Türkiye’deki Suriyeli Mültecilere Yönelik Tutumların Değişkenliği Üzerine Deneysel Bir Çalışma

Öz

120 üniversite öğrencisi üzerinde anket deneyi kullanarak gerçekleştirdiğimiz çalışmamızın iki temel amacı bulunmaktadır. Birincisi, öğrencilerin Suriyeli mültecilere karşı önyargı düzeylerinin, empati ya da tehdit uyandıran durumların sunulduğu farklı deney koşullarında değişip değişmediğini ortaya çıkarmaktır. İkincisi ise, algılanan tehdit ve bireysel farklılık değişkeni olan otoriterlik kavramı arasındaki etkileşimi gözlemlemektir. Elde ettiğimiz ampirik bulgular empati uyandıran manipülasyonun öğrencilerin Suriyeli mültecilere karşı olan önyargı düzeylerini azalttığını göstermektedir. İkinci bulgu ise tehdit algısını arttıran metinleri okuyan öğrencilerin Suriyeli mültecilere karşı daha yüksek önyargı ile yaklaştıklarını göstermektedir. Son olarak, kişilerin otoriter kişilik eğilimlerinin önyargı düzeyleri üzerinde anlamlı bir etki yaratmasını beklememize rağmen, mevcut bulgularımız bu beklentimizi desteklememektedir. Başka bir deyişle tehdit algısını tetikleyen metinler düşük otoriterlik düzeyine sahip olan öğrencilerin önyargılarını artırırken, yüksek otoriterlik kişiliğine sahip olan öğrenciler üzerinde anlamlı bir etki yaratmamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Suriyeli mülteciler
• göç
• empati
• tehdit
• otoriter kişilik

An Experimental Study on the Variation of the Attitudes towards the Syrian Refugees in Turkey

Öz

By conducting a survey experiment on 120 university students in Turkey, this study has two objectives. First, we aim to find out how -and to what extent- students' levels of prejudice towards the Syrian refugees differ when the refugees are depicted in either empathy or threat-evoking conditions. Second, we try to show the interaction between personal dispositions (authoritarianism) and situational factors (threat evoking condition) and their explanatory power on the students’ prejudice towards the Syrian refugees in Turkey. Our empirical results show that empathy-evoking manipulation makes individuals less prejudiced towards the Syrian refugees. Our second finding asserts that the students who read the threat-evoking text display a higher level of prejudice towards the Syrian refugees. Finally, although we anticipated that authoritarianism displays a significant main effect on the prejudice levels, the current results did not validate this hypothesis. In other words, the empirical results show that there is a significant negative interaction effect between the threat-evoking stimulus and authoritarianism on the students’ level of prejudice. That is to say, threat-evoking text displayed a significant impact for respondents who had lower scores than the mean level of authoritarianism; and in turn, although these people were the less authoritarians, they had a greater level of prejudice, after they read the text, compared to ones in the neutral condition.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Syrian refugees
• threat
• empathy
• migration

Kaynakça

1. References Akrami, N., & Ekehammar, B. (2006). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, their roots in big-five personality factors and facets. Journal of Individual Differences, 27(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001.27.3.xxx
2. Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B., Bergh, R., Dahlstrand, E., & Malmsten, S. (2009). Prejudice: The Person in the situation. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(5), 890–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.007
3. Allport G. W. (1955). The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge: MA: Perseus Books.
4. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The Authoritarian Specter. London: Harvard University Press.
5. Altemeyer, (2004). The other “authoritarian personality”. In J. T. Jost & J. Sidanius (Eds), Political Psychology: Key Readings (pp. 109-140). New York: Psychology Press Taylor & Francis.
6. Altemeyer, B. (2006). The Authoritarians. Retrieved from https://theauthoritarians.org/Downloads/TheAuthoritarians.pdf
7. ASAM- Association for Solidarity with Asylum Seekers and Migrants. (2011). Askıdaki Yaşamlar ve Algıdaki Yaşamlar Projesi Araştırma Raporu. Ankara: Atik Matbaacılık. Retreived From http://sgdd.org.tr/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Askidaki_Yasamlar_Algidaki_Yasamlar.pdf
8. Bahns, A. J. (2017). Threat as a justification of prejudice. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 20(1), 52–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215591042

9. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1(1), 3-7.
11. Brown, R. (2010). Prejudice Its Social Psychology. Oxford: Willey Blackwell.
12. Choma, B. L. & Hodson, G. (2008). And so the pendulum swings: A framework for conceptualizing the causes of prejudice. In M. A. Morrison & T. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Psychology of Modern Prejudice (pp. 1-26). New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
13. Cohrs, J. C., & Ibler, S. (2009). Authoritarianism, threat, and prejudice: An analysis of mediation and moderation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 81–94.
14. Crowson, H. M. (2009). Predicting perceptions of symbolic and realistic threat from terrorists: The role of right-wing Authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Individual Differences Research, 7 (2), 113-118.
15. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113-126.
16. Dimitrova, D. V., Ozdora-Aksak, E., & Connolly-Ahern, C. (2018). On the Border of the Syrian Refugee Crisis: Views from Two
17. Different Cultural Perspectives. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(4), 532–546. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218756920
18. Doğanay, Ü., & Çoban Keneş, H. (2016). Yazılı Basında Suriyeli ‘Mülteciler’: Ayrımcı Söylemlerin Rasyonel ve Duygusal Gerekçelerinin İnşası. Mülkiye Dergisi, 40(1), 143–184.
19. Dovidio, J. F., ten Vergert, M., Stewart, T. L., Gaertner, S. L., Johnson, J. D., Esses, V. M., Riek, B. M., & Pearson, A. R. (2004). Perspective and prejudice: Antecedents and mediating mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1537-1549.
20. Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 33 (p. 41–113). Academic Press.
21. Duckitt, J. (2006). Differential effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 684–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284282
22. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010a). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1861–1894. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x
23. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010b). Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Differentially Moderate Intergroup Effects on Prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 24, 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.772
24. Efe, İ. (2015). Türk basınında Surı̇yelı̇ sığınmacılar. Retrieved from SETA - Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Toplum Araştırmaları Vakfı: http://file.setav.org/Files/Pdf/20151225180911_turk-basininda-suriyeli-siginmacilar-pdf.pdf
25. Eisenberg, N. (1991). Values, sympathy, and individual differences: toward a pluralism of factors influencing altruism and empathy. Psychological Inquiry, 2, 128-131.
26. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Schaller, M., Carlo, G., & Miller, R. A. (1991). The relations of parental characteristics and practices to children’s vicarious emotional responding. Child Development, 62, 1393–1408.
27. Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big Five personality, Social Dominance Orientation, or Right-Wing Authoritarianism? European Journal of Personality, 18(6), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.526
28. Erdoğan, M. M. (2014). Syrians in Turkey: Social Acceptance and Integration Research. Retrieved from http://fs.hacettepe.edu.tr/hugo/dosyalar/TurkiyedekiSuriyeliler-Syrians in Turkey-Rapor-TR-EN-19022015.pdf
29. Göktuna-Yaylacı, F., & Karakus, M. (2015). Perceptions and newspaper coverage of Syrian refugees in Turkey. Migration Letters, 12(3), 238.
30. Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does social dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 697–721.
31. Heaven, P. C. L., & St. Quintin, D. (2003). Personality factors predict racial prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(4), 625–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00046-6
32. Hetherington, M. J., & Suhay, E. (2011). Authoritarianism, threat, and Americans’ support for the war on terror. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 546–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00514.x
33. Hodson, G. (2009). The puzzling person–situation schism in prejudice research. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 247–248. International Crisis Group. (2018). Turkeys Syrian Refugees: Defusing Metropolitan Tensions. Retrieved from https://d2071andvip0wj.cloudfront.net/248-turkey-s-syrian-refugees.pdf
34. IPSOS. (2016). Global Views on Immigration and the Refugee Crisis. Retereived from https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/migrations/en-uk/files/Assets/Docs/Polls/ipsos-global-advisor-immigration-and-refugees-2016-charts.pdf
35. Katz, I. (1991). Gordon Allport's The Nature of Prejudice. Political Psychology, 12(1), 125-157.
36. Levin, S., Pratto, F., Matthews, M., Sidanius, J., & Kteily, N. (2013). A dual process approach to understanding prejudice toward Americans in Lebanon: An extension to intergroup threat perceptions and emotions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16(2), 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212443866
37. McFarland, S. (2010). Authoritarianism, Social Dominance, and Other Roots of Generalized Prejudice. Political Psychology, 31(3), 453–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00765.
38. Miklikowska, M. (2017). Empathy trumps prejudice: The longitudinal relation between empathy and anti-immigrant attitudes in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 1–15.
39. Oytun, O. (2014). Suriye’ye Komşu Ülkelerde Suriyeli Mültecilerin Durumu: Bulgular, Sonuçlar ve Öneriler (189). Retereived from Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Studies- ORSAM Website: https://www.orsam.org.tr//d_hbanaliz/201452_189tur.pdf
40. Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25(1), 57–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250106
41. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934.
42. Pettigrew, T. F. (2018). The Emergence of Contextual Social Psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(7), 963–971. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218756033
43. Qullian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population Composition and Anti- Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Association, 60(4), 586–611.
44. Shih, M., Wang, E., Trahan Bucher, A., & Stotzer, R. (2009). Perspective Taking: Reducing Prejudice Towards General Outgroups and Specific Individuals. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(5), 565–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209337463
45. Staats, S., Long, L., Manulik, K., & Kelley, P. (2006). Situated empathy: variations Associated with target gender across situations. Social Behavior and Personality, 34(4), 431–442.
46. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W (1996). Predicting prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(3/4), 409-426.
47. Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(11), 2221–2237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00107.x
48. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), "The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology" Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23-45). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
49. Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threats in intergroup relations. In D. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions (pp. 191 208). New York: Psychology Press.
50. The German Marshall Fund of the United States. (2015). Turkish Perceptions Survey. Washington. Retrieved from http://www.gmfus.org/listings/research/type/publication
51. The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNCHR). (2018a) Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/syria-emergency.html 2018
52. The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNCHR). (2018b) Retrieved from https://data2.unhcr.org/en/situations/syria
53. Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (2005). Authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: Relationships with various forms of racism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2323−2344.
54. Wagner, U., van Dick, R., Pettigrew, T. F., & Christ, O. (2003). Ethnic Prejudice in East and West Germany: The Explanatory Power of Intergroup Contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430203006001010