Eschert & Simon (2019). Research data from the manuscript „Respect and political disagreement: Can intergroup respect reduce the biased evaluation of outgroup arguments?“.

Bibliografische Informationen

Ersteller: Eschert, Silke; Simon, Bernd

Mitwirkende: Eschert, Silke; Simon, Bernd

Förderung: German Research Foundation (DFG), Grant SI 428/20-1; Volkswagen Foundation, Grant 87 389

Titel: Research data from the manuscript „Respect and political disagreement: Can intergroup respect reduce the biased evaluation of outgroup arguments?“

Jahr der Publikation: 2019

Zitation: Eschert, S., & Simon, B. (2019). Research data from the manuscript „Respect and political disagreement: Can intergroup respect reduce the biased evaluation of outgroup arguments?“ (Version 1.0.0) [Daten und Dokumentation]. Trier: Forschungsdatenzentrum des Leibniz Institut für Psychologie ZPID. https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.etse16re12

Zusammenfassung

Past research indicates that in political debates the same arguments are judged very differently depending on the perceiver’s own position on the issue, because positions on controversial issues are often tied to collective identities. In this series of studies we tested the assumption that equality-based respect from an opposing opinion-based group can reduce such biases. Results confirmed that identification as an opponent or proponent of a contested issue was negatively related to evaluations of outgroup arguments (Study 1) and that this negative link was no longer significant when intergroup respect was experimentally induced (Study 2). Results support the notion that disagreements over political issues are intergroup conflicts, in which different socio-political groups struggle for recognition, and that approaches that protect collective identities and improve intergroup relations should be employed to de-escalate them.

