| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Akrami, Nazar, et al.
(author)
-
Category and stereotype activation revisited
- 2006
-
In: Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. - : Wiley. - 0036-5564 .- 1467-9450. ; 47:6, s. 513-522
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In Study 1 (N = 230), we found that the participants' explicit prejudice was not related to their knowledge of cultural stereotypes of immigrants in Sweden, and that they associated the social category immigrants with the same national/ethnic categories. In Study 2 (N= 88), employing the category and stereotype words obtained in Study 1 as primes, we examined whether participants with varying degrees of explicit prejudice differed in their automatic stereotyping and implicit prejudice when primed with category or stereotypical words. In accord with our hypothesis, and contrary to previous findings, the results showed that people's explicit prejudice did not affect their automatic stereotyping and implicit prejudice, neither in the category nor stereotype priming condition. Study 3 (N = 62), employing category priming using facial photographs of Swedes and immigrants as primes, showed that participants' implicit prejudice was not moderated by their explicit prejudice. The outcome is discussed in relation to the distinction between category and stereotype priming and in terms of the associative strength between a social category and its related stereotypes.
|
|
| 3. |
- Akrami, Nazar, et al.
(author)
-
Category and Stereotype Activation Revisited: The Intimate Relation between Category and Stereotypes
- 2004
-
In: The 6th European Social Cognition Network Meeting, Lisboa, Portugal.
-
Conference paper (other academic/artistic)abstract
- In Study 1 (N = 230), we found that the participants’ explicit prejudice was not related to their knowledge of cultural stereotypes of immigrants in Sweden, and that they associated the social category immigrants with the same national/ethnic categories. In Study 2 (N = 88), employing the category and stereotype words obtained in Study 1 as primes, we examined whether participants with varying degrees of explicit prejudice differed in their automatic stereotyping and implicit prejudice when primed with category or stereotypical words. In accord with our hypothesis, and contrary to previous findings, the results showed that people’s explicit prejudice did not affect their automatic stereotyping and implicit prejudice, neither in the category nor stereotype activation condition. Study 3 (N = 62), employing category priming using facial photographs of Swedes and Immigrants as primes, showed that participants’ implicit prejudice was not moderated by their explicit prejudice. The outcome is discussed in relation to previous research, the distinction between category and stereotype activation, and in terms of the associative strength between a social category and its related stereotypes.
|
|
| 4. |
- Akrami, Nazar, et al.
(author)
-
Classical and modern prejudice : attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities.
- 2006
-
In: Research in Developmental Disabilities. - : Elsevier BV. - 0891-4222 .- 1873-3379. ; 27:6, s. 605-617
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In two studies, we examine whether attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities, like sexism and racism, consist of two forms – a classical and a modern, where the classical is overt and blatant and the modern is more subtle and covert. Self-report scales tapping these two forms were developed in Study 1. Based on confirmatory factor analyses, the results in Study 1 supported our hypothesis and revealed that the modern and classical forms are correlated but distinguishable. This outcome was replicated in Study 2. Construct and discriminatory validations of the scales provided further support for the distinction. The theoretical and practical importance of the results is discussed in relation to previous research on attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities and other social outgroups.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Akrami, Nazar, et al.
(author)
-
Explaining Prejudice by Personality: Misleading and Inappropriate?
- 2006
-
In: 13th European Conference on Personality, Athens, Greece..
-
Conference paper (pop. science, debate, etc.)abstract
- Previous research has, almost only, examined prejudice from either a personality or a social psychology perspective with results favoring the one or the other. In five correlational or experimental studies (N = 379, 182, 80, 139, and 148, respectively), the present paper integrates these perspectives. Specifically, we examine whether personality (Big-Five factors, social dominance orientation, and right-wing authoritarianism), or social psychology (group membership, group identification, and contextual factors), or an integration of both is the best way of explaining prejudice. Results from causal modeling and multiple regression analyses showed that a joint personality and social psychology model outperformed the personality-only and the social-psychology-only models. The findings emphasize the importance of integrating various approaches and disciplines to explain psychological phenomena in general and prejudice in particular.
|
|
| 9. |
- Akrami, Nazar, et al.
(author)
-
Generalized Prejudice : Common and Specific Components
- 2011
-
In: Psychological Science. - : SAGE Publications. - 0956-7976 .- 1467-9280. ; 22:1, s. 57-59
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This research examined the personality-prejudice relationship and whether personality and social psychological factors predict different aspects of prejudice. We proposed a distinction between a common component of prejudice that is mainly explained by personality and a specific component mainly explained by situational and group-specific variables. Whereas the former consists of the shared variance of prejudice toward different targets, the latter taps the variance that is unique to a certain type of prejudice. Statistically separating the two components of prejudice toward four target groups, we found that personality variables (Agreeableness and Openness to Experience) explained a substantial portion of the variance of the common but a small share of the specific component. We also found group membership (gender) to be more closely associated with the specific than the common component of sexism. The results support our proposed distinction and suggest that personality and social psychological variables explain distinct aspects of prejudice.
|
|
| 10. |
- Akrami, Nazar, et al.
(author)
-
Personality and Social Psychology Factors Explaining Sexism
- 2011
-
In: Journal of Individual Differences. - : Hogrefe Publishing Group. - 1614-0001 .- 2151-2299. ; 32:3, s. 153-160
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Previous research has almost exclusively examined sexism (negative attitudes toward women) from either a personality or a social-psychology perspective. In two studies (N = 379 and 182, respectively), we combine these perspectives and examine whether sexism is best explained by personality (Big-Five factors, social dominance orientation, and right-wing authoritarianism) or by social-psychological (group membership and group identification) variables - or by a combination of both approaches. Causal modeling and multiple regression analyses showed that, with the present set of variables, sexism was best explained by considering the combined influence of both personality- and social-psychology constructs. The findings imply that it is necessary to integrate various approaches to explain prejudice.
|
|
