@incollection{Ditlmann, author = {Ditlmann, Ruth K.}, title = {Changing Structures Along with People to Reduce Prejudice Using Field Experiments}, series = {Advances in Prejudice Research Volume 1: New empirical and theoretical directions in prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination}, booktitle = {Advances in Prejudice Research Volume 1: New empirical and theoretical directions in prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination}, editor = {Nelson, Todd D.}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {New York}, doi = {10.4324/9781003528043-3}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {115 -- 142}, abstract = {Prejudice researchers increasingly conceptualize prejudice as not only an individual-level construct but also a structural one. According to this view, prejudice is the manifestation of systems of oppression, such as racism, in people's cognitions and affect. This chapter examines the implications of this novel understanding of prejudice as "structurally embedded" for how we study prejudice-reduction interventions. It argues that effective interventions must aim to change structures and reviews examples of studies that have already adopted this approach. These include studies examining how changes in policies, laws, and leadership; in physical and digital spaces; and in social space can reduce prejudice, as well as how changes in perceptions of societal structures through critical education can reduce prejudice. When structural change is not feasible, the chapter proposes two alternatives: (1) designing prejudice-reduction interventions, including light-touch ones, that, in addition to reducing prejudice, also motivate people to engage in collective action for structural change; and (2) designing prejudice-reduction interventions, including light-touch ones, that take advantage of structural affordances - objective features of the structural context that increase the likelihood of success. When reviewing current field experiments on prejudice reduction, the chapter discovers that these experiments already tend to change structures in addition to people's affect and cognition, and therefore recommends using them more frequently. It concludes with a discussion of considerations for scholars designing field experiments on prejudice-reduction interventions, including methodological and ethical challenges, as well as reflections on the research process.}, language = {en} } @article{DitlmannMoustakas, author = {Ditlmann, Ruth K. and Moustakas, Louis}, title = {Participatory Football and Social Development: Evaluating the Impact of football3 on and off the Pitch}, series = {Journal of Community \& Applied Social Psychology}, volume = {36}, journal = {Journal of Community \& Applied Social Psychology}, number = {1}, publisher = {Wiley}, doi = {10.1002/casp.70207}, abstract = {Sport for development (SFD) is a field that leverages sport to advance social development goals. Participatory and sport-didactical approaches, such as football3, prioritise social outcomes over competitive success. However, evidence of their effectiveness remains limited. This study presents results from a field experiment in Bulgaria, comparing schoolchildren engaged in the participatory football3 method to peers playing traditional football. We assess both on-pitch and off-pitch outcomes relevant to SFD, including life skills, social awareness, and school adaptation. Findings show that football3 encourages values like respect over excellence but also increases on-pitch conflict. Off the pitch, we observe mixed results: modest improvements in school adaptation, declines in some life skills, and mostly no effects on social awareness. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article's community and social impact statement.}, language = {en} } @article{HaesslerDitlmannal, author = {H{\"a}ssler, Tabea and Ditlmann, Ruth K. and al, et}, title = {Needs Satisfaction in Intergroup Contact: A Multinational Study of Pathways Toward Social Change}, series = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes}, journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes}, issn = {0022-3514}, doi = {10.31234/osf.io/f9mwv}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-39717}, abstract = {What role does intergroup contact play in promoting support for social change toward greater social equality? Drawing on the needs-based model of reconciliation, we theorized that when inequality between groups is perceived as illegitimate, disadvantaged group members will experience a need for empowerment and advantaged group members a need for acceptance. When intergroup contact satisfies each group's needs, it should result in more mutual support for social