Content uploaded by Bojan Todosijevic
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bojan Todosijevic on Jul 01, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Anti-Jewish Prejudice in Contemporary Hungary: A Socio-Psychological Causal Model. [Social Thought and Research, Vol. 24, 1-2, 313-342.]
Abstract and Figures
Predictions from three general approaches to prejudice-personality, social learning and group-conflict-have been examined on a sample of Hungarian youth and their parents. The sample consisted of 400 randomly selected college students and their parents from two Hungarian cities (total N=800). The questionaire included, among others, an antisemitism scale, authoritarianism scale, and socio-demographic variables. Socio-psychological causal model was constructed using univariate recursive regression graph methodology. The results indicated that students' antisemitism is directly related only to personality (authoritarianism) and to parents' antisemitism. Students' authoritarianism is related to parents' authoritarianism and family socio-economic status (as indicated by parents' income and education). Parents' antisemitism is related to their own authoritarian tendencies and income, while parents' authoritarianism is primarily related to their educational background. It is concluded that the results primarily support personality approach to prejudice as represented by Adorno et al.' work (1950), and socialization approach. Group-conflict approach received ambiguous suport in the same way as predictions from this approach concerning individual differences in prejudice are ambiguous.
Figures - uploaded by Bojan Todosijevic
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by Bojan Todosijevic
Content may be subject to copyright.
... Nalazi Heavena na uzorcima iz Južne Afrike podržavaju ovo tumačenje (1976, 1984 ). Nasuprot ovoj hipotezi o normativnom pritisku, Duckitt je, na primer, u Južnoj Africi utvrdio da je "autoritarnost u visokoj korelaciji sa predrasudama bez obzira na stepen doživljenog normativnog pritiska" (1994, abstr; takođe 1988; Todosijević i Enyedi, 2002). Ipak, izgleda da većina nalaza ukazuje da kada su predrasude ili izrazite, ili relativno nevažan deo međugrupnih odnosa, autoritarnost je manje povezana sa njima (Forbes, 1985 ). Ono što je interesantno, međutim , je da se u AL-u diskutuje o tom problemu. ...
... Kumulativna evidencija sugeriše da je stepen obrazovanja konzistentno povezan sa autoritarnošću, mada nema slaganja u interpretaciji te veze (Dekker i Ester, 1993, Scheepers et al., 1990). Multivarijantni kauzalni modeli ukazuju da je autoritarnost varijabla koja posreduje između predrasuda i obrazovanja (na pr., Todosijević i Enyedi, 2002, Scheepers et al., 1990). Adorno i saradnici su takođe diskutovali o ovom problemu. ...
... To je značajno za probleme kauzalnih veza i psihološkog značenja autoritarnosti, i uopšte više odgovara složenim teoretskim propozicijama AL-a nego jednostavni bivarijatni istraživački nacrti. Multivarijatno uzročno modeliranje je primenjeno u brojnim skorašnjim studijama (na primer, Enyedi, 1998, Todosijević i Enyedi, 2002, Todosijević, 1998, Scheepers et al., 1990, Dekker i Ester, 1991, Billig i Cramer, 1990 ). Rezultati generalno ukazuju da je autoritarnost (ili poddimenzije autoritarnosti) značajno povezana (obično najjača direktna veza) sa predrasudama čak i nakon uvođenja kontrole za brojne druge značajne varijable, kao što je obrazovanje, status, ili politička ideologija. ...
... Nalazi Heavena na uzorcima iz Južne Afrike podržavaju ovo tumačenje (1976, 1984 ). Nasuprot ovoj hipotezi o normativnom pritisku, Duckitt je, na primer, u Južnoj Africi utvrdio da je "autoritarnost u visokoj korelaciji sa predrasudama bez obzira na stepen doživljenog normativnog pritiska" (1994, abstr; takođe 1988; Todosijević i Enyedi, 2002). Ipak, izgleda da većina nalaza ukazuje da kada su predrasude ili izrazite, ili relativno nevažan deo međugrupnih odnosa, autoritarnost je manje povezana sa njima (Forbes, 1985 ). Ono što je interesantno, međutim , je da se u AL-u diskutuje o tom problemu. ...
... Kumulativna evidencija sugeriše da je stepen obrazovanja konzistentno povezan sa autoritarnošću, mada nema slaganja u interpretaciji te veze (Dekker i Ester, 1993, Scheepers et al., 1990). Multivarijantni kauzalni modeli ukazuju da je autoritarnost varijabla koja posreduje između predrasuda i obrazovanja (na pr., Todosijević i Enyedi, 2002, Scheepers et al., 1990). Adorno i saradnici su takođe diskutovali o ovom problemu. ...
