pod red. Zygmunta Gostkowskiego http://hdl.handle.net/11089/2789 2026-04-15T03:20:19Z 2026-04-15T03:20:19Z Lutyńska, Krystyna http://hdl.handle.net/11089/3811 2018-02-01T11:18:45Z 1989-01-01T00:00:00Z

Niektóre społeczne uwarunkowania stereotypu chłopa wśród łódzkich robotników Lutyńska, Krystyna The main hypothesis was that the forming of stereotypes is strongly influenced – apart from other factors – by certain biographical traits. Analysed were relationships between the valence of the stereotype of a peasant and such traits as the social background (father’s occupation), possessing a family and acquaintances in the country, and “contacts with the country”. It was found that such relationships existed – as evidenced by a much higher percentage of persons having the positive stereotype of a peasant among the respondents who were children of peasants and/or had “contacts with the country” – than among those whose parents were not peasants and/or who did not have families in the country and/or did not, keep “contacts with the country” (the respective percentages were: 68%, as against 56%, 67%, as against 48%, and 70%, as against 48%). It was also found that certain circumstances, such as helping in the agricultural work in the country (e.g. in the harvest) contributed to the formation of the positive stereotype of a peasant (72% of persons had such a stereotype among those “helping in the agricultural work” as against only 66% among those “not helping”). Other circumstances, though, such as helping peasants in settling different kinds of business in the city (particularly in the sale of meat) were favouring the formation of a negative stereotype (34% of persons had such a stereotype among those “helping peasants in the city” as against only 9% ' , among those “not helping”). Studied was also the influence of respondents’ opinions about “where the life is better – in the country or in the town”. Among 116 persons, 45% replied that the life was “much better” in the country and 26% thought that it was only “a little better”. (The rest gave other replies). There was a relationship between the kind of opinion concerning the degree of “superiority” of the country life and the kind of the stereotype of a peasant; there was also a relationship between having “contacts with the country” and the opinion that the country life was a “little better” on the one hand, and between lack of such contacts and the opinion that the country life was “much better”, on the other. The highest percent of persons with a negative stereotype of a peasant (52%) was found among those respondents who showed a cumulation of two factors: the lack of contacts with the country, and the conviction that the country life was “much better” (among these persons the number of those with a positive stereotype was lowest as it amounted to 36% only). Similarly, the highest per cent of persons having the positive stereotype (83%) appeared in another category of respondents, viz. among those who also showed the cumulation of two factors: “contacts with the country” and the conviction that the country life was only “a little better” (only 6% of them had a negative stereotype). So, “contacts with the country” or the lack of such contacts influence the emergence of a stereotype of an appropriate valence in an indirect manner, i.e. through eliciting – or not eliciting – an opinion about the degree of superiority of the country life – which opinion contains, less or more jealousy of peasants’ “richness”. Respondents substantiated their opinion about the superiority of country life by pointing to the following circumstances: peasants have their own flats, luxury objects, property, they are independent, and privileged; their work is nowadays quite easy, they sell food illegally and at very high prices and live in comfort. It was found that there existed weak relationships between some of these categories of substantiation and the valence of the stereotype of a peasant.

1989-01-01T00:00:00Z Daniłowicz, Paweł http://hdl.handle.net/11089/3810 2018-02-01T11:18:44Z 1989-01-01T00:00:00Z

Dwie procedury badania stereotypu Daniłowicz, Paweł The study deals with the comparison of the results obtained by means of the open procedure with those obtained using the closed one. Both procedures were used in the research of stereotypes of a typical representative of each of three occupational groups: peasants, clerks and workmen. The open procedure consisted in asking respondents an open-ended question which set them the task to enumerate the traits of a typical X (a peasant, a clerk, a workman). The closed procedure consisted in the application of 30 bipolar scales by means of which the respondents indicated the intensity of traits attributed to a typical X. The combination of the results was done by elaborating the replies to the open-ended question on the basis of the traits used in the bipolar scales. In using these traits as categories of the coding key for structuring the spontaneous utterances of respondents, one applied the principle of synonymity. In this manner obtained were 76 categories of traits, of which 60 were the traits taken from the bipolar scales – 16 categories of traits being the new ones in relation to the scales. Respondents whose replies contained the traits belonging to these 16 categories were excