorsement of immi- grant acculturation strategies. Some studies reflecting this position have assessed different factors involved in actively helping or supporting policies aimed at improving the sta- tus of minorities (e.g., Breugelmans & Van de Vijver, 2004; Jackson & Esses, 2000). The present study advances a new area of such research involving the assessment of majority attitudes toward their own (potential) proactive role in in- tegration and social change (Phelps et al., 2011) because fostering majority tolerance may not be enough to improve intergroup relations (Pittinsky & Montoya, 2009; van Qua- quebeke, Henrich, & Eckloff, 2007).
The idea of proactive majority integration entails major- ity members recognizing that they may play an active part in the adaptation of (mainly) “non-Western” immigrants (see e.g., Open Society Institute [OSI], 2010; Ringen,
2005). This means they not only tolerate immigrants and change their prejudiced stereotypes, but also come to value diversity and actively make adjustments in their own soci- ety in order to make immigrants feel welcome. Such ac- commodations could be anything from providing general

Social Psychology 2013; Vol. 44(3):196–207 © 2012 Hogrefe Publishing
DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000104

economic assistance for immigrants to establish them- selves in a new society, to offering driver’s license tests in their mother tongue. This conceptualization of proactive integration presupposes the willingness to actively incor- porate immigrant minorities into the receiving society. It also corresponds to the rhetoric and definition based on “mutual accommodation” currently in use in European Un- ion policy (CBP, 2010; OSI, 2010).
The present study explores the extent to which members of a majority society support proactive inclusion as well as
some potential antecedents of such attitudes. We have de- veloped a psychometric measure, the Majority Integration Efforts (MIE) scale, which assesses the integration atti- tudes of majority members within three interrelated do- mains: openness to diversity, and willingness to agree to cultural and structural changes in order to accommodate and respect immigrants (Phelps et al., 2011). Construct val- idation of the MIE scale in Norway showed that it relates meaningfully to important prejudice predictors of right- wing authoritarianism (RWA, Altemeyer, 1981; Zakrisson,
2005) and social dominance orientation (SDO, Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), and cosmopolitan identity (Türken & Rudmin, in press), but less so to per- sonality constructs (Big 5, International Personality Item Pool, n.d.). Although the MIE construct is not considered a mirror opposite of prejudice or the equivalent of (passive) tolerance, a key finding was that an unwillingness to favor proactive integration efforts was associated with RWA and SDO.
These findings exemplify one of two lines of research involving the quest for antecedents of outgroup attitudes (see Meeus, Duriez, Vanbeselaere, Phalet, & Kuppens,
2009). Previous research has consistently showed that rel- atively stable personality factors (e.g., Big 5) and ideolog- ical worldviews such as RWA and SDO predict variation in attitudes toward minorities (Hodson, 2009). Further- more, RWA and SDO are conceived to lie psychologically between personality and social attitudes, and may thus be partly malleable. Nevertheless, focusing on individual ideological orientations and dispositional factors may be less efficient if the aim is to change negative attitudes re- lated to outgroup members. Instead, the improvement of intergroup relations between majority and immigrant mi- nority members may best be accomplished in the second line of research, which is focused on situational factors that influence outgroup attitudes (Meeus et al., 2009). There- fore, a reasonable extension to understand what may influ- ence (or predict) MIE attitudes is to examine contextual and potentially malleable factors that “structure” social cognition – and more specifically intergroup perception.
At a general level, social cognition is a basis for human interaction (e.g., Strack & Förster, 2009). Moreover, an in- dividual’s construals and perceptions of other individuals and groups have often proved alterable through social in- fluence (e.g., Ross & Nisbett, 1991). Consequently, the pre- sent study examines the extent to which the willingness of majority members to incorporate immigrants is related to

how majority members perceive immigrants as a group. In particular, we investigate how the perceived entitativity of immigrants and the universal dimensions of warmth and competence examined with respect to the endorsement of counterstereotypic portrayals of immigrants and metaper- ception (i.e., what majority members think immigrants think of them) may be related to and predict MIE attitudes.

Intergroup Perception and MIE Attitudes

Perceived Outgroup Entitativity

Research on perceived entitativity – the degree in which a collection of people are perceived as being bonded together in a cohesive or homogeneous unit (Campbell, 1958; Ham- ilton & Sherman, 1996; Lickel et al., 2000) – has illustrated how entitativity is important as an antecedent for inter- group perception (e.g., Spencer-Rodgers, Hamilton, & Sherman, 2007; Yzerbyt, Judd, & Corneille, 2004), and that it may influence stereotype change (Rothbart & Park,
2004). One seemingly common finding is that perceivers possess more extreme or negative evaluations of outgroups when the outgroup is seen as more entitative (e.g., Abelson, Dasgupta, Park, & Banaji, 1998; Dasgupta, Banaji, & Ableson, 1999; Grzesiak-Feldman, & Suszak, 2008). Fur- thermore, the perception of entitative groups may also lead to more distrust and negative impressions of outgroups (Wildschut, Insko, & Pinter, 2004). It may even result in collective retribution, i.e., judging the whole group based on the (mis)behavior of individual group members (Den- son, Lickel, Curtis, Stenstrom, & Ames, 2006). It thus seems reasonable to explore w

Original Article

J. M. Phelps et al.: IntergrSooucpiaPl ePrscyecphtoiloongya©n220d011I3n2;tVeHgol.orgart4ei4(ofen3P)A:u1tb9tli6its–uh20dine7gs

Intergroup Perception and Proactive
Majority Integration Attitudes

Joshua M. Phelps, Reidar Ommundsen, Salman Türken, and Pål Ulleberg

University of Oslo, Norway

Abstract. Few social psychological investigations have focused on the potential active role of the majority in integration. The present study examines the relationship between intergroup perception and majority attitudes toward the proactive integration of immigrant minorities in Norway. It assesses how and whether perceived entitativity of immigrants, endorsement of counterstereotypic portrayals of immigrants and metaperspectives along the appraisal dimensions of warmth/competence predict the integration attitudes of majority members in Norway as measured by the Majority Integration Efforts (MIE) scale. Correlational and multiple regression analysis yielded two strong (perceptions of positive immigrant integration intentions and perceived entitativity) and two moderate (perceptions of high immigrant competence in Norwegian society and metawarmth) predictors of these attitudes. Further analysis indicated that the main effect of perceived immigrant entitativity on MIE attitudes was partially mediated by perceptions of counterstereotypic intentions and competence. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. We conclude by highlighting how the perception of immigrants’ positive integration intentions and their heterogeneity as a group may best promote majority support for proactive inte- gration efforts.

Keywords: majority attitudes, integration, intergroup perception, entitativity, stereotypes

Integration may be viewed as a multifaceted process for establishing better intergroup relations in multicultural so- cieties. It ideally involves adaptation by both the immigrant minority and the dominant majority groups (Berry, 1997; Common Basic Principles [CBP], 2010; Eriksen, 2007; Penninx, 2003). “Traditional” social psychological re- search that may contribute toward understanding integra- tion has predominantly focused on reducing majority prej- udice (see Paluck & Green, 2009) or in acculturation psy- chology on a strategy of immigrant adaptation (Berry,
1997). Prejudice-reduction strategies often aim to trans- form negative intergroup attitudes and stereotypes in order to promote tolerance via positive intergroup contact (Dix- on, 2001), or by changing group boundaries and social cat- egories to reduce intergroup bias (Gaertner et al., 1999; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Yet, these efforts may be too passive and insufficiently effective to produce long-lasting changes in social structure to improve the collective status of disadvantaged groups (Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux,
2005, 2007; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009; Park &
Judd, 2005; Phelps, Eilertsen, Türken, & Ommundsen,
2011). In acculturation psychology, meanwhile, integration is conceived of mainly as an adaptation strategy made by immigrants within an adaptation context framed by “dom- inant” majority members and their ideologies (Berry, 1997; Bourhis, Möise, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997; Montreuil & Bourhis, 2001). However, the few empirical studies from the standpoint of the majority in the acculturation paradigm
 
