1 / 26

Soziale Identität und Gesundheit REJECTION IDENTIFICATION Eva Blume and Riccardo Zito 07.06.2012

Soziale Identität und Gesundheit REJECTION IDENTIFICATION Eva Blume and Riccardo Zito 07.06.2012. Perceiving Pervasive Discrimination Among African Americans : Implications for Group Identification and Well- Being M.T.Schmitt and R.D. Harvey (1999).

ajay
Download Presentation

Soziale Identität und Gesundheit REJECTION IDENTIFICATION Eva Blume and Riccardo Zito 07.06.2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Soziale Identität und GesundheitREJECTION IDENTIFICATIONEva Blume andRiccardo Zito07.06.2012

  2. PerceivingPervasiveDiscriminationAmong African Americans: Implicationsfor Group Identificationand Well-BeingM.T.Schmittand R.D. Harvey (1999)

  3. PerceivingPervasiveDiscriminationAmong African Americans: Implicationsfor Group Identificationand Well-BeingM.T.Schmittand R.D. Harvey (1999) • But • Doesthisapplytoexperiencingprejudice/discrimination? • Deductively: More experiencedprejudice -> Damagedself-esteem (SE) • SE deficitsamongthestigmatizedarerarelyobserved • (Crocker and Major) • Single instancevspervasiveprejudice (Examples?) betterself-esteem(SE Outside Locusofcausalityof negative event

  4. PerceivingPervasiveDiscriminationAmong African Americans: Implicationsfor Group Identificationand Well-BeingM.T.Schmittand R.D. Harvey (1999) Instanceorpervasiveprejudice: howdo copingmechanismsdiffer? Single instancediscriminationCopingstrategies: • providingoneselfwithexcuse in advance; • SE protectiveeffectofattributiontoprejudice; • Leggitimacy.

  5. PerceivingPervasiveDiscriminationAmong African Americans: Implicationsfor Group Identificationand Well-BeingM.T.Schmittand R.D. Harvey (1999) Instanceorpervasiveprejudice: howdo copingmechanismsdiffer? Long Term discriminationAttributionalstrategies: • Itispredictedthatstableattributionstoprejudiceagainstone‘ssocialgroup will have negative consequencestowellbeing • DEVALUED GROUP MEMBERS ARE MOTIVATED TO AVOID MAKING ATTRIBUTION TO PREJUDICE AND ONLY DO SO IN THE PRESENSE OF STRONG SITUATIONAL FACTORS. • Minoritygroupidentification: Lesbians, punks, hippiesandnerdsyoubetter stick together!!!

  6. PerceivingPervasiveDiscriminationAmong African Americans: Implicationsfor Group Identificationand Well-BeingM.T.Schmittand R.D. Harvey (1999) RejectionIdentification Model Hostilitytowardsdominant Group Willingnesstomakeattributiontoprejudice Psychological wellbeing Minoritygroupidentification

  7. PerceivingPervasiveDiscriminationAmong African Americans: Implicationsfor Group Identificationand Well-BeingM.T.Schmittand R.D. Harvey (1999) Method • 139 African Americans volunteers • African americanexperimenter. • Age range: 17-49 • Relativelyheterogenous SES sample. MEASURES: Attributionstoprejudiceacross a varietyoflifesituations Hypotheticalcasescenarioswithambiguous/potentiallyracistoutcomewerepresented. Participantswereaskedtoattributefromscale 1-10 toracialoutcome Pastexperiencewithracialdiscrimination e.g. „I feellike I am personally a victimofsocietybecauseofmyrace“ or „I considermyself a personwhohasbeendeprivedoftheopportunitiesthatareavailabletoothersbecauseofmyrace“ Hostilitytowardwhites e.g. I usetermslike „whitetrash“ „redneck“ orothernames in referencetowhitepeople

  8. PerceivingPervasiveDiscriminationAmong African Americans: Implicationsfor Group Identificationand Well-BeingM.T.Schmittand R.D. Harvey (1999) Method MEASURES (continuation): MinoritygroupIdentification e.g. „I feel a strong attachmenttowardsmyethnicgroup“ or „I have a strong sense ofbelongingtomyownethnicgroup“ Personal well-being Rosenberg Self-EsteemInventory (Rosenberg,1979). Also askedforfrequencyof negative emotions (e.g. depression, helplessness, sadness etc.) Collective well-being Membership subscale (e.g. I am a worthymemberofthegroup I belongto) and Private Esteemsubscale (e.g. „In generalI‘mgladtobe a memberofthesocialgroups I belongto“) from Collective self –Esteemscale (CSE, Luhtanenand Crocker, 1992)

  9. PerceivingPervasiveDiscriminationAmong African Americans: Implicationsfor Group Identificationand Well-BeingM.T.Schmittand R.D. Harvey (1999) Results Psychological wellbeing Willingnesstomakeattributiontoprejudice Regression not significant

  10. PerceivingPervasiveDiscriminationAmong African Americans: Implicationsfor Group Identificationand Well-BeingM.T.Schmittand R.D. Harvey (1999) Results Psychological wellbeing Willingnesstomakeattributiontoprejudice Regression not significant Minoritygroupidentification Regression issignificant

