Hayali Temasın Sınırları: Türkiye’de Suriyeli Göçmenlere Yönelik Açık ve Örtük Önyargı

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de yüksek düzeyde damgalanan bir grup olan Suriyeli göçmenlere yönelik açık ve örtük tutumlar üzerinde hayali temasın etkisini incelemiştir. Hayali temas, doğrudan temasın sınırlı olduğu bağlamlarda gruplar arası ilişkileri iyileştirmeye yönelik dolaylı bir strateji olarak önerilmektedir. Toplam 112 katılımcı, Suriyeli göçmenlerle olumlu bir etkileşimi hayal etme (deney grubu) ya da doğada nötr bir senaryoyu canlandırma (kontrol grubu) koşullarına rastgele atanmıştır. Açık tutumlar Duygu Termometresi, Sosyal Mesafe Ölçeği ve Mültecilere Yönelik Tutumlar Ölçeği ile; örtük tutumlar ise Örtük Çağrışım Testi ile ölçülmüştür. Ölçümler 2 (grup) × 3 (zaman) tekrarlı ölçümler deseninde üç zaman noktasında gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bulgular, grup ile zaman arasında anlamlı bir etkileşim olmadığını, ancak her iki grupta da zamana bağlı anlamlı bir değişim bulunduğunu göstermiştir. Sonuçlar, yüksek başlangıç düzeyi önyargı ve ölçüm sürecine bağlı olası etkiler bağlamında tartışılarak, yerleşik olumsuz tutumların bulunduğu bağlamlarda hayali temasın sınırlı koşullarına işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hayali temas
• önyargı
• göçmenler
• açık tutum
• örtük tutum

Boundary Conditions of Imagined Contact: Explicit and Implicit Prejudice toward Syrian Migrants in Türkiye

Abstract

This study examined the effects of imagined contact on explicit and implicit attitudes toward Syrian immigrants in Türkiye, a highly stigmatized group. Imagined contact has been proposed as an indirect strategy to improve intergroup relations, particularly where direct contact is limited. A total of 112 participants were randomly assigned to either an imagined positive interaction with Syrian immigrants (experimental group) or a neutral nature scenario (control group). Explicit attitudes were measured using a Feeling Thermometer, Social Distance Scale, and Attitudes Toward Refugees Scale, while implicit attitudes were assessed with an Implicit Association Test. Measures were administered at three time points within a 2 (group) × 3 (time) repeated-measures design. Results revealed no significant group × time interaction, indicating that imagined contact did not differentially influence attitudes compared to the control condition. However, a significant main effect of time emerged across both groups. Findings are discussed in relation to high baseline prejudice and possible measurement-related effects, highlighting boundary conditions of imagined contact in contexts characterized by entrenched negative attitudes.

Keywords

• explicit attitude
• implicit attitude
• Imagined contanct
• prejudice
• immigrant

Kaynakça

1. Acharya, A., Blackwell, M., & Sen, M. (2018). Explaining preferences from behavior: A cognitive dissonance approach. The Journal of Politics, 80(2), 400-411.
2. Aksoy, B. G. (2023). The effect of imagined contact on the relationship between ideological attitudes, perceived threat and prejudices towards Syrians: A dual process model perspective (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
3. Alikılıç, Ö., Gökaliler, E., & Alikılıç, İ. (2021). Otherization through hate speech: typology analysis of hate against refugees on twitter. Akdeniz University Journal of Communication Faculty, 36, 501-520.
4. Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice, New York, NY: Basic Books.
5. Anderson, J. R. (2018). The Prejudice Against Asylum Seekers Scale: Presenting the psychometric properties of a new measure of classical and conditional attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 158(6), 694 -710.
6. Arslantürk, G. (2020). Examining anti-immigrant attitudes on social media from the framework of integrated threat theory. Psychology Research, 1(1), 6-16.
7. Association of Refugees (2023). https://multeciler.org.tr/turkiyedeki-suriyeli-sayisi/ (Date of Access: 01.02.2024)
8. Bagci, S. C., Piyale, Z. E., & Ebcim, E. (2018a). Imagined contact in high conflict settings: The role of ethnic group identification and the perspective of minority group members. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48, 3–14