usually focus upon which strategies majority members want immigrants to choose – not on their own role or re- sponsibility (Phelps, submitted).
In contrast, some social scientists (e.g., Penninx, 2003; Ringen, 2005) argue for advocating a more central, respon- sible, and active role for majority members in their rela- tionships with immigrants. This goes beyond tolerance pro- motion, prejudice reduction, or the endorsement of immi- grant acculturation strategies. Some studies reflecting this position have assessed different factors involved in actively helping or supporting policies aimed at improving the sta- tus of minorities (e.g., Breugelmans & Van de Vijver, 2004; Jackson & Esses, 2000). The present study advances a new area of such research involving the assessment of majority attitudes toward their own (potential) proactive role in in- tegration and social change (Phelps et al., 2011) because fostering majority tolerance may not be enough to improve intergroup relations (Pittinsky & Montoya, 2009; van Qua- quebeke, Henrich, & Eckloff, 2007).
The idea of proactive majority integration entails major- ity members recognizing that they may play an active part in the adaptation of (mainly) “non-Western” immigrants (see e.g., Open Society Institute [OSI], 2010; Ringen,
2005). This means they not only tolerate immigrants and change their prejudiced stereotypes, but also come to value diversity and actively make adjustments in their own soci- ety in order to make immigrants feel welcome. Such ac- commodations could be anything from providing general

Social Psychology 2013; Vol. 44(3):196–207 © 2012 Hogrefe Publishing
DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000104

economic assistance for immigrants to establish them- selves in a new society, to offering driver’s license tests in their mother tongue. This conceptualization of proactive integration presupposes the willingness to actively incor- porate immigrant minorities into the receiving society. It also corresponds to the rhetoric and definition based on “mutual accommodation” currently in use in European Un- ion policy (CBP, 2010; OSI, 2010).
The present study explores the extent to which members of a majority society support proactive inclusion as well as
some potential antecedents of such attitudes. We have de- veloped a psychometric measure, the Majority Integration Efforts (MIE) scale, which assesses the integration atti- tudes of majority members within three interrelated do- mains: openness to diversity, and willingness to agree to cultural and structural changes in order to accommodate and respect immigrants (Phelps et al., 2011). Construct val- idation of the MIE scale in Norway showed that it relates meaningfully to important prejudice predictors of right- wing authoritarianism (RWA, Altemeyer, 1981; Zakrisson,
2005) and social dominance orientation (SDO, Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), and cosmopolitan identity (Türken & Rudmin, in press), but less so to per- sonality constructs (Big 5, International Personality Item Pool, n.d.). Although the MIE construct is not considered a mirror opposite of prejudice or the equivalent of (passive) tolerance, a key finding was that an unwillingness to favor proactive integration efforts was associated with RWA and SDO.
These findings exemplify one of two lines of research involving the quest for antecedents of outgroup attitudes (see Meeus, Duriez, Vanbeselaere, Phalet, & Kuppens,
2009). Previous research has consistently showed that rel- atively stable personality factors (e.g., Big 5) and ideolog- ical worldviews such as RWA and SDO predict variation in attitudes toward minorities (Hodson, 2009). Further- more, RWA and SDO are conceived to lie psychologically between personality and social attitudes, and may thus be partly malleable. Nevertheless, focusing on individual ideological orientations and dispositional factors may be less efficient if the aim is to change negative attitudes re- lated to outgroup members. Instead, the improvement of intergroup relations between majority and immigrant mi- nority members may best be accomplished in the second line of research, which is focused on situational factors that influence outgroup attitudes (Meeus et al., 2009). There- fore, a reasonable extension to understand what may influ- ence (or predict) MIE attitudes is to examine contextual and potentially malleable factors that “structure” social cognition – and more specifically intergroup perception.
At a general level, social cognition is a basis for human interaction (e.g., Strack & Förster, 2009). Moreover, an in- dividual’s construals and perceptions of other individuals and groups have often proved alterable through social in- fluence (e.g., Ross & Nisbett, 1991). Consequently, the pre- sent study examines the extent to which the willingness of majority members to incorporate immigrants is related to
 
how majority members perceive immigrants as a group. In particular, we investigate how the perceived entitativity of immigrants and the universal dimensions of warmth and competence examined with respect to the endorsement of counterstereotypic portrayals of immigrants and metaper- ception (i.e., what majority members think immigrants think of them) may be related to and predict MIE attitudes.

