PowerPointPrsentation

1
Discovering a new structure of anti-Semitic
attitudes
27th Annual Scientific Meeting The Political
Psychology of Hegemony and ResistanceInternation
al Society of Political Psychology, Lund
University/Sweden, July 15-18, 2004 Susan
Wettig, Dorit Wammetsberger, Wolfgang Frindte
(Department of Psychology, University of Jena)
Anti-Semitism in Germany Change in social
attitudes The current scientific research on
anti-Semitism in Germany concludes that a
secondary anti-Semitism which includes a demand
to consider the past closed and alienation from
holo-caust has developed. This modern hostility
against Jews is linked with a public taboo
regarding the past. That interaction may bring
about new forms of anti-Semitic attitudes and
pre-sumably represents the beginning of a
precarious development. The prior research on
anti-Semitic attitudes confirms the ne-cessity of
a differentiated view on the phenomenon
anti-Semitism, including a consideration of its
links to relevant historical, social and
individual elements. In particular, more current
studies on anti-Semitic attitudes indicate the
existence of evidence of a persisting latent
anti-Semitism among Ger-mans. Bergmann Erb
(2000) refer on the fact that the frequently
accomplished inquiries in Germany since 1986
could all re-produce a similar pattern of
anti-Semitic attitudes in the popu-lation,
agreeing in substantial courses persons
expressing negative attitudes towards Jews belong
to the generation which experienced national
socialism, have a low educational level and
regard themselves as political right-wing and
national. This pattern has seemed to change and
to become more complex since the middle of the
1990's. It is assumed that especially anti-Jewish
attitudes are linked to a special perception of
history. The purpose of this poster is to
illustrate some of these changes from a
psychological perspective. Because in the
research literature the authoritarianism and in
recent time also the social dominance orientation
are discussed as predictors for the development
and/or the maintenance of Xenophobia and
concomitantly anti-Semitic attitudes, the present
studies also serve the research on their
influencing control of anti-Semitic prejudices.
Studies Study 1 To answer the first three
research questions a field study ex-amined the
three-component model of anti-Semitism (see
Figure 1). All three dimensions of anti-Semitism
have a strong relation with hostility toward
foreigners and manifest anti-Semitism is
especially strongly related. Factor I (43.5)
contains all the items describing manifest
anti-Semitism Factor II (10.7) refers to
common traits of the three items of the subscale
called rejection of responsibility for Jewish
people Factor III (8.6) incorporates items in
the commu-nicative latency of anti-Semitism
subscale. Figure 1 Three-component
model of anti-Semitsim Notes hostility toward
foreigners (XP), manifest anti-Semitism (ASman),
communicative latency of anti-Semitism (ASlat),
rejection of responsibility for Jews (ASresp)
(?21707.833 df223 p0.000 RMSEA0.056
NFI0.982 GFI0.984). Study 2 In 2003, a second
field study examined the component model of
anti-Semitism and the effect of authoritarianism
and social dominance orientation on the
prediction of several anti-Semitic attitudes. It
was accepted that anti-Semitic attitudes can be
identified by means of four components. 411
participants at the age of 18 to 83 (average
40,28 years) in Germany were surveyed. To answer
the research questions, according to study 1,
several explorative and confirmatory
factor-analysis extracted three components of
anti-Semitism, clarify 59,5 of the variance
(see Table 1). Table 1
Components of anti-Semitism Notes
Three-dimensional factor solution of the
anti-Semitism Scale, loadings lt 0.3 were
suppressed
Continued from study 2 To test the fourth
research question concerning the differences
between the two theoretical concepts of RWA and
SDO with regard to the explanation of old and new
aspects of anti-Semitism, the data were analyzed
with structural equation modeling (LISREL). The
presented model reached the highest indices of
fit (GFI.96, CFI.98). Thus it appears that RWA
loads relatively high on manifest/latent
anti-Semitism (?11 .52), as well as on
rejection of responsibility for Jews (?21
.46). The regression coefficient from RWA to
anti-Israel attitudes is marginally lower (?31
.29). The components rejection of
responsibility for Jews and anti-Israel
attitudes are moderately, but significantly
affected by SDO (?22 .12, ?32 -.19) (see Figure
2). The effect from SDO to manifest/latent
anti-Semitism remains without significance. An
analyses of correlation according to Pearson
adduces an interrelation between RWA and SDO on
the lines of previous research findings (r.31,
p.001). Figure 2 Structural Model
Notes manifest and latent anti-Semitism
(ASmanlat), rejection of responsibility for Jews
(ASresp), criticism of Israel (ASIcrit)
(S?2101.59 df48 p0.000 RMSEA0.053
CFI0.98 GFI0.96) only the significant paths
are displayed the path from SDO to the variable
ASmanlat (?12 t.58) was not significant
Conclusion Some substantial conclusions can be
drawn from these explora-tions of new types of
anti-Semitism The first study demon-strates that
our new model of anti-Semitism could be a useful
tool to improve the understanding of the relation
between an old-fashioned stereotype and its
updatings. The second study also provides clear
empirical proofs of the capability of our four
component-model for the description of
anti-Semitic attitudes. However, the structural
differentiation of manifest and latent
anti-Semitism could not be demonstrated in this
study. The most powerful explanation of this
result is provided by the following
interpretation latent anti-Semitic persons
respond more in order to act socially desirably.
Anti-Semitic prejudices are minor in these
persons than in manifest anti-Semitic ones und
therefore they have no need for a substitutional
communi-cation. Further on such an attitude is
also no expression of a political marginalised
position. A further result clarifies that
anti-Semites reject a special German
responsibility towards Jews and express an
outstanding criticism on Israel. Possibly the
ac-ceptance of responsibility by anti-Semites
would mean a cogni-tive dissonance for them. In
the same way there might be a con-junction with
an overreaching national feeling, which is
op-posed to the acceptance of guilt and
responsibility.

• Research Questions
• Does the public avoidance of anti-Semitic
  statements and the refusal of further discussions
  about German fault as well as responsibility for
  the Jewish people constitute a new aspect of
  anti-Semitic attitudes?
• How far are the new aspects of anti-Semitic
  attitudes linked to a general hostility towards
  foreigners?
• Are there individual and/or social conditions
  that could serve as predicting elements for
  extreme anti-Semitic attitudes?
• Are there any differences between the two
  theoretical concepts of authoritarianism and
  social dominance orientation with regard to the
  explanation of old and new aspects of
  anti-Semitism?

Layout by Matthias Büchel