Hello There, Guest!  

[ODP] Country of origin and use of social benefits: A pilot study of stereotype accur

#11
Jarret Crawford says that he does not have time to review this paper.

Lee Jussim's email has an auto-reply saying that he is very busy.

Have not heard back from the others so far.
 Reply
#12
My comments on this paper:

1. Is the word 'stereotype' appropriate? A stereotype is a belief that is passed on unchanged from one person to another with little personal input. A stereotype is not a product of personal experience or reflection. In the case of this study, the term 'stereotype' seems especially inappropriate given the low mean inter-rater correlation and the correlation with age (both of which suggest that personal experience and/or reflection are important inputs).

I understand many people now use the word 'stereotype' in this way, i.e., negative opinions of an out-group regardless of whether the opinions are the product of experience and reflection.

2. The sample size is very small. There is also the risk of selection bias, i.e., the people who are motivated to fill out this survey may not be representative. It would be better to confine this survey to a closed group, e.g., students in a classroom.

3. p. 5 "were pushed towards" should be "tended towards"

4. "Participants were asked to estimate the percent of persons aged 30-39 who were receiving social benefits for each country of origin"

I would question the assumption that participant responses could not be more accurate than the actual data. 'Country of origin' corresponds imperfectly to ethnicity. For example, many immigrants from Turkey are not ethnic Turks. They may actually be of Greek, Armenian, Jewish, or Russian background (Istanbul used to have a large Russian community). But the survey participants will interpret that question as pertaining only to ethnic Turks. So their assessment of ethnic Turkish behavior may actually be more accurate than what the official data lead us to believe.

I see this problem with much of the official data. How many Vietnamese immigrants are ethnic Vietnamese? Many are in fact ethnic Chinese. How many Kenyan immigrants are ethnic Kenyans? Most are of South Asian origin. The same is true for Ugandan immigrants. Yet when people are asked about the behavior of Kenyan immigrants, they will interpret the question in ethnic terms.

Same problem with many European countries. How many Romanian immigrants are ethnic Romanians? I suspect a large proportion are Roma. Yet most people, Roma and non-Roma alike, do not perceive Romanians and Roma as forming a single category.

You will get this problem even if you put this sort of question to the immigrants themselves. From my experience, very few East African Asians identify primarily as East Africans. Keep in mind that many of these countries are recent creations that date to the 20th century. Before 1918, there was no "Turkey." There was only the Ottoman Empire, which was home to people of many national and religious origins.
 Reply
#13
Peter,

Thank you for your review. Below, we reply to your comments point by point.

Quote: 1. Is the word 'stereotype' appropriate? A stereotype is a belief that is passed on unchanged from one person to another with little personal input. A stereotype is not a product of personal experience or reflection. In the case of this study, the term 'stereotype' seems especially inappropriate given the low mean inter-rater correlation and the correlation with age (both of which suggest that personal experience and/or reflection are important inputs).

I understand many people now use the word 'stereotype' in this way, i.e., negative opinions of an out-group regardless of whether the opinions are the product of experience and reflection.

Stereotype is used by different people with somewhat different meanings. Dictionary.com gives the following definitions:

Quote:noun
1.
a process, now often replaced by more advanced methods, for making metal printing plates by taking a mold of composed type or the like in papier-mâché or other material and then taking from this mold a cast in type metal.
2.
a plate made by this process.
3.
a set form; convention.
4.
Sociology. a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group

Wiktionary gives:

Quote:stereotype ‎(plural stereotypes)
- A conventional, formulaic, and often oversimplified or exaggerated conception, opinion, or image of (a person).
- (psychology) A person who is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type.
- (printing) A metal printing plate cast from a matrix moulded from a raised printing surface.
- (computing, UML) An extensibility mechanism of the Unified Modeling Language.

So, as you can see, there are multiple meanings of the word in current use. The 4th meaning from Dictionary.com and 1st meaning from Wiktionary are related to our use.

Lee Jussim (with and without co-authors) spends quite a bit of time debating the meaning of the word in his book and in his review papers on the topic. In his meaning, a stereotype is merely a belief about a group. The belief may be inaccurate or accurate. Social psychologists tend to regard stereotypes as inaccurate, but this belief is itself inaccurate as past research shows stereotypes (that is, beliefs about groups) to be generally but not always fairly accurate. We have no intention of going into this discussion at length in the paper and merely follow the practice of many other researchers in using stereotype in this neutral fashion.

We have added a footnote to the introduction to clarify our use of stereotype.

--

Quote:2. The sample size is very small. There is also the risk of selection bias, i.e., the people who are motivated to fill out this survey may not be representative. It would be better to confine this survey to a closed group, e.g., students in a classroom.

We don't have access to a large body of students that we can force to fill out the questionnaire. Neither of the authors are teachers or others in command on a large pool of willing persons.

