Session 7 - Our target theory / NetLogo presentation

We get introduced to our target theory / Showcase the Buri ABM

1 Overview

Topic	Duration	Notes
Wrap-up: Netlogo implementations	60
Lecture: TCM: Concrete steps	30	Slides
Workshop: Introduce and discuss our target theory with a researcher	90
Workshop: Decide upon sub-topics, form new working groups, make a plan	30
Homework:	-

2 Introduce and discuss our target theory with a researcher

• Which are the sources: The chapter + meta-analysis from 2014 + additional literature research.

• Which phenomena are robust and central to your own research? Which are of secondary importance?

• Shall we formalize the narrative theory (regardless of the empirical evidence –> “only positive contact”) or should we start with the robust phenomena only?

  • Wollen wir eine Formalisierung der narrartiven Theorie?
  • Wollen wir ausgehend von den Phänomenen unsere eigene erklärende Theorie entwickeln?
  • Oder “Kompromiss”: Wir nehmen schon den Kern der Theorie als Basis, und fokussieren uns aber nur auf die Aspekte, die empirische Evidenz haben

• Theory vs. Hypotheses: Is this just a reformulation of a phenomenon?

• Task: Starting from the robust phenomena: Develop an alternative theory (by abduction) that explains the phenomena equally well! (And maybe more parsimonious, more plausible)

3 Decide upon sub-topics, form new working groups, make a plan

1. Task 1: Identify relevant phenomena
2. Formulate a prototheory: Create a VAST display
3. Develop a formal model:
   • Develop a Bischof control system display
   • Implement in a programming language
4. Check the adequacy of the formal model
   • Do sensitivity analyses etc.
5. Evaluate the overall worth of the constructed theory

Date	Session	Tasks
8.12.	Decide phenomena and process variables
15.12.	Formalization with VAST	Prüfungsleistung klären
22.12	online session? (Decide on 15.12.)
12.1.	Second session with researcher	Questions & Clarifications
19.1.	(work on theory without Felix)
26.1.
2.2.	(work on theory without Felix)
??.2.	Final presentation of model(s)

4 Homework

• none -

5 Notes from session:

6 Imagined Intergroup Contact Hypothesis

• Is it a Theory or a Hypothesis?
• No explicit, unified definition; multiple paraphrases

Two core concepts: 1. mental simulation / imagination 2. It is about positive contact (“under certain conditions”)

6.1 Typical DVs:

• Tolerance
  • Attitudes (explicitly and implicitly measured)
  • self-efficacy
• Engagement
  • Behavior(al intentions)
  • Approach tendencies

6.2 Affective and cognitive processes (within the “organism” box)

• affective: anxiety, trust
• cognitive: behavioural script availability

6.3 Antecedents

Aspects that moderate the phenomenon. - task-focused - Elaboration - perceptual focus - perspective taken - typicality of outgroup member - perceiver-focused - prior contact - majority / minority status of outgroup in relation to ingroup (?) - identification (salience of ingroup membership)

6.4 Evidence - which phenomena are robust?

• Depends on type of outgroup, in interaction with the strength of one’s own identification strength with the ingroup
• The valence of imagined actually makes no difference

6.5 New Hypotheses

• The distance between in- and outgroup (e.g. age categories, distance between countries) moderates the effect.
• Prejudice could be defined as “invalid and negative assumptions about other groups”. Contact make the assumptions more valid and more positive.
• Wenn Null vorheriger Kontakt, was soll man dann imaginieren?
  • Empiri zeigt: Effekt ist stärker, wenn kein vorheriger Kontakt da war.

6.6 Feedback

• The differentiation between antecedents and processes is not really clear - “elaboration” could also be a process variable.
  • Antecedents are typically moderators, processes are mediators.
  • Which of the two mediator paths (a or b) are moderated by antecedents? –> most/all probably on (a) path (between intervention and process)
  • Antecedents are also related to who receives treatment

7 What are robust phenomena

• Nationality und age für starke outgroup Effekte
• Wichtige Moderatorvariablen
  • Vorheriger Kontakt ist empirisch wichtig
  • Valence of imagined contact: Zeigt sich empirisch überraschender Weise nicht!
• Was ist die DV (die ja der Output unseres Modells sein wird)
  • Im Kern der ursprünglichen Hypothese liegt die outgroup perception (welche ein Oberbegriff von “Einstellung” und/oder die “Vorurteile” ist (Einstellungen werden als Proxy für Vorurteile genommen)
• Erst die Prozessvariablen machen aus der Hypothese eine Erklärung. Aber die Erklärung ist recht unterspezifiziert: was genau heißt “die Einstellung ändert sich” - was genau? Die Valenz? Der Inhalt? die gefühlte Distanz zur outgroup.
  • Ängste reduzieren.
  • Das ist nicht in der Meta-Analyse

Theorie ist agnostisch was die Art der Outgroup betrifft - die Theorie sagt für alle gleichermaßen den Effekt voraus. (Ein möglicher Moderator wäre die Identifikationsstärke mit der Ingroup)

Scope: Wo beginnt/endet unser Modell? Bei der Verhaltensintention, oder bei echtem Verhalten?

8 Entscheidung

• Valenz der Imaginationsübung als Moderator
• Affektive Prozesse als Mediator
• Outcome: Approach tendencies