change. Using four sets of survey data collected through the Zurich Intergroup Project in 23 countries, we tested several preregistered predictions, derived from the above reasoning, across a large variety of operationalizations. Two studies of disadvantaged groups (Ns = 689 ethnic minority members in Study 1 and 3,382 sexual/gender minorities in Study 2) support the hypothesis that, after accounting for the effects of intergroup contact and perceived illegitimacy, satisfying the need for empowerment (but not acceptance) during contact is positively related to support for social change. Two studies with advantaged groups (Ns = 2,937 ethnic majority members in Study 3 and 4,203 cis-heterosexual individuals in Study 4) showed that, after accounting for illegitimacy and intergroup contact, satisfying the need for acceptance (but also empowerment) is positively related to support for social change. Overall, findings suggest that intergroup contact is compatible with efforts to promote social change when group-specific needs are met. Thus, to encourage support for social change among both disadvantaged and advantaged group members, it is essential that, besides promoting mutual acceptance, intergroup contact interventions also give voice to and empower members of disadvantaged groups.}, language = {en} } @techreport{BarronDitlmannGehrigetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Barron, Kai and Ditlmann, Ruth K. and Gehrig, Stefan and Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian}, title = {Explicit and Implicit Belief-Based Gender Discrimination: A Hiring Experiment}, edition = {No. 35}, doi = {10.48462/opus4-5361}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-53610}, pages = {73}, abstract = {This paper studies a key element of discrimination, namely when stereotypes translate into discriminatory actions. Using a hiring experiment, we rule out taste-based discrimination by design and test for the presence of two types of belief-based gender discrimination. We document evidence of explicit discriminators—individuals who are willing to discriminate even when their hiring choices are highly revealing of their gender-biased beliefs. Crucially, we also identify implicit discriminators—individuals who do not discriminate against women when taking a discriminatory action is highly revealing of their biased beliefs, but do discriminate against women when their biased motive is obscured. Our analysis highlights the central role played by features of the choice environment in determining whether and how discrimination will manifest. We conclude by discussing the implications for policy design.}, language = {en} } @article{HaesslerUllrichSebbenetal., author = {H{\"a}ssler, Tabea and Ullrich, Johannes and Sebben, Simone and Shnabel, Nurit and Bernardino, Michelle and Valdenegro, Daniel and Van Laar, Colette and Gonz{\´a}lez, Roberto and Visintin, Emilio Paolo and Tropp, Linda R. and Ditlmann, Ruth K. and Abrams, Dominic and Aydin, Anna Lisa and Pereira, Adrienne and Selvanathan, Hema Preya and von Zimmermann, Jorina and Lantos, N{\´o}ra Anna and Sainz, Mario and Glenz, Andreas and Kende, Anna and Oberpfalzerov{\´a}, Hana and Bilewicz, Michal and Branković, Marija and Noor, Masi and Pasek, Michael H. and Wright, Stephen C. and Žeželj, Iris and Kuzawinska, Olga and Maloku, Edona and Otten, Sabine and Gul, Pelin and Bareket, Orly and Corkalo Biruski, Dinka and Mugnol-Ugarte, Luiza and Osin, Evgeny and Baiocco, Roberto and Cook, Jonathan E. and Dawood, Maneeza and Droogendyk, Lisa and Loyo, Ang{\´e}lica Herrera and Jelić, Margareta and Kelmendi, Kaltrina and Pistella, Jessica}, title = {Need satisfaction in intergroup contact: A multinational study of pathways toward social change}, series = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}, volume = {122}, journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}, number = {4}, publisher = {American Psychological Association (APA)}, issn = {1939-1315}, doi = {10.1037/pspi0000365}, pages = {634 -- 658}, language = {en} } @article{StadlerChesaniukHaeringetal., author = {Stadler, Gertraud and Chesaniuk, Marie and Haering, Stephanie and Roseman, Julia and Straßburger, Vera Maren and Schraudner, Martina and Ahmad, Aisha-Nusrat and Auma, Maisha and Banas, Kasia and Borde, Theda and Buspavanich, Pichit and Dewey, Marc and Di Maio, Sally and Ditlmann, Ruth K. and Enarovic, Ilona and Fischer, Marina and Gellert, Paul and Gerstorf, Denis and Grittner, Ulrike and Gutsell, Jennifer and Hagelskamp, Carolin and Henschel, Anna and Herrmann, Wolfram and Hilger, Caren and Horozoglu, G{\"u}lru and H{\"o}vener, Claudia and Hunter, Emma and Iida, Masumi and Keller, Lena and Kendel, Friederike and Krumbholz, Charlotte Ariane and Licha, Matthias