9. Bagci, S. C., Stathi, S., & Piyale, Z. E. (2018b). Imagined contact facilitates acculturation, sometimes: Contradicting evidence from two sociocultural contexts. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 1-14.
10. Bağcı, Ç. & Canpolat, E. (2019). Mediating variables in the relationship between contact with Turks and psychological well-being in Syrian asylum seekers. Nesne: Psikoloji Dergisi, 7(15), 149-169.
11. Balaban, Ç. D. (2013). The roles of intergroup threat, social dominance orientation and righ wing authoritarianism in predicting Turks’ prejudice toward Kurds (Unpublished master thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
12. Bayram, A. (2021). Local people's perception of Syrian migrants in Turkey: The case of Mardin (Unpublished master's thesis). Mardin Artuklu University, Mardin.
13. Berker, A. (2023). Threat perceptions and helping behavior towards Syrian migrants: Evidence from Turkey. Hacettepe University Journal of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 41(2), 204-228.
14. Bilewicz, M., & Krzeminski, I. (2010). Anti-Semitism in Poland and Ukraine: The belief in Jewish control as a mechanism of scapegoating. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4 (2), 234 – 243.
15. Breithaupt, L., Trojanowski, P., & Fischer, S. (2020). Implicit and explicit anti‐fat attitude change following brief cognitive dissonance intervention for weight stigma. Obesity, 28(10), 1853-1859.
16. Ciao, A. C., & Latner, J. D. (2011). Reducing obesity stigma: The effectiveness of cognitive dissonance and social consensus interventions. Obesity, 19(9), 1768-1774.
17. Civitillo, S., Mayer, A. M., & Jugert, P. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the associations between perceived teacher-based racial–ethnic discrimination and student well-being and academic outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1-23.
18. Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159.
19. Conner, M., Wilding, S., van Harreveld, F., & Dalege, J. (2021). Cognitive-affective inconsistency and ambivalence: Impact on the overall attitude–behavior relationship. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(4), 673-687.
20. Crocetti, E., Albarello, F., Prati, F., & Rubini, M. (2021). Development of prejudice against immigrants and ethnic minorities in adolescence: A systematic review with meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Developmental Review, 60, 100959.
21. Çakır, R., Eser, B., Aslan, H., & Bülbül, E. (2023). Investigation of vaccine opposition in the context of cognitive contradiction theory: An Experimental Study. International Journal of Behavior, Sustainability and Management, 10(18), 114-130.
22. Çetin, H., & Demirel, B. (2023). University students' attitudes towards immigrants: The case of Kırıkkale University. Journal of Social, Human and Administrative Sciences, 6(10), 1314-1328.
23. Dermody, N., Jones, M. K. ve Cumming, S. R. (2013). The failure of imagined contact in reducing explicit and implicit out-group prejudice toward male homosexuals. Current Psychology, 32, 261-274.
24. Dilaver, F. (2020). Syrian refugees in Elazig: A study on the perspective of Elazig people towards Syrian refugees (Unpublished master thesis). Fırat University, Elazığ.
25. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2007). Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 296-330.
26. Fırat, M. (2019). Turks’ prejudice against Kurds and Syrians: The role of contact, identifıcation, and threat. (Unpublished master thesis). Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
27. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
28. Gök, S. (2019). Examination of the perspective of local people towards Syrians in Turkey. (Unpublished master's thesis). Selcuk University. Konya.
29. Greenwald A. G., McGhea D. E., & Schwartz J. K. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480
30. Güldalı, O. (2022). Discrimination and social exclusion against migrant and asylum-seekers in İzmir from ngo perspective: An assessment in the context of the basic principles of social work (Unpublished master's thesis). Hacettepe University, Ankara.
31. Gülsoy, S. & Kanbir, F. (2023). The relationship between migration perception and prejudice towards Syrian immigrants in Turkish academics. Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Social Sciences, (57), 279-295.
32. Hashemi, N., Marzban, M., Sebar, B., & Harris, N. (2021). Perceived discrimination and subjective well-being among Middle Eastern migrants in Australia: The moderating role of perceived social support. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 67(2), 110-119.
33. Heitland, K. ve Bohner, G. (2010). Reducing prejudice via cognitive dissonance: Individual differences in preference for consistency moderate the effects of counter-attitudinal advocacy. Social Influence, 5(3), 164-181.
34. Hoffarth, M. R. ve Hodson, G. (2016). Who needs imagined contact? Replication attempts examining previous contact as a potential moderator. Social Psychology, 47(2), 118.
35. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(2), 242-256.
36. Husnu, S., & Paolini, S. (2019). Positive imagined contact is actively chosen: Exploring determinants and consequences of volitional intergroup imagery in a conflict-ridden setting. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 22(4), 511-529.
37. Ioannou, M. (2019). The week after: Do the effects of imagined contact last over time? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(7), 459-470.
38. Karakaya, Ş. (2020). The impact of the problems experienced by Syrian children in Turkey on their schooling process and solution proposals in the context of school social service (Unpublished master's thesis). Istanbul University, Iatanbul.
39. Kaya, E. (2018). The effect of the level of moral distancing in peer bullying and the social identity of the victim on the willingness to help the victim (Unpublished master's thesis). Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu.
40. Kim, I., Keovisai, M., Kim, W., Richards-Desai, S., & Yalim, A. C. (2019). Trauma, discrimination,and psychological distress across Vietnamese refugees and immigrants: A life courseperspective. Community Mental Health Journal, 55, 385-393.
41. Kuchenbrandt, D., Eyssel, F., & Seidel, S. K. (2013). Cooperation makes it happen: Imagined intergroup cooperation enhances the positive effects of imagined contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(5), 635-647.
42. Küçükkömürler, S. (2013). Reducing prejudice through imagined social contact (Unpublished master's thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
43. Küçükkömürler, S., & Sakallı-Uğurlu, N. (2017). Theories of social contact in organizing intergroup relations: Intergroup, diffusionist and imagined contact. Nesne Psikoloji Dergisi, 5(9), 1-31.
44. Li, M. (2019). Priming mediated vicarious intergroup contact: How narrative focus influences attitude changes toward gay people, same-sex family, and social dominance. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 39(2), 151-174.
45. McWaters, S. C., & Hawkins, R. (2018). The imagined contact hypothesis: Prejudice towards asylum seekers in Australia. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 3, 197-210.
46. Özipek, B. B. (2018). Contribution to economy-based anti-discrimination and anti-prejudice argumentation: "Syrian asylum seekers and the Turkish economy" report. Journal of Liberal Thought, 23(90), 125-146.
47. Özkeçeci, H. H. (2017). The role of contact and the perception of threat in prejudice towards Syrians in Turkey. (Unpublished master thesis). Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
48. Pandır, M., Efe, İ., & Paksoy, A. F. (2016). A content analysis on Syrian asylum seeker representation in the Turkish press. Marmara Journal of Communication, (24), 1-26.
49. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
50. Sarıkaya, A. K. & Güner, H. (2021). Adaptation of the scale of prejudice towards asylum seekers into Turkish and its psychometric examination. KMU Journal of Social and Economic Research, 23(41), 491-504.
51. Schuhl, J., Lambert, E., & Chatard, A. (2019). Can imagination reduce prejudice over time? A preregistered test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 41(2), 122-131.
52. Servidio, R., Cammarata, I. G., Scaffidi Abbate, C., & Boca, S. (2024). Classical and modern prejudice toward individuals with intellectual disabilities: The role of experienced contact, beliefs in a just world and social dominance orientation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21(3), 355.
53. Sherif, M., Harvey, 0. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperarion. University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.
54. Stathi, S., Cameron, L., Hartley, B., & Bradford, S. (2014). Imagined contact as a prejudice‐reduction intervention in schools: The underlying role of similarity and attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(8), 536-546.
55. Stephan, W.G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In Reducing prejudice and discrimination (Ed. Oskamp, S.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 23-47.
56. Sternisko, A., Cichocka, A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2020). The dark side of social movements: Social identity, non-conformity, and the lure of conspiracy theories. Current opinion in psychology, 35, 1-6.
57. Stoet, G. (2010). PsyToolkit-A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 1096-1104.
58. Stoet, G. (2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 24-31. Şenyurt, A. Y., Coşkun, H. ve Ünlü, E. S. (2020). Örtük Çağrışım Testi’ni Türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 15(26), 4437-4453.
59. Tajfel, H. ve Turner, J., (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict in The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
60. Taşdelen, B. (2020). Online hate speech against Syrian refugees on Twitter: # Suriyelilerisistemiyoruz. Gümüşhane University Journal of Social Sciences, 11(2), 562-575.
61. Turner, R. N., Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 427-441.
62. Tümer, A. S. (2021). Imagined contact between minority group members: A comparison of contact between majority and minorities (Unpublished master's thesis). Sabancı University, Istanbul.
63. Vezzali L, Capozza D, Stathi S., & Giovanni D. (2012). Increasing out group trust, reducing infrahumanization and enhancing future contact intentions via imagined intergroup contact. Journal Experiment Social Psychology, 48, 437–40.
64. Vezzali, L., Stathi, S., Crisp, R. J., Giovannini, D., Capozza, D., & Gaertner, S. L. (2015). Imagined intergroup contact and common ingroup identity: An integrative approach. Social Psychology, 46(5).
65. Vrdoljak, A., Jelic, M., Čorkalo Biruski, D., & Stankovic, N. (2023). Efficacy of imagined contact intervention with children and adolescents in reducing negative intergroup outcomes: A systematic review. Social Psychology of Education, 1-32.
66. Wang, C., Platow, M. J., Bar‐Tal, D., Augoustinos, M., Van Rooy, D., & Spears, R. (2022). When are intergroup attitudes judged as free speech and when as prejudice? A social identity analysis of attitudes towards immigrants. International Journal of Psychology, 57(4), 456-465.
67. West, K., Hotchin, V., & Wood, C. (2017). Imagined contact can be more effective for participants with stronger initial prejudices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 282–292.
68. Yahya, A. H., & Sukmayadi, V. (2020). A review of cognitive dissonance theory and its relevance to current social issues. MIMBAR: Jurnal Sosial Dan Pembangunan, 36(2), 480-488.
69. Yıldırımalp, S., İslamoğlu, E., & İyem, C. (2017). A research on the social acceptance and adaptation process of Syrian asylum seekers. Bilgi Journal of Social Sciences, (2), 107-126.
70. Yiğitoğlu, G. T., & Vural, B. K. (2019). Determining the social distance and anxiety of the society about asylum seekers. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 11(18), 1941-1969.
71. Zheng, J. K., & Zhang, Q. (2016). Priming effect of computer game violence on children's aggression levels. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 44(10), 1747-1759.