However, we did not want to simply not research the question, so we gathered what evidence we could online. As you say, this may result in selection bias. At present, we cannot know. We tried to recruit participants from many different online locations and succeeded to some degree.

In defense of the sample, it is much broader (closer to a total population sample) than typical student samples are. This may be relevant to stereotype research.

Quote: 3. p. 5 "were pushed towards" should be "tended towards"

Fixed.

Quote: 4. "Participants were asked to estimate the percent of persons aged 30-39 who were receiving social benefits for each country of origin"

I would question the assumption that participant responses could not be more accurate than the actual data. 'Country of origin' corresponds imperfectly to ethnicity. For example, many immigrants from Turkey are not ethnic Turks. They may actually be of Greek, Armenian, Jewish, or Russian background (Istanbul used to have a large Russian community). But the survey participants will interpret that question as pertaining only to ethnic Turks. So their assessment of ethnic Turkish behavior may actually be more accurate than what the official data lead us to believe.

I see this problem with much of the official data. How many Vietnamese immigrants are ethnic Vietnamese? Many are in fact ethnic Chinese. How many Kenyan immigrants are ethnic Kenyans? Most are of South Asian origin. The same is true for Ugandan immigrants. Yet when people are asked about the behavior of Kenyan immigrants, they will interpret the question in ethnic terms.

Same problem with many European countries. How many Romanian immigrants are ethnic Romanians? I suspect a large proportion are Roma. Yet most people, Roma and non-Roma alike, do not perceive Romanians and Roma as forming a single category.

You will get this problem even if you put this sort of question to the immigrants themselves. From my experience, very few East African Asians identify primarily as East Africans. Keep in mind that many of these countries are recent creations that date to the 20th century. Before 1918, there was no "Turkey." There was only the Ottoman Empire, which was home to people of many national and religious origins.

Our study did not concern ethnic or racial groups, only national groups (the words do not appear in the paper). We did not ask participants to estimate the performance of ethnic/racial groups, just persons by country of origin. As you note, country of origin and ethnic/racial group are strongly but imperfectly related.

Some countries have populations that are diverse in terms of ethnic and racial groups. If ethnicity/race is used as a tool in estimating group outcomes, more diversity might be negatively related to the accuracy of the stereotype. Because you brought up the idea, we did an analysis of diversity and aggregate stereotype accuracy. For this purpose, we used 3 different types of diversity: ethnic, linguistic and religious, as well as from two different sources, in total 5 measures. We also used a general score of these.

There was not much to see for the directional error, but there was a reasonably strong effect for the absolute error. I attach the two plots of the general diversity factor and accuracy.

   
   

The correlation table looks like this:

Code:
Predictor    aggregate estimate error    aggregate estimate error abs
EthnicFractionizationIndexFearon03    0.01    0.41
CulturalDiversityIndexFearon03    0.07    0.32
EthnicFractionalizationAlesina03    0.15    0.39
LinguisticFractionalizationAlesina03    0.29    0.31
ReligiousFractionalizationAlesina03    0.15    0.28
general diversity    0.09    0.42
aggregate estimate error    1    -0.22
aggregate estimate error abs    -0.22    1


We have written a new subsection (6.1.4) of the paper to add this analysis.

In general, publicly available statistics for European countries do not provide ethnicity information, so it is usually not possible to do analysis of ethnicity/race. One must work with country of origin or even worse, citizenship data. The notable exception is the United Kingdom. We are not aware of any public datasets for Denmark that provide data for ethnicity or race and as such, we could not use that for this study.

--

We have uploaded revision 7 of the paper to OSF: https://osf.io/bwtg8/
 Reply
#14
I am fine with the content of this version. I approve publication, though I would suggest another proof reading.
 Reply
#15
Sean Stevens, a stereotype researcher, has agreed to review this paper (external reviewer). He said he would have a review ready on Sunday.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sea...blications
 Reply
#16
(2016-Feb-20, 19:41:32)Chuck Wrote: I am fine with the content of this version. I approve publication, though I would suggest another proof reading.


Emil and I have begun to work on a number of projects together. As this could lead to the erroneous impression of impartiality on my part, I rescind my approval and recuse myself from this paper's review process.
 Reply
#17
I give my approval for this paper. I would like to see, however, some acknowledgment that the findings are preliminary. Perhaps the term "research note" could be added to the title.
 Reply
#18
To me the paper looks publishable. I approve.
 Reply
#19
Sorry for the delay, I forgot about this.

1) "This age group was chosen because members of it are are old enough to be finished with"

remove superfluous 'are'

2) Could you state all the answer choices you had for the control questions? Unless the other choices are obviously wrong, it's not clear that not answering that East Asians are shorter is not due to ignorance.

3) There's still no explanation of what a ghetto is.

4) "Party voting desires tended towards national, conservative"

By national do you mean nationalist?