and Mason, Kimberly and Mata, Jutta and Mau, Steffen and Meuwly, Nathalie and Moschko, Tomasz and M{\"u}ller-Werdan, Ursula and O'Sullivan, Julie Lorraine and Radl, Jonas and Rathmann, Christian and Regitz-Zagrosek, Vera and Rieckmann, Nina and Rommel, Alexander and Salikutluk, Zerrin and Shrout, Patrick E. and Smith, Jamie and Specht, Jule and Stephan, Petra and Stock, Christiane and Wenzel, Mine}, title = {Diversified innovations in the health sciences: Proposal for a Diversity Minimal Item Set (DiMIS)}, series = {Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy}, volume = {33}, journal = {Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy}, doi = {10.1016/j.scp.2023.101072}, abstract = {Background Science strives to provide high-quality evidence for all members of society, but there continues to be a considerable gender and diversity data gap, i.e., a systematic lack of data for traditionally underrepresented groups. Gender and other diversity domains are related to morbidity, mortality, and social and economic participation, yet measures as well as evidence regarding how these domains intersect are missing. We propose a brief, efficient Diversity Minimal Item Set (DiMIS) for routine data collection in empirical studies to contribute to closing the diversity and gender data gap. We focus on the example of health but consider the DiMIS applicable across scientific disciplines. Methods To identify items for the DiMIS across diversity domains, we performed an extensive literature search and conducted semi-structured interviews with scientific experts and community stakeholders in nine diversity domains. Using this information, we created a minimal item set of self-report survey items for each domain. Findings Items covering nine diversity domains as well as discrimination experiences were compiled from a variety of sources and modified as recommended by experts. The DiMIS focuses on an intersectional approach, i.e., studying gender, age, socioeconomic status, care responsibilities, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, disability, mental and physical health, and their intersections. It allows for data sets with comparable assessments of gender and diversity across multiple projects to be combined, creating samples large enough for meaningful analyses. Interpretation In proposing the DiMIS, we hope to advance the conversation about closing the gender and diversity data gap in science.}, language = {en} } @techreport{SchweighoferKodritschBarronDitlmannetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian and Barron, Kai and Ditlmann, Ruth K. and Gehrig, Stefan}, title = {Explicit and Implicit Belief-Based Gender Discrimination: A Hiring Experiment}, series = {Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers}, journal = {Berlin School of Economics Discussion Papers}, edition = {No. 35}, doi = {10.48462/opus4-5359}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-53592}, pages = {73}, abstract = {This paper studies a key element of discrimination, namely when stereotypes translate into discriminatory actions. Using a hiring experiment, we rule out taste-based discrimination by design and test for the presence of two types of belief-based gender discrimination. We document evidence of explicit discriminators—individuals who are willing to discriminate even when their hiring choices are highly revealing of their gender-biased beliefs. Crucially, we also identify implicit discriminators—individuals who do not discriminate against women when taking a discriminatory action is highly revealing of their biased beliefs, but do discriminate against women when their biased motive is obscured. Our analysis highlights the central role played by features of the choice environment in determining whether and how discrimination will manifest. We conclude by discussing the implications for policy design.}, language = {en} } @article{DitlmannSamii, author = {Ditlmann, Ruth K. and Samii, Cyrus}, title = {Can intergroup contact affect ingroup dynamics? Insights from a field study with Jewish and Arab-Palestinian youth in Israel.