... To je značajno za probleme kauzalnih veza i psihološkog značenja autoritarnosti, i uopšte više odgovara složenim teoretskim propozicijama AL-a nego jednostavni bivarijatni istraživački nacrti. Multivarijatno uzročno modeliranje je primenjeno u brojnim skorašnjim studijama (na primer, Enyedi, 1998, Todosijević i Enyedi, 2002, Todosijević, 1998, Scheepers et al., 1990, Dekker i Ester, 1991, Billig i Cramer, 1990 ). Rezultati generalno ukazuju da je autoritarnost (ili poddimenzije autoritarnosti) značajno povezana (obično najjača direktna veza) sa predrasudama čak i nakon uvođenja kontrole za brojne druge značajne varijable, kao što je obrazovanje, status, ili politička ideologija. ...
The Authoritarian Personality is one of the most influential studies in social psychology, yet it has been subjected to different, often contradictory interpretati- ons. This paper argues that the most important element of the authoritarian personality theory is the analysis of the psychological functionality of prejudice. Using psychoanalytic conceptual tools, the authors described the psychological logic behind apparently contradictory prejudices, and the function of prejudice in personal psychological ‘economy’. In this way, Adorno et al. ‘psychoanalyzed’ both prejudi- ce and the prejudiced. The first part of the paper presents the original research, with the particular focus on the less familiar aspects. The second part reviews the reactions to the Authoritarian Personality, and analyzes some of the better known criticisms and objections. The paper ends with the review of recent research trends inspired by Adorno et al.’s theory.
... Antisemitism Scale (adapted from Todosijević and Enyedi 2002) Please indicate the extent (from 1 = not at all to 8 = extremely) to which you agree with each of these statements ...
Antisemitism and anti-Zionism constitute two important ideological building blocks of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This article is the first to present quantitative empirical survey data elucidating attitudes towards Jews and Israel among an opportunity sample of Iranians. This study examines the correlates of antisemitism and anti-Zionism in Iran with particular attention to the effects of identity, threat, and political trust. Consistent with emerging research into antisemitism and anti-Zionism, there was a positive association between both forms of prejudice, suggesting social psychological overlap between the constructs. Given the pervasiveness of antisemitic and anti-Zionist representations in Iran, there were no significant differences in levels of anti-Zionism or antisemitism on the basis of gender and educational orientations. Political conservatives did manifest greater antisemitism and anti-Zionism than political reformists, although both groups scored high on these scales. There was a significant interaction effect of Iranian national identity and political trust on anti-Zionism, and a significant interaction effect of Muslim religious identity and political trust on antisemitism. Political trust was by far the most powerful predictor of both forms of prejudice, followed by the perception of identity threat. These observations are considered through the lenses of Social Identity Theory and Identity Process Theory from social psychology.
This article focuses upon the social psychological aspects of antisemitism. Empirical research into three forms of antisemitism is reviewed through the lens of social psychological theories of social representation, intergroup relations and identity processes. Across research, perceived threat from Jews and Israel is a recurrent theme. The proposed integrative model suggests that negative social representations of Jews and Israel that accentuate intergroup threat can in turn have implications for identity processes at an individual level, mainly by curtailing feels of self-esteem, self-efficacy, continuity and distinctiveness. Identity threat can lead the individual to react defensively by engaging in antisemitism.
This article addresses the issue of personality vs. cultural norms with regard to two related problems: the relationship between authoritarianism and prejudice, and the empirical foundation of the concept of ethnocentrism. The analysis is based on a survey of anti-Gypsy attitudes in two Hungarian cities, Salgótarján and Sopron. A ran-dom sample of 400 adolescents was surveyed, including one parent of each adolescent (total N = 800). The two locations differ in aggregate level of anti-Gypsy prejudice, that is, the anti-Gypsy cultural norm, which allows the use of a quasi-experimental design. The results support the empirical foundation of the concept of ethnocentrism, although it was possible to detect the effect of cultural pressure on the connection be-tween anti-Gypsy prejudice and general ethnocentrism. Concerning the effect of cultural pressure on the relationship between authoritarianism and anti-Gypsy prejudice, the results support the cultural pressure model in the youth samples, but contradict this model in the parent samples. Multivariate causal modeling of the youth anti-Gypsy prejudice shows that in both cities authoritarianism and parents' prejudice are significant direct predictors. However, the role of authoritarianism is considerably weaker under condition of higher normative pressure.
The negative association between educational level and measures of authoritarianism has been recognized for many years. Here we present evidence that the problem is treated more usefully as one of statistical interaction: the relation of authoritarianism to other substantive measures is largely artifactual at lower educational levels, but is substantively more meaningful at higher educational levels.
Psychological conceptualizations of authoritarianism have thus far failed to contribute significantly to an understanding of this phenomenon. It is argued that this can be attributed to the reductionistic interpretation of a concept pertinent to collective behavior as a personality trait dimension which is therefore primarily relevant to interpersonal behavior. As a result, research was effectively diverted into a fruitless search for correlations with intra- and interpersonal phenomena. This paper develops an alternative conceptualization of authoritarianism as the normatively held conception of the appropriate relationship between group and individual member, determined primarily by the intensity of group identification and consequent strain toward cohesion. By clarifying the significance of this construct for the understanding of individual and group differences in collective as opposed to interpersonal behavior, this perspective allows a resolution of the serious conceptual and empirical problems plaguing the area and suggests important new avenues for investigation.
This book had its origins in conversations held at various meetings of the International Society of Political Psychology. The editors and con tributors are grateful for the forum that has given us the opportunity to discuss these topics over the last 10 years. We are most grateful to our contributors both for their chapters and for the intellectual stimulation they have given us. Jos Meloen in particular has been free with his time, advice, and enthusiasm. Although he declined to contribute a chapter, Bob Altemeyer has been a source of encouragement and a ready adviser on any question we have asked. The staff of Springer-Verlag has been most patient in adapting to our schedule. We are indebted to the secretarial staff at the University of Maine, and especially to Kathy McAuliffe, who has put in many extra hours above and beyond the call of duty. Finally, we dedicate this book to our departed friend and colleague, Silvan Tomkins, with whom we conversed at length about these and other topics, and from whom we received inspiration and diversion.
To explain ethnocentrism in the Netherlands, a classic model derived from theoretical notions of prominent members of the Frankfurt School is updated and tested with data of a national sample of Dutch respondents (N = 1799). It appears that authoritarianism is a far more important predictor of ethnocentrism than predictors related to one's social condition, although the latter are not insignificant. In turn, authoritarianism is predicted by education, age, social class, church involvement and status-anxiety.
The Authoritarian Personality (TAP, Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) research was known to many social scientists before the book’s publication. Edward Shils (1948) commented enthusiastically on this unprecedented research prior to its publication, and M. Brewster Smith (1950) was first off the blocks with his review of the completed book. Smith’s enthusiasm is reflected in his statement that the book was “a landmark in the development of social psychology and personality study” (pp. 775–776). Its investigation of anti-Semitism, he went on to say, “is certainly the most extensive and sophisticated research on the topic yet contributed by psychologists” (p. 776). These comments were typical of the early reviews of this ambitious undertaking.
From 1950 through 1989, Psychological Abstracts listed 2,341 publications on authoritarianism and dogmatism. To make sense of the often contradictory results reported in this vast literature on authoritarianism, a search was initiated to discover whether there are systematic tendencies, focusing on F-scale levels across the many groups tested. The object was to assess the validity of the F scale. Are high scores associated with antidemocratic, profascist tendencies? This was one of the issues that the Berkeley group was unable to address. Surprisingly, such a systematic analysis of F-scale scores has never been conducted, either by follow-up investigators or by reviewers such as Wrightsman (1977), Brown (1965), Byrne (1974), Cherry and Byrne (1977), Dillehay (1978), Goldstein and Blackman (1978), or Altemeyer (1981). The present global meta-analysis, in the classic sense of a combinational approach, is an attempt to correct for this important omission. The present study was part of a wider survey into the validity of authoritarianism research. Only the initial global meta-analysis over the first three decade period will be presented here. For a more complete account see Meloen (1983). Later findings in the 1980s generally supported its conclusions, and some relevant ones have been included in this report.
A variety of evidence from many countries suggests that low status and low education predispose individuals to favor extremist, intolerant, and transvaluational forms of political and religious behavior. The evidence includes reports from surveys concerning differential attitudes among the various strata towards democratic values, including civil liberties for unpopular political groups, civil rights for ethnic minorities, legitimacy of opposition, and proper limits on the power of national political leaders; psychological research on the personality traits of different strata; data on the composition and appeal of chiliastic religious sects; and materials bearing on the support of authoritarian movements. The factors operating to support this predisposition are all those which make for a lack of "sophistication," a complex view of causal relations, and heightened insecurity, both objective and subjective. These findings suggest that the success of the Communist Party among those of low status in poorer nations is positively related to its authoritarian character.