5) Why is the section "Inter-rater consistency" before section 4? The inter-rater correlations concern (unspecified) measures that are introduced in section 4.

6) In Figure 2, the scale of the Y axis is still a complete mystery as is the meaning of the curve. Why can't you use a simple histogram like this one (without the normal curve): http://humanvarieties.org/wp-content/upl...ution1.png

7) "Using Jussim et al (2015)'s cutoffs of .30 and .50 for levels of accuracy"

Better: Using the cutoffs of .30 and .50 for levels of accuracy, as recommended in Jussim et al. (2015)

8) In Table 3, add a note about the use of CIs.

9) "the log 10 value"

call it the common logarithm or the base-10 logarithm or log[subscript]10[/subscript]

10) A research paper like this is not the right place for orthographic innovations. Given that the English in the paper isn't that fluent to begin with, those altho's look like misspellings.

11) In the section "Levels of analysis", be more explicit about how the accuracy measures are constructed. Give examples.
 Reply
#20
Review: Country of origin and use of social benefits: A pilot study of stereotype accuracy in Denmark.

Overall I think this is an interesting study. I was happy the authors preregistered the study and were transparent about it being a fortuitous one of convenience. Because of this, I found their discussion of the current findings to be measured. I also think that the authors' assessment of stereotype accuracy in a variety of ways (via correlations, discrepancy scores, elevation bias, and dispersion bias), at both the individual and group levels., is a strength of the paper.

I would like to see an elaboration on how the current findings fit into the existing literature on national character stereotypes (e.g., Costa & McCrae, 2008; Costa, Terracciano, & McCrae, 2001; McCrae & Allik, 2002, McCrae & Terracciano, 2005; Terracciano et al., 2005). Much of this literature has assessed national character/personality stereotypes and the evidence for accuracy is mixed (for reviews see Jussim et al., 2009; Jussim, Crawford, Anglin, Chambers, Stevens, & Cohen, 2015). One possibility is that the current study assesses the perception of a behavior (i.e., the use of governmental social benefits) and does not ask for personality assessments. Indeed, Heine, Buchtel, and Norenzayan (2008) challenged the “no accuracy in national character stereotypes” conclusion by comparing stereotypes to behavior potentially reflecting conscientiousness. When behavior (GDP, longevity, walking speed, clock accuracy, and postal worker speed) rather than self-reports on Big Five personality questionnaires were used as the criteria for accuracy, the correlations between consensual stereotypes and behavior averaged about .60.

I would also like to see more discussion of the role of gender in the current study. After the removal of 12 subjects, for various justified reasons, the sample is 75% male (36 males vs. 12 females). Yet, the study also reports a strong effect of gender on stereotype accuracy (d = .86). I wonder how much, if any, of the accuracy in the current study is related to gender and the greater number of males in the sample. While the authors may not be able to answer that question directly, it would be nice to see it addressed in the discussion.

Finally, I found myself wondering about the conjecture on page 12 that the "media
are probably likelier to discuss and report about members of the larger groups." By larger groups do the authors mean there are more members of these groups in Denmark or does it refer to the overall population numbers for that group across the world?

I also wonder about other potential media effects. For instance, on page 11 Figure presents a scatterplot of aggregate estimates and the actual proportion of people receiving social benefits. The top right corner contains data points for Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. There are currently ongoing armed conflicts in all of those countries, with the exception of Lebanon which borders Syria. Might the media be covering those conflicts and thus those countries more than some of the others? Admittedly this point is speculative and I do not think the authors can assess this possibility with the current data, so this is likely more of a suggested future direction.

Before recommending publication, I would like to look over the questionnaire used and thus would require an English translation of the measure, which is currently in Danish.

References:

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2008). The revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Personality Theory, and Assessment: Personality Measurement and Testing, Volume 2. London: Sage Publications.

Costa, P. Jr., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322-331.

Heine, S. J., Buchtel, E. E., & Norenzayan, A. (2008). What do cross-national comparisons of personality traits tell us? The case of conscientiousness. Psychological Science, 19, 309-313.

Jussim, L., Cain, T., Crawford, J., Harber, K., & Cohen, F. (2009). The unbearable accuracy of stereotypes. Pp. 199-227 in T. Nelson (ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum).

Jussim, L., Crawford, J.T., Anglin, S. M., Chambers, J., Stevens, S. T., & Cohen, F. Stereotype accuracy: One of the largest relationships in all of social psychology. To appear in T. Nelson (ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

McCrae, R. R., & Allik, J. (Eds.). (2002). The five-factor model of personality across cultures. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

McCrae, R. R., & Terracciano, A. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547-561.

Terracciano, A., Abdel-Khalek, A. M., Adam, N., Adamovova, L., Ahn, C., Ahn., H. N., … & Meshcheriakov, B. (2005). National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures. Science, 310, 96-100.
 Reply
 
Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)