}, series = {Journal of Peace Psychology}, volume = {22}, journal = {Journal of Peace Psychology}, number = {4}, doi = {10.1037/pac0000217}, pages = {380 -- 392}, abstract = {How can intergroup contact programs affect conflict-ridden communities besides improving the outgroup attitudes of participating individuals? We address this question by examining the effects of an intergroup contact intervention on ingroup dynamics that may mitigate intergroup conflict. We also examine how outgroup attitudes and psychological resources mediate such effects. We present the results from a difference-in-differences design with 149 Jewish and Arab-Palestinian youth, some of whom participated in an intergroup contact and sports program operated by a nongovernmental organizations in Israel. Our main outcome is one's tendency to censure ingroup members' provocations toward the outgroup. As expected, we find a positive impact of the program on ingroup censuring. However, this result is only marginally significant. We find a positive effect of program participation on outgroup attitudes among Jewish youth as expected. To our surprise, among Arab-Palestinian youth, we find a negative effect on outgroup attitudes. Exploring the underlying processes and group-based differences further, we find that outgroup regard mediates the effect of intergroup contact on ingroup censuring for Jewish youth. We find no evidence for mediation among Arab-Palestinian youth but a positive association between ingroup censuring and psychological resources. These results suggest that the psychological conditions of ingroup censuring may differ by group. We discuss implications for peace-building interventions in societies with groups in conflict.}, language = {en} } @article{DitlmannSamiiZeitzoff, author = {Ditlmann, Ruth K. and Samii, Cyrus and Zeitzoff, Thomas}, title = {Addressing intergroup conflict from the bottom-up?}, series = {Social Issues and Policy Review}, volume = {11}, journal = {Social Issues and Policy Review}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1111/sipr.12027}, pages = {38 -- 77}, abstract = {How might interventions that engage ordinary citizens in settings of violent conflict affect broader conflict dynamics? Given the volume of resources committed every year to citizen-oriented programs that attempt to promote peace, this is an important question. We develop a framework to analyze processes through which individual-level interventions could mitigate violent conflict escalation more broadly. Individual-level interventions may increase positive feelings toward the outgroup, as well as psychological, social, and material resources among participants. These have the potential to influence behaviors such as policing of the ingroup, public advocacy, and political action that can contribute to peace. Yet, the effectiveness of interventions to influence the conflict is moderated by contextual factors like groups' access to material resources, their positions in society, and political institutions. We use this analytical framework to assess evidence from recent intervention studies. We find that the current evidence base is quite small, does not cover the diversity of relevant contexts, and gives too little attention to resources and capacities that enable people to engage in conflict mitigation behaviors. Researchers and policy makers should go beyond thinking only about improving attitudes to thinking about behavior, resources, and capacities for such behaviors, and contextual conditions that constrain behavior.}, language = {en} } @article{DitlmannPurdieVaughnsDovidioetal., author = {Ditlmann, Ruth K. and Purdie-Vaughns, Valerie and Dovidio, John F and Naft, Michael J}, title = {The implicit power motive in intergroup dialogues about the history of slavery}, series = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}, volume = {112}, journal = {Journal of Personality and Social Psychology}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1037/pspp0000118}, pages = {116 -- 135}, abstract = {This research demonstrates that individual differences in the implicit power motive (i.e., the concern with impact, influence, and control) moderate how African Americans communicate with White Americans in challenging intergroup dialogues. In a study with African American participants we find that the higher their implicit power motive, the more they use an affiliation strategy to communicate with a White American partner in a conversation context that evokes the history of slavery (Study 1). In a study with White American participants we find that, in the same conversation context, they are more engaged (i.e., open, attentive, and motivated) if they receive an affiliation message rather than a no-affiliation message from an African American partner (Study 2). In interracial dyads we find that African American participants' implicit power motives moderate how much they intend to signal warmth to a White American discussion partner, how much they display immediacy behaviors and use affiliation imagery in the discussion, and with what level of engagement White American participants respond (Study 3). High but not low implicit power African Americans thus employ a communication strategy-expressing affiliation and warmth-that can be effective for engaging White Americans with uncomfortable, race-identity-relevant topics.}, language = {en} }