Intergroup Perception and MIE Attitudes

Perceived Outgroup Entitativity

Research on perceived entitativity – the degree in which a collection of people are perceived as being bonded together in a cohesive or homogeneous unit (Campbell, 1958; Ham- ilton & Sherman, 1996; Lickel et al., 2000) – has illustrated how entitativity is important as an antecedent for inter- group perception (e.g., Spencer-Rodgers, Hamilton, & Sherman, 2007; Yzerbyt, Judd, & Corneille, 2004), and that it may influence stereotype change (Rothbart & Park,
2004). One seemingly common finding is that perceivers possess more extreme or negative evaluations of outgroups when the outgroup is seen as more entitative (e.g., Abelson, Dasgupta, Park, & Banaji, 1998; Dasgupta, Banaji, & Ableson, 1999; Grzesiak-Feldman, & Suszak, 2008). Fur- thermore, the perception of entitative groups may also lead to more distrust and negative impressions of outgroups (Wildschut, Insko, & Pinter, 2004). It may even result in collective retribution, i.e., judging the whole group based on the (mis)behavior of individual group members (Den- son, Lickel, Curtis, Stenstrom, & Ames, 2006). It thus seems reasonable to explore w

0/5000

Dari: -

Ke: -

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1: [Salinan]

Disalin!

Artikel asliJ. M. Phelps et al.: IntergrSooucpiaPl ePrscyecphtoiloongya©n220d011I3n2;tVeHgol.orgart4ei4 (ofen3P) A:u1tb9tli6its-uh20dine7gsAntarkelompok persepsi dan proaktifMayoritas integrasi sikapJoshua M. Phelps, Reidar Ommundsen, Salman Türken, dan Pål UllebergUniversitas Oslo, NorwegiaAbstrak. Beberapa penyelidikan psikologi sosial telah berfokus pada peran aktif potensi mayoritas di integrasi. Penelitian ini meneliti hubungan antara antarkelompok persepsi dan mayoritas sikap proaktif integrasi imigran minoritas di Norwegia. Ini menilai bagaimana dan apakah dirasakan entitativity imigran, dukungan dari penggambaran counterstereotypic imigran dan metaperspectives sepanjang dimensi penilaian kehangatan kompetensi memprediksi integrasi sikap sebagian besar anggota di Norwegia yang diukur oleh mayoritas integrasi upaya (MIE) skala. Correlational dan analisis regresi menghasilkan dua kuat (persepsi niat integrasi imigran positif dan dianggap entitativity) dan dua pemrediksi moderat (persepsi kompetensi tinggi imigran di masyarakat Norwegia dan metawarmth) sikap ini. Analisis lebih lanjut menunjukkan bahwa efek utama dirasakan imigran entitativity di MIE sikap sebagian dimediasi oleh persepsi counterstereotypic niat dan kompetensi. Teoretis dan praktis implikasi dari Temuan ini dibahas. Kami menyimpulkan dengan menyorot bagaimana persepsi niat positif integrasi imigran dan heterogenitas mereka sebagai kelompok yang terbaik mungkin mempromosikan mayoritas dukungan untuk upaya proaktif inte-gration.Kata kunci: mayoritas sikap, integrasi, persepsi antarkelompok, entitativity, stereotip Integrasi dapat dilihat sebagai suatu proses multifaset untuk membangun lebih baik antarkelompok hubungan di multikultural sehingga-cieties. Idealnya melibatkan adaptasi oleh imigran minoritas dan kelompok dominan mayoritas (Berry, 1997; Prinsip dasar umum [CBP], 2010; Eriksen, 2007; Penninx, 2003). "Tradisional" psikologis re-pencarian sosial yang dapat berkontribusi terhadap pemahaman integra-tion telah sebagian besar terfokus pada mengurangi sebagian besar prej-udice (Lihat Paluck & Green, 2009) atau dalam akulturasi psy-chology pada strategi adaptasi imigran (Berry,1997). strategi pengurangan prasangka sering bertujuan untuk trans-bentuk negatif sikap antarkelompok dan stereotip untuk meningkatkan toleransi melalui kontak antarkelompok positif (Dix-pada, 2001), atau dengan mengubah batas-batas grup dan kucing-berkaitan sosial untuk mengurangi antarkelompok bias (Gaertner et al., 1999; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Namun, upaya ini mungkin terlalu pasif dan tidak cukup efektif untuk menghasilkan perubahan-perubahan jangka panjang dalam struktur sosial untuk meningkatkan status kolektif kelompok-kelompok yang kurang beruntung (Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux,2005, 2007; Dovidio, Gaertner & Saguy, 2009; Park &Judd, 2005; Phelps, Eilertsen, Türken, & Ommundsen,2011). dalam psikologi akulturasi, sementara itu, integrasi ini dianggap terutama sebagai strategi adaptasi yang dibuat oleh imigran dalam konteks adaptasi yang dibingkai oleh "dom-inant" mayoritas anggota dan ideologi mereka (Berry, 1997; BOURHIS, Möise, Perreault, & Senécal, 1997; Montreuil & Bourhis, 2001). Namun, beberapa penelitian empiris dari sudut pandang mayoritas di paradigma akulturasi biasanya fokus pada strategi yang mayoritas menginginkan imigran untuk memilih-bukan pada peran mereka sendiri atau re-sponsibility (Phelps, disampaikan).Sebaliknya, beberapa ilmuwan sosial (misalnya, Penninx, 2003; Ringen, 2005) berpendapat untuk advokasi yang lebih sentral, respon-sible dan peran aktif mayoritas anggota di mereka Real tionships dengan imigran. Ini melampaui toleransi pro-gerak, pengurangan prasangka atau persetujuan hibah immi akulturasi strategi. Beberapa studi yang mencerminkan posisi ini telah dinilai berbagai faktor yang terlibat dalam membantu atau mendukung kebijakan yang bertujuan untuk meningkatkan sta-tus minoritas (misalnya, Breugelmans & Van de Vijver, 2004; Jackson & Esses, 2000). Penelitian ini kemajuan daerah yang baru dari penelitian tersebut melibatkan penilaian mayoritas sikap proaktif peran mereka sendiri (potensial) di dalam tegration dan perubahan sosial (Phelps et al., 2011) karena mendorong toleransi sebagian besar mungkin tidak cukup untuk memperbaiki hubungan antarkelompok (Pittinsky & Juan Pablo Montoya, 2009; van Qua-quebeke, Henrich, & Eckloff, 2007).Ide proaktif mayoritas integrasi melibatkan anggota utama-ity mengakui bahwa mereka mungkin memainkan peran aktif dalam adaptasi (terutama) "non-Barat" imigran (Lihat misalnya, Open Society Institute [OSI], 2010; Ringen,2005). ini berarti mereka tidak hanya mentolerir imigran dan mengubah stereotip berprasangka mereka, tetapi juga datang untuk menghargai keragaman dan aktif membuat penyesuaian di soci-ety mereka sendiri untuk membuat imigran merasa diterima. Seperti ac-commodations bisa apa saja dari menyediakan Umum Psikologi Sosial 2013; Vol. 44 (3): 196-207 © 2012 Hogrefe penerbitanDOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000104 Bantuan ekonomi untuk