  11. PerceivingPervasiveDiscriminationAmong African Americans: Implicationsfor Group Identificationand Well-BeingM.T.Schmittand R.D. Harvey (1999) Results StructuralEquation Modeling: Rejectionidentificationmodel! Personal wellbeing Hostility Willingnesstoattributetoprejudice Minoritygroupidentification Collective wellbeing

  12. PerceivingPervasiveDiscriminationAmong African Americans: Implicationsfor Group Identificationand Well-BeingM.T.Schmittand R.D. Harvey (1999) Results Chi squared (14, N=130) = 17.67

  13. PerceivingPervasiveDiscriminationAmong African Americans: Implicationsfor Group Identificationand Well-BeingM.T.Schmittand R.D. Harvey (1999) Results Chi squared (14, N=130) = 17.67

  14. PerceivingPervasiveDiscriminationAmong African Americans: Implicationsfor Group Identificationand Well-BeingM.T.Schmittand R.D. Harvey (1999) Other modelstested : -Bidirectionality b/w identificationand attribution -Discounting Model + + This version fit well (Chi squared(15, N=139)=20.60) but not aswellas original rejectionidentificationmodel!! The pathswere not significantand in the oppositedirection.

  15. PerceivingPervasiveDiscriminationAmong African Americans: Implicationsfor Group Identificationand Well-BeingM.T.Schmittand R.D. Harvey (1999) Other modelstested : -Maladjustment Model Pathswere not signficanrandmodeldid not pass Wald Test.

  16. PerceivingPervasiveDiscriminationAmong African Americans: Implicationsfor Group Identificationand Well-BeingM.T.Schmittand R.D. Harvey (1999) Whatdoes all thismean? -Limitations? -Shiftoflocusofcauseof negative eventprotectsselfesteem- HOWEVER! -Attributiontoprejudicemay not be a goodlongtermstrategy i.e. As a strategyagainstoneBigotit‘sgreat but not so greatwhenyouhavethewholeworldagainstyou. -Implications?

  17. Coping Options: Missing Links betweenMinority Group Identificationand Psychological Well-Being H.R.Outten, M.T. Schmitt, D.M. Garcia & N.R. Branscombe

  18. Vorannahmen Hostilitytowards dominant Group Willingnesstomakeattributiontoprejudice Psychological wellbeing Minoritygroupidentification

  19. Vorannahmen • Verbindung der Rejection-Identification-Theorie und der Stresstheorie nach Lazarus • Rejection als Stressor  negativer Einfluss auf Wohlbefinden • Identifikation mit der Ingroup mildert Effekt

  20. Vorannahmen Hostilitytowards dominant Group Willingnesstomakeattributiontoprejudice Psychological wellbeing Minoritygroupidentification Coping

  21. Bewertungsprozesse im Hinblick auf Wohlbefinden • Primär: • irrelevant • günstig • stressend • Schädigung • Bedrohung • Herausforderung • Sekundär: • Bewältigungs- • Fähigkeiten • Möglichkeiten Vorannahmen Umwelt Person E R E I G N I S S E F O L G E N Personenmerkmale • Bewältigung • Problembezogen (PBC): instrumentelle • direkte Handlungen • Emotionsbezogen (EBC): IntrapsychischeProzesse, Emotionsregulation Individualebene Intragruppenebene Intergruppenebene Neubewertung Umweltkonfigurationen (nach Lazarus & Folkman, 1984

  22. Hypothesen Teilnehmer: 120 Afroamerikaner (66 Frauen, 54 Männer), Alter 18-73 Jahre (M=24.22)

  23. Methode • Gruppenidentifikation • 9 Items • „Myraceis an importantpartofwho I am.“ • Copingstrategien • 4 Items pro Copingstrategie 24 Items • Wohlbefinden • 1 Globalitem für den Selbstwert: „I havehighself-esteem.“ • 4 Items aus Lebenszufriedenheitsskala: „In general, I am quitesatisfiedwithmylifeas a whole.“

  24. Ergebnisse • Ingroup-Identifikation • Wohlbefinden

  25. Ergebnisse • Coping • Selbstwert • Individuell EBC • Intergruppen PBC • Lebenszufriedenheit • Individuell EBC • Intergruppen PBC • Intergruppen EBC Gruppenidentifikation beeinflusst die sekundäre Bewertung  Personen schätzen Strategien als umsetzbar ein • Ingroup-Identifikation • Wohlbefinden

  26. Bewertungsprozesse im Hinblick auf Wohlbefinden • Primär: • irrelevant • günstig • stressend • Schädigung • Bedrohung • Herausforderung • Sekundär: • Bewältigungs- • Fähigkeiten • Möglichkeiten Ergebnisse Umwelt Person E R E I G N I S S E F O L G E N Personenmerkmale • Bewältigung • Problembezogen (PBC): instrumentelle • direkte Handlungen • Emotionsbezogen (EBC): IntrapsychischeProzesse, Emotionsregulation Neubewertung Umweltkonfigurationen (nach Lazarus & Folkman, 1984

More Related