Kodebuch

Kodebuch_etse16re12_eschert_kb1
PositionNameLabelValid_valuesMissing_values
1CASEparticipant number83-212 "participant number"999 "missing"
2D101_01age18-31 "years"-99 "missing"
3D102sex1 "male"
2 "female"
3 "do not wish to answer"
-9 "missing"
4T101_01Position on issue1 (veggie day in university cafeterias)1 "strongly in favor"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strongly against"
-9 "missing"
5T103_01Issue1: personal importance1 "not important at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "very important"
-9 "missing"
6T201_01Position on issue2 (army advertising on our campus)1 "strongly against"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strongly in favor"
-9 "missing"
7T203_01Issue2: personal importance1 "not important at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "very important"
-9 "missing"
8T301_01Position on issue3 (access to messages in social networks for security agencies)1 "strongly against"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strongly in favor"
-9 "missing"
9T303_01Issue3: personal importance1 "not important at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "very important"
-9 "missing"
10T401_01Position on issue4 (limitation for numbers of refugees that can enter Germany)1 "strongly against"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strongly in favor"
-9 "missing"
11T403_01Issue4: personal importance1 "not important at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "very important"
-9 "missing"
12T501_01Position on issue5 (rule against wearing religious symbols on our campus)1 "strongly against"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strongly in favor"
-9 "missing"
13T503_01Issue5: personal importance1 "not important at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "very important"
-9 "missing"
14T601_01Position on issue6 (affirmative action for women as professors)1 "strongly against"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strongly in favor"
-9 "missing"
15T603_01Issue6: personal importance1 "not important at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "very important"
-9 "missing"
16T701_01Position on issue7 (german companies should pay for social freezing)1 "strongly against"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strongly in favor"
-9 "missing"
17T703_01Issue7: personal importance1 "not important at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "very important"
-9 "missing"
18T801_01Position on issue8 (cooperations between our university and the military)1 "strongly against"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strongly in favor"
-9 "missing"
19T803_01Issue8: personal importance1 "not important at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "very important"
-9 "missing"
20T901_01Position on issue9 (religious education in schools)1 "strongly against"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strongly in favor"
-9 "missing"
21T903_01Issue9: personal importance1 "not important at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "very important"
-9 "missing"
22TZ01_01Position on issue10 (involvement of the German army in the war on terror)1 "strongly against"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strongly in favor"
-9 "missing"
23TZ03_01Issue10: personal importance1 "not important at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "very important"
-9 "missing"
Kodebuch_etse16re12_eschert_kb2
PositionNameLabelValid_valuesMissing_values
1CASEInterview-Nummer (fortlaufend)82-274 "interview number"999 "missing"
2D101age-99-45 "years"99 "missing"
3D102sex1 "male"
2 "female"
3 "do not wish to answer"
-9 "missing"
4E101_01participant position1 "strongly against -5"
2 "-4"
3 "-3"
4 "-2"
5 "-1"
6 "+1"
7 "+2"
8 "+3"
9 "+4"
10 "strongly in favor +5"
-9 "missing"
5E102_01questionnaire order1-2 "questionnaire order"-9 "missing"
6ID02_01IDopponent: I see myself as an opponent1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
7ID02_02IDopponent: I feel a bond with others, who also oppose surveillance1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
8ID02_03IDopponent: Being an opponent is an important part of how I see myself1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
9ID03_01IDproponent: I see myself as a proponent1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
10ID03_02IDproponent: I feel a bond with others, who also support surveillance1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
11ID03_03IDproponent: Being a proponent is an important part of how I see myself1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
12A101_01ProArgument1: Public statements on the internet must be prosecuted just like statements made on the street (e.g., insults, xenophobia).1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
13A101_02ProArgument2: ISIS uses the internet to spread propaganda and to recruit new members. Security agencies must have access to this communication in order to prevent recruitment attempts.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
14A101_03ProArgument3: In the 20th century letters or phone calls were examined. Nowadays, it must be possible to use communication in social networks for prosecution.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
15A101_04ProArgument4: Privacy is important, but the fight against crime or terrorism it is about saving lives. That's more important than privacy!1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
16A101_05ProArgument5: People have control over what they write on social networks. Nobody is forced to reveal anything about themselves in social networks.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
17A101_06ProArgument6: If a terrorist attack happens here, I don' t know who would still insist on the protection of their privacy in this situation.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
18A101_07ProArgument7: Most people will be in favor of such measures when they have themselves become victims of crime.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
19A101_08ProArgument8: If security agencies can make our lives safer, it doesn't matter whether they know that Lisa and Tom broke up.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
20A101_09ProArgument9: People who reveal everything about themselves on the internet, shouldn't be surprised that that info can also be used against them.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
21A102_01ProArgument10: The rights of respectable citizens are not curtailed. Only when someone becomes suspicious in the eyes of the police / intelligence agencies, their data are examined!1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
22A102_02ProArgument11: Pedophiles often log in to children's forums to get in contact with children. It must be possible to track and prosecute that.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
23A102_03ProArgument12: Identity theft, i.e. by creating a profile under the name of another (real) person, can be used for criminal intent. It is important that security agencies can track such processes.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
24A102_04ProArgument13: Most people don't think it's problematic when Google uses our data. Using data for prosecution is more important than the usage by private companies.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
25A102_05ProArgument14: The attacks in Paris have shown that conventional police methods are insufficient to prevent acts of terrorism.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
26A102_06ProArgument15: Currently, the fight against ISIS on the information technology level is led by questionable organizations such as Anonymous. This competence belongs in state hands!1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
27A102_07ProArgument16: Those who do not pursue criminal intentions have nothing to fear, and those who talk so freely about their private lives in social networks, should not complain.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
28A102_08ProArgument17: I'd rather have security agencies see my data, than see serious crime or a terrorist attack happen.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
29A102_09ProArgument18: With surveillance ISIS would no longer stand a chance. A military intervention against ISIS wouldn't even be necessary.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
30A103_01ConArgument1: Searching communication data without specific reason violates the secrecy of correspondence and should not be allowed in a constitutional state.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
31A103_02ConArgument2: Governments have no control over their intelligence services. The parliament has no information about what the secret service does. Therefore, there will always be a lack of transparency.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
32A103_03ConArgument3: Studies have shown that very comprehensive profiles can be created from such data, including private thinking and acting and social circles.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
33A103_04ConArgument4: It cannot be that a whole society is classified as "suspicious".1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
34A103_05ConArgument5: If you know that Facebook;Twitter posts are viewed by the police and intelligence services, then you behave differently on the Internet - more conforming!1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
35A103_06ConArgument6: I do not believe that terrorists announce their attacks on Facebook. Protests, on the other hand, are often announced on Facebook and the police can make a list of who has agreed to participate.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
36A103_07ConArgument7: If I imagine the federal police rummaging in my posts, I find that disturbing.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
