Hello There, Guest!  

[ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered

#6
Bob,

Quote:The paper is interesting and is an example of carrying out a study plan with attention to details. My primary concern with the paper involves the nature of what is a stereotype and whether the study actually measured stereotype accuracy or instead measured aggregate guessing, possibly influenced by stereotypes. The relatively low correlations suggest the latter.

There are two parts to this: semantic/conceptual and empirical.

Semantic. We use the word stereotype in the meaning used by many other researchers and recommended by Lee Jussim, the current foremost expert on stereotypes in my opinion (One the papers you link to is in fact an old review by Lee Jussim!). In this context, a stereotype is a belief about a group. The beliefs may be and are mostly statistical in nature, not absolute (many/few not all/no). Some have used the word in other senses usually involving defining stereotypes as inaccurate or exaggerated beliefs about groups (you give an example of this in your post). However, this leaves us with the problem of what to call beliefs about groups that are accurate (such as beliefs about the clothing that you mention), and also results in various logical problems that are dealt with at length in Jussim's 2012 book. I recommend reading the book. The book can be freely downloaded on Libgen (http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5...885DFB25CA ).

The use of stereotype this way is also in line with the popular stereotype threat hypothesis (mentioned by you) which is that making stereotypes about lower performance about a group salient depresses that group's performance via some threat response/emotional stress. The most two commonly researched cases are the lower scholastic/cognitive ability of African Americans and the lower math performance by girls. The stereotypes being made salient if of course the common beliefs that African Americans and females perform worse on these tasks.

Per request (you and Gerhard), I have added a few lines explaining the use of the word to readers who are unfamiliar with this use.

Empirical. The stereotype accuracy correlations reported in this study are 1) strong compared to most social science effects, especially social psychology (http://neuron4.psych.ubc.ca/~schaller/Ps...ta2003.pdf ), and 2) very similar to other studies (see various reviews by Jussim).


Quote:"Participants were asked to rate themselves (0-100) on four scales: conservatism, nationalism, economic liberalism and personal liberalism."

Were the definitions given to the participants? Were there instructions about how to choose from 0-100?

Yes and yes. You can verify this by reading the questionnaire in the project files.

Quote:Is the use of 100 points more meaningful than a narrower scale (5, 9, etc.)? I ask because a person is likely to select a number somewhat randomly and not feel that it is more or less accurate than a number over a range. I believe that people simply don't have very fine grained resolution of their reactions to questions.

The use of a scale with more options reduces the impact of the violation of statistical assumptions, i.e. that of continuity. I will be exploring the effect of using a 7-level (1-7) scale vs. a 101-level (0-100) scale in an upcoming study (with Noah Carl). It's an empirical question of how fine-grained people's self-ratings are if one gives them the chance. As far as I know, no one knows because I looked but could not find a study exploring this matter. However, one finding from the Good Judgment Project was that better forecasters used more fine-grained predictions. You can read about this in Tetlock's book Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superforecasting

Quote:"Participants were asked to rate their agreement (0-100) with each of the main political parties in Denmark (15 parties), including parties outside parliament. They had the option of stating that they had no preference or no knowledge about a particular party. This was because the list included relatively unknown parties outside parliament."

Were party platforms given to participants? If not, are they understood by the range of people who are being asked? This item is somewhat difficult to understand from my perspective, because we have only two serious parties. I understand that more parties exist in other nations, but have no idea how they are understood by their citizens.

No and yes. All the main parties are widely known to the public as well as their approximate positions on policy matters. I suggest you spend some time reading about multi-party systems on Wikipedia. The US is the outlier here, all other Western countries have more than two parties, even the UK which uses a similar system (first past the post).

-

Quote:We examined whether stereotypes were more or less accurate for the more* Muslim groups. Stereotypes were found to be less accurate in that they underestimated the percentages of persons from more** Muslim groups receiving social benefits (mean estimation error for Muslim groups relative to overall elevation error = -8.09 %points).

* change more to -- predominantly
** "more" is unclear here. Deleting the word seems to work, or another wording may clarify the meaning.

The use of gradual words is intentional. Being Muslim is not dichotomous for groups. For instance, Nigerians are about 50% Muslim, 50% Christian. Take a look at Pew Research's work on the topic which is where the Islam data comes from. http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/table...y-country/

Quote:It found that stereotypes were moderately accurate (median correlational accuracy score = .51), but the results are hard to generalize to the general* population.

* Following "generalize" the word "general" should be changed. Suggestions: national, or overall.

Changed to overall.

Quote:"We also noted that some users' estimates were reverse of reality, indicating that they did not understand the task or that they were purposefully filling it out in reversely." *

* suggest for last two words: "in reverse" or "backwards"

Changed to We also noted that some users' estimates were opposite of reality, indicating that they did not understand the task or that they were purposefully answering dishonestly.

Quote:"Users that * fail these questions could then easily be filtered afterwards. Additionally, we changed the order of the cognitive items to be random so that the presenting order** could not have a systematic effect on the responses."

"For our analyses, we excluded all participants that * failed one of the first 7 controls or who gave reversed answers"

* The use of "that" is not a serious error, but it is likely to be disconcerting to most readers. There are many grammatical discussions of "who" vs. "that" on the web. This one is worthwhile:

http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2012/0...-that.html

** change "presenting order" to "order of presentation" or "presentation order"
Changed to who and to order of presentation.

Quote:"If people rely upon GDP per capita to estimate immigrant performance, then their estimates will be highly correlated with these * which they are (r = -.79)."

* Something is needed to set the last three words off as a phrase. A comma at the point of the * may work.

Added a comma.

---

Updated the files to version 13 (paper.pdf and paper.odt).
 Reply
 
Messages In This Thread
[ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by Emil - 2016-Jul-04, 09:30:39
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by BobWilliams - 2016-Aug-07, 16:05:47
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by Emil - 2016-Aug-07, 21:23:21
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by Gmeisenberg - 2016-Aug-16, 22:17:17
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by Emil - 2016-Aug-16, 23:28:53
Updated version for Bob and Gerhard - by Emil - 2016-Aug-17, 02:54:43
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about - by BobWilliams - 2016-Aug-17, 22:19:02
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by Emil - 2016-Aug-17, 22:58:06
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about - by BobWilliams - 2016-Aug-18, 01:32:36
[ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by HeinerRindermann - 2016-Aug-20, 17:30:32
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by Emil - 2016-Aug-21, 13:21:51
Reply to Rindermann - by Emil - 2016-Aug-22, 02:17:20
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by Emil - 2016-Sep-04, 04:44:21
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by Emil - 2016-Sep-29, 15:17:32
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by Emil - 2016-Oct-21, 18:41:29
Reply to Rindermann (#15) - by Emil - 2016-Oct-21, 19:01:52
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by HeinerRindermann - 2016-Nov-01, 21:19:54
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by Emil - 2016-Nov-02, 07:57:28
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by HeinerRindermann - 2016-Nov-02, 12:30:23
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by Gmeisenberg - 2016-Nov-08, 19:44:34
RE: [ODP] Are stereotypes about immigrants accurate in Denmark?: a large, preregistered - by Emil - 2016-Nov-12, 02:59:09
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)