Başarılı ve Başarısız Öğrencilerin İç ve Dış Gruplarına Yönelik Kalıp Yargılarının Yetkinlik ve Sevecenlik Boyutları Açısından İncelenmesi

Bu araştırmada, başarılı ve başarısız öğrencilere yönelik kalıpyargı içeriğinin Fiske ve arkadaşlarının (1999; 2002) önerdikleri yetkinlik ve sevecenlik kavramsallaştırmaları bağlamında incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Ayrıca, araştırmacılar tarafından önerilen sosyal bağlamsal değişkenler (statü ve yarışmacılık) ile kalıpyargı içeriği arasındaki ilişkiler de incelenmiştir. Araştırma, Ankara - Sincan ilçesindeki iki farklı okula devam eden 321 katılımcıyla yürütülmüştür. Şehitler ilköğretim okulunda, başarılı/başarısız öğrenciler farklı sınıflarda eğitim gördükleri için katılımcıların bu ayrımcılığı meşru algılamamaları beklenmiştir. Taylan Araslı’da ise öğrenciler karma sınıflarda eğitim görmektedirler. Okul farkının ve değerlendirilen grubun öğrencilerin değerlendirmeleri üzerindeki etkisi incelendiğinde Şehitler’deki katımcıların başarılı - başarısız grup ayrımını meşru bulmadıkları, ancak başarılı öğrencileri yetkinlik boyutunda daha olumlu değerlendirirken nesnel bir ölçütü olmayan sevecenlik boyutunda grupları farklılaştırmadıkları bulunmuştur. Taylan Araslı’daki katılımcılar ise söz konusu grup ayrımını meşru bulmuş ve başarılı öğrencileri daha yetkin, başarısız öğrencileri ise daha sevecen olarak değerlendirmişlerdir. Başarı grubu farkı katılımcıların toplam değerlendirme puanları üzerinde etkili olmuştur. Gruplar arası ayrımı meşru görmeyen başarısız öğrenciler başarılı ve başarısız grupları farklılaştırmazken bu ayrımı meşru olarak değerlendiren orta düzeyde başarılı ve başarılı katılımcılar, başarılı öğrencileri daha olumlu değerlendirmişlerdir. Kalıpyargı içeriği ile sosyal bağlamsal değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler incelendiğinde ise statü ile yetkinlik arasında bir ilişki olduğu, buna karşın yarışmacılık ile sevecenlik arasında bir ilişki olmadığı bulunmuştur. Araştırma sonucunda elde edilen bulgular ilgili literatür bağlamında yorumlanmış ve tartışılmıştır.

A Research on Low and High Achievers' Stereotypes Content Toward Their In-Group and Out-Group on the Basis of Competence and Warmth Dimensions

The aim of the present study was to investigate the stereotypes directed towards academically achieving or under achieving students, in terms of competence and warmth as proposed by Fiske et al. (1999; 2002). The relationships between social structural variables, namely status, competitiveness and stereotype content were also explored. The study was conducted on 321 male and female students (seventh and eighth grade) recruited from Saraycık - Şehitler and Taylan Araslı Primary Schools in Ankara, Sincan. The students of the first school were segregated into different classes based on achievement whereas classes in the second school were mixed. The effects of schools and achievement groups showed that the participants from the Şehitler Primary School did not accept the legitimacy of segregation. Moreover, even though successful students were evaluated as more competent compared to unsuccessful students, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the warmth dimension. On the other hand, subjects from Taylan Araslı Primary School evaluated the distinction as legitimate. While successful students were perceived as more competent, unsuccessful students were evaluated as warmer than the successful group. The group difference in regard to achievement had impact on total scores of participants’ evaluations. Even though unsuccessful students who were against segregation reported no difference between successful and unsuccessful students in relation to competence and warmth, successful students accepted the superiority of their in-group in comparison to the outgroup. The results of the present study supported the relationship between status and competence, as argued by Fiske et al. (2002). However, the relationship between competitiveness and warmth was not significant. In the respective sections, the findings were discussed with respect to relevant literature and suggestions were made for future research.