37A103_08ConArgument8: When I tell a friend about my love life in a cafe, I do not expect a police officer to overhear. And I do not want to think that happens on the internet, either.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
38A103_09ConArgument9: Imagine the police knocks on your door to ask you about your posts on Facebook or Twitter. Who wants to experience that?1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
39A104_01ConArgument10: There is a fundamental right to informational self-determination! That is, people should have control about the disclosure and use of their personal data.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
40A104_02ConArgument11: It has already happened that charges were pressed against people who talked badly about authorities or politicians on the internet. This threatens the right for free speech.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
41A104_03ConArgument12: The principle of legality states that a police officer observing a crime must also investigate. That is, they would have to report any insult or copyright infringement they see on the internet.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
42A104_04ConArgument13: I do not want to live in a world where people no longer know which person or authority knows what about them.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
43A104_05ConArgument14: A surveillance state does not guarantee safety!1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
44A104_06ConArgument15: The more freedom you give to security agencies, the less they shy away from wanting to use all the data that you can ever collect about people's behavior.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
45A104_07ConArgument16: I can't see how it should help security agencies when they can read who broke up with whom.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
46A104_08ConArgument17: It is mostly young people writing on social networks. That is, young people become transparent citizens, older people do not.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
47A104_09ConArgument18: If someone is arrested, can the police then rummage through their Facebook profile and look at party photos? This isn't right.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
Kodebuch_etse16re12_eschert_kb3
PositionNameLabelValid_valuesMissing_values
1CASEparticipant number142-323 "participant number"999 "missing"
2D101_01age19-32 "years"99 "missing"
3D102sex1 "male"
2 "female"
3 "do not wish to answer"
-9 "missing"
4I001_01Respect condition (experimental manipulation)1 "low respect"
2 "high respect"
-9 "missing"
5E101_01participant position1 "strongly against -5"
2 "-4"
3 "-3"
4 "-2"
5 "-1"
6 "+1"
7 "+2"
8 "+3"
9 "+4"
10 "strongly in favor +5"
-9 "missing"
6A101_01OwnProArgument1Zeichenkette "write your own arguments"-9 "missing"
7A104_01OwnConArgument1Zeichenkette "write your own arguments"-9 "missing"
8A105_01OwnConArgument2Zeichenkette "write your own arguments"-9 "missing"
9A106_01OwnConArgument3Zeichenkette "write your own arguments"-9 "missing"
10A102_01OwnProArgument2Zeichenkette "write your own arguments"-9 "missing"
11A103_01OwnProArgument3Zeichenkette "write your own arguments"-9 "missing"
12ID02_01IDopponent: I see myself as an opponent1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
13ID02_02IDopponent: I feel a bond with others, who also oppose surveillance1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
14ID02_03IDopponent: Being an opponent is an important part of how I see myself1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
15ID03_01IDproponent: I see myself as a proponent1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
16ID03_02IDproponent: I feel a bond with others, who also support surveillance1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
17ID03_03IDproponent: Being a proponent is an important part of how I see myself1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
18M102_01ManipCheckRespect: I feel treated equally1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
19M102_02ManipCheckRespect: I feel treated like a person of equal worth1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
20M102_05ManipCheckRespect: My group is treated equally1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
21M102_06ManipCheckRespect: My group is taken seriously1 "do not agree at all"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "fully agree"
-9 "missing"
22A301_01ProArgument1: People have control over what they write on social networks. Nobody is forced to reveal anything about themselves in social networks.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
23A301_02ProArgument2: Identity theft, i.e. by creating a profile under the name of another (real) person, can be used for criminal intent. It is important that security agencies can track such processes.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
24A301_03ProArgument3: In the 20th century letters or phone calls were examined. Nowadays, it must be possible to use communication in social networks for prosecution.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
25A301_04ProArgument4: The attacks in Paris have shown that conventional police methods are insufficient to prevent acts of terrorism.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
26A301_05ProArgument5: Privacy is important, but the fight against crime or terrorism it is about saving lives. That's more important than privacy!1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
27A301_06ProArgument6: With surveillance ISIS would no longer stand a chance. A military intervention against ISIS wouldn't even be necessary.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
28A302_01ProArgument7: People who reveal everything about themselves on the internet, shouldn't be surprised that that info can also be used against them.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
29A302_02ProArgument8: Pedophiles often log in to children's forums to get in contact with children. It must be possible to track and prosecute that.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
30A302_03ProArgument9: The rights of respectable citizens are not curtailed. Only when someone becomes suspicious in the eyes of the police / intelligence agencies, their data are examined!1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
31A302_04ProArgument10: Currently, the fight against ISIS on the information technology level is led by questionable organizations such as Anonymous. This competence belongs in state hands!1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
32A302_05ProArgument11: If security agencies can make our lives safer, it doesn't matter whether they know that Lisa and Tom broke up.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
33A302_06ProArgument12: I'd rather have security agencies see my data, than see serious crime or a terrorist attack happen.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
34A303_01ConArgument1: Searching communication data without specific reason violates the secrecy of correspondence and should not be allowed in a constitutional state.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
35A303_02ConArgument2: There is a fundamental right to informational self-determination! That is, people should have control about the disclosure and use of their personal data.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
36A303_03ConArgument3: I do not want to live in a world where people no longer know which person or authority knows what about them.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
37A303_04ConArgument4: It is mostly young people writing on social networks. That is, young people become transparent citizens, older people do not.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
38A303_05ConArgument5: If I imagine the federal police rummaging in my posts, I find that disturbing.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
39A303_06ConArgument6: Imagine the police knocks on your door to ask you about your posts on Facebook or Twitter. Who wants to experience that?1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
40A304_01ConArgument7: It has already happened that charges were pressed against people who talked badly about authorities or politicians on the internet. This threatens the right for free speech.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
41A304_02ConArgument8: A surveillance state does not guarantee safety!1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
42A304_03ConArgument9: It cannot be that a whole society is classified as "suspicious".1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
43A304_04ConArgument10: The more freedom you give to security agencies, the less they shy away from wanting to use all the data that you can ever collect about people's behavior.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
44A304_05ConArgument11: When I tell a friend about my love life in a café, I do not expect a police officer to overhear. And I do not want to think that happens on the internet, either.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
45A304_06ConArgument12: If someone is arrested, can the police then rummage through their Facebook profile and look at party photos? This isn't right.1 "weak argument"
2 ""
3 ""
4 ""
5 ""
6 ""
7 "strong argument"
-9 "missing"
46D201Social Networks: Active in any social network?1 "yes"
2 "no"
-9 "missing"
47D202Social Networks: number of social networks selected0-5 "number of social networks selected"-9 "missing"
48D202_01Social Networks: Facebook1 "not selected"
2 "selected"
-9 "missing"
49D202_03Social Networks: Twitter1 "not selected"
2 "selected"
-9 "missing"
50D202_04Social Networks: MySpace1 "not selected"
2 "selected"
-9 "missing"
51D202_05Social Networks: Instagram1 "not selected"
2 "selected"
-9 "missing"
52D202_06Social Networks: other1 "not selected"
2 "selected"
-9 "missing"
53D202_06ASocial Networks: other (enter name)Zeichenkette "name of social network"-9 "missing"