imigran untuk membangun mereka - diri dalam masyarakat baru, untuk menawarkan lisensi pengemudi tes dalam bahasa ibu mereka. Ini konseptualisasi dari integrasi proaktif mengandaikan kesediaan untuk aktif incor - porate imigran minoritas menjadi masyarakat menerima. Ia juga berkaitan dengan retorika dan definisi berdasarkan "akomodasi bersama" yang dipakai di Eropa Un - ion kebijakan (CBP, 2010; OSI, 2010).Penelitian ini mengeksplorasi sejauh dimana para anggota masyarakat mayoritas dukungan inklusi proaktif sertabeberapa potensi pendahulunya sikap seperti itu. Kami memiliki de-veloped ukuran psikometrik, skala mayoritas integrasi upaya (MIE), yang menilai integrasi atti-tudes mayoritas anggota dalam saling terkait melakukan tiga-induk: keterbukaan untuk keragaman, dan kemauan untuk setuju dengan perubahan budaya dan struktural untuk menampung dan menghormati imigran (Phelps et al., 2011). Membangun val-idation skala MIE di Norwegia menunjukkan bahwa itu berhubungan bermakna dengan prasangka penting prediktor dari sayap kanan otoritarianisme (ATMR, Altemeyer, 1981; Zakrisson,2005) dan orientasi dominasi sosial (SDO, Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), dan kosmopolitan identitas (Türken & Rudmin, pers), tapi kurang begitu untuk setiap sonality konstruksi (5 besar, internasional kepribadian Item Outdoor, tanpa tahun). Meskipun membangun MIE tidak dianggap cermin kebalikan dari prasangka atau setara (pasif) toleransi, temuan kunci adalah bahwa keengganan untuk mendukung upaya proaktif integrasi dikaitkan dengan ATMR dan SDO.Temuan ini contoh salah satu dari dua garis penelitian yang melibatkan upaya untuk pendahulunya dari outgroup sikap (Lihat Meeus, Duriez, Vanbeselaere, Phalet, & Kuppens,2009). penelitian sebelumnya telah secara konsisten menunjukkan bahwa faktor-faktor stabil kepribadian rel-atively (misalnya, besar 5) dan ideolog - ical pandangan dunia seperti ATMR dan SDO memprediksi variasi dalam sikap terhadap minoritas (Hodson, 2009). Lebih-lebih, ATMR SDO dikandung berbohong psikologis antara kepribadian dan sikap sosial dan dengan demikian mungkin sebagian lunak. Namun demikian, berfokus pada orientasi ideologis individu dan faktor-faktor dispositional mungkin kurang efisien jika tujuannya adalah untuk mengubah sikap negatif re-laranangan dan saksi untuk outgroup anggota. Sebaliknya, peningkatan antarkelompok hubungan antara mayoritas dan imigran mi - nority anggota terbaik dapat dicapai di baris kedua penelitian, yang berfokus pada situasional faktor bahwa pengaruh outgroup sikap (Meeus et al., 2009). Ada-kedepan, ekstensi yang masuk akal untuk memahami apa Mei influ-masa kemerdekaan (atau memprediksi) MIE sikap adalah untuk mengkaji faktor-faktor kontekstual dan berpotensi lunak yang "struktur" kognisi sosial- dan lebih khusus lagi antarkelompok persepsi.Pada tingkat umum, kognisi sosial adalah dasar interaksi manusia (misalnya, Strack & Förster, 2009). Selain itu, di-dividual construals dan persepsi individu dan kelompok lain telah sering terbukti pertimbengan melalui sosial di-fluence (misalnya Ross & Nisbett, 1991). Akibatnya, pra-dikirim studi meneliti sejauh mana kesediaan mayoritas anggota untuk memasukkan imigran berhubungan dengan bagaimana mayoritas anggota menganggap imigran sebagai sebuah kelompok. Secara khusus, kami menyelidiki bagaimana entitativity dirasakan imigran dan dimensi universal kehangatan dan kompetensi yang diteliti sehubungan dengan dukungan dari penggambaran counterstereotypic imigran dan metaper-ception (yaitu, apa mayoritas anggota pikir imigran menganggap mereka) mungkin berkaitan dan memprediksi MIE sikap.Antarkelompok persepsi dan sikap MIEDirasakan Outgroup EntitativityPenelitian entitativity dirasakan – tingkat di mana sekumpulan orang dianggap sebagai sedang terikat bersama dalam unit kohesif atau homogen (Campbell, 1958; HAM-ilton & Sherman, 1996; Lickel et al., 2000)-telah diilustrasikan bagaimana entitativity penting sebagai yg untuk persepsi inter-kelompok (misalnya, Spencer-Rodgers, Hamilton, & Sherman, 2007; Yzerbyt, Judd, & Corneille, 2004), dan bahwa hal itu dapat mempengaruhi stereotipe perubahan (Rothbart & Park,2004). satu temuan tampaknya umum adalah bahwa perceivers memiliki evaluasi lebih ekstrim atau negatif dari outgroups ketika outgroup dipandang sebagai lebih entitative (misalnya, Abelson, Dasgupta, Park, & Banaji, 1998; Dasgupta, Banaji & Ableson, 1999; Grzesiak-Feldman & Suszak, 2008). Bulu-thermore, persepsi entitative kelompok juga dapat menyebabkan lebih banyak ketidakpercayaan dan kesan negatif dari outgroups (Wildschut, Insko, & Pinter, 2004). Itu bahkan mengakibatkan kolektif retribusi, yaitu, menilai seluruh kelompok berdasarkan perilaku (mis) individu anggota kelompok (Den-son, Lickel, Curtis, Stenstrom, & Ames, 2006). Jadi tampaknya masuk akal untuk menjelajahi w

Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:[Salinan]

Disalin!

Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 3:[Salinan]

Disalin!

Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..

Bahasa lainnya

Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.