PDF

___

Alexander, M. G., Brewer, M. B. ve Livingston, R. W. (2005). Putting stereotype content in context: Image theory and interethnic stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 781-794.
Bettencourt, A. A., Dorr, N., Charlton, K. ve Hume, D. L. (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: A meta- analytic examination of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127,520-542.
Blascovich, J., Spencer, S. J., Quinn, D. ve Steele, C. (2001). African Americans and high blood pressure: The role of stereotype threat. Psychological Science, 12, 225-229.
Bodenhausen, G. V. ve Lichtenstein, M. (1987). Social stereotypes and information processing strategies: The impact of task complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 871 -880.
Bodenhausen, G. V. ve Wyer, R. S. (1985). Effects of stereotypes on decision making and information - processing strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,267-282.
Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R. ve Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. N. Ellemers, R. Spears ve B. Doosje, (Ed.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content içinde (35-59). Oxford: Blackwell.
Brauer, M. (2001). Intergroup perception in the social context: The effect of social status and group membership on perceived out-group homogeneity and ethnocentrism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 15-31.
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 35, 429- 444.
Doosje, B., Ellemers, N. ve Spears, R. (1995) Percived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 410-436.
Doosje, B., Spears, R. ve Koomen, W. (1995). When bad isn't all bad: Strategic use of sample information in generalization and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 642-655.
Eckes, T. (2002). Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Sex Roles, 47, 99-114.
Ellemers, N., Barreto, M. ve Spears, R. (1999). Commitment and strategic responses to social context. N. Ellemers, R. Spears ve B. Doosje, (Ed.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content içinde (127-147). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R. ve Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161-187.
Fiske, S. T. (2002). What we know about bias and intergroup conflict, the problem of the century. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 123-128.
Fiske, S. T.,.Cuddy, A. M. J., Glick, P. ve Xu, J. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473-489.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. M. J., Glick, P. ve Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
Fiske, S. T. ve Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: Me Graw Hill.
Glick, P. ve Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491 -512.
Glick, P. ve Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519-536.
Glick, P. ve Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostileand benevolent sexism as complementary justification. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B., Adetoun, B., Osagie, J., Akande, A., Alao, A., Brunner, A., Willemsen, T. M., Chipeta, K., Dardenne, B., Dijksterhuis, A., Wigboldus, D., Eckes, T., Six - Materna, I., Exposito, F., Moya, M., Foddy, M., Kim, H. J., Lameiras, M., Sotelo, M. J., Mucchi - Faina, A., Romani, M., Sakalli, N., Udegbe, B., Yamamoto, M., Ui, M., Ferreira, M. C. ve Lopez, W. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763-775.
Hamilton, D. L. ve Sherman, W. J. (1994). Stereotypes. R. S. Wyer ve T. K. Srull, (Ed.), Handbook of social cognition içinde (209-285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M. ve Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575-604.
Jetten, J. ve Spears, R. (2003). The divisive potential of differences and similarities: The role of intergroup differentiation. European Review of Social Psychology, 74,203-241.
Jetten, J., Spears, R. ve Manstead, A. S. R. (1999). Group distinctivenes and intergroup discrimination. N. Ellemers, R. Spears ve B. Doosje, (Ed.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content içinde (107-127). Oxford: Blackwell.
Jost, J. T. ve Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498-509.
Jost, J. T, Banaji, M. R. ve Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881-919.
Lin, M. H., Kwan, V. S. Y, Cheung, A. ve Fiske, S. T. (2005). Stereotype Content Model explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: Scale of anti-Asian American stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 34-47.
Marx, M. D. ve Goff, P. A. (2005). Clearing the air: The effect of experimenter race on target's test performance and subjective experience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 645-657.
Özdemir, M. (2002). Psychological effects of the university entrance examination on high school students: The role of self-esteem and anxiety. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, ODTÜ: Ankara
Phalet, K. ve Poppe, E., (1997). Competence and morality dimensions of national and ethnic stereotypes: A study in six eastern-European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 703-723.
Read, S. J., Jones, D. K. ve Miller, L. C. (1990). Traits as goal- based categories: The importance of goals in the coherence of dispositional categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,1048-1061.
Reichl, A. J. (1997). Ingroup favoritism and outgroup favoritism in low status minimal groups: Differential responses to status related and status unrelated measures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 617-633.
Rubin, M. ve Hewstone, M. (2004). Social identity, system justification and social dominance: Commentary on Reicher, Jost et. al., and Sidanius et. al. Political Psychology, 25, 823-844.
Smith, J. L. (2004). Understanding the process of stereotype threat: A review of mediational variables and new performance goal directions. Educational Psychology Review, 16,177-206.
Steele, C. M. ve Davis, P. G. (2003). Stereotype threat and employment testing: Acommentary. Human Performance, 75,311-326.
Steele, J., James, J. B. ve Barnett, R. C. (2002). Learning in a man's world: Examining the perceptions of undergraduate women in male dominated academic areas. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 46-50.
Wojciszke, B. (1994). Multiple meanings of behavior: Construing actions in terms of competence and morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 222- 232.