Studienbeschreibung

Forschungsfragen/Hypothesen: A negative link between ingroup identification and the evaluation of outgroup arguments was expected (Hypothesis 1). Further, we proposed that this negative bias should be weakened or even removed when respect was received from the outgroup (Hypothesis 2).

Forschungsdesign: Pretest:Questionnaire Data – Fully Standardized Survey Instrument; Study 1: Questionnaire Data – Fully Standardized Survey Instrument; Study 2: Experiment Data – Experimental Factor, Quasi-experimental Factor, Group Comparison, Laboratory Experiment; single measurement

Messinstrumente/Apparate:

A detailed description of the pretest, study 1 and study 2 can be found in Eschert, S. & Simon, B. (in press).

Datenerhebungsmethode:

Pretest & Study 1:
Data collection in the absence of an experimenter
– Online Survey

Study 2:
Data collection in the presence of an experimenter
– Individual Administration
– Computer-Supported

Population: Students from a German university

Erhebungszeitraum:

Pretest: 2015-12-08 until 2015-12-10
Study 1: 2015-12-17 until 2015-12-23
Study 2: 2016-01-15 until 2016-02-01

Stichprobe: Convenience sample

Geschlechtsverteilung:

Pretest:
61 % female subjects (N=56)
38 % male subjects (N=35)
1 % no answer (N=1)

Study 1:
62 % female subjects (N=64)
37 % male subjects (N=38)
1 % no answer (N=1)

Study 2:
51 % female subjects (N=75)
48 % male subjects (N=70)
1 % no answer (N=1)

Altersverteilung: Pretest: 18-31 years; Study 1: 18-45 years; Study 2: 19-32 years

Räumlicher Erfassungsbereich (Land/Region/Stadt): Germany/-/Kiel

Probandenrekrutierung:

Pretest & Study 1:
Student participants were recruited through social network groups of their university.
Study 2:
Student participants were recruited on campus and invited to the lab by student assistants

Stichprobengröße: Pretest: 92 individuals; Study 1: 103 individuals; Study 2: 137 individuals

Rücklauf/Ausfall:

Literatur

Unmittelbar auf den Datensatz bezogene Veröffentlichungen
Unmittelbar auf den Datensatz bezogene Veröffentlichungen
Eschert, S. & Simon, B. (2019). Respect and political disagreement: Can intergroup respect reduce the biased evaluation of outgroup arguments? PLoS ONE 14(3): e0211556. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211556
PDF drucken