Postrzeganie kryzysu w 1984 r. przez łódzkich robotników a stereotypy chłopa, urzędnika i robotnika
MetadataShow full item record
The main problem taken up in the study was the relationship between the valence of stereotypes of these groups and the opinions concerning their roles in the crisis (their responsibility for its emergence and for the crisis stagnation in 1984) as well as their material situation. The hypothesis was that there existed a relationship between positive opinions about a given group and its positive stereotype and between negative opinions and a negative stereotype. In most cases this hypothesis was corroborated. There appeared, however, differences in the strength of the relationship as measured by the average intensity of the stereotype valence and by Goodman-Kruskal τ as well as in its direction depending on which group the opinion related to and which stereotype was considered. So, with regard to the opinions concerning the responsibility for emergence of the crisis, in all three cases the percentage of persons with a positive stereotype of a given group was much higher among those who thought that this group “did not contribute at all” to the emergence of the crisis than among those who thought that it contributed very considerably. The differences were the greatest with regard to the stereotypes of a workman and a peasant (respectively 31 and 30 percentage points) and the smallest with regard to the stereotype of a clerk (22 percentage points). As regards the opinions about who at present contributes most to the deepening of the crisis or to the crisis stagnation – also among the persons who thought that these three groups did not contribute to it at all the percent of those having positive stereotypes was the highest. The greatest differences between those who completely exculpated a given group and those who considered it most guilty in this respect appeared with regard to the stereotypes of a workman and a peasant (over 40 percentage points) and the smallest with regard to the stereotype of a clerk (only 10 percentage points). There was also a relationship between positive opinions about material situation of peasants and clerks in the crisis (“their living conditions are bad or very bad”) and positive stereotypes as well as between negative opinions (“their living conditions are very good or good”) and negative stereotypes (the differences in percentage points amounted to over 30). The opinions about the role and material situation in the crisis of peasants, clerks and workmen were also considered in the context of opinions on the same subject with regard to 6 other socio-occupational groups. It was found that most often charged by respondents with the crisis and its continuation were “people from the government” and “experts and directors”; less often were held responsible for it the journalists, engineers and so-called private enterprise people. Least often accused were clerks, peasants and workmen. These three occupational groups were seen as one big group of “plain folk who are not responsible for anything because they did hot know anything and were only working” – although there appeared among them clear differences between clerks and peasants in favour of the latter who were seen as producers of food. However, in respect of the material situation during the crisis, peasants were included together with “the people from the government”, directors and private enterprise people into one big group whose living conditions “are very good” or “good” and who for that reason stir up envy and dislike. Such opinions about peasants were, expressed by 90% of respondents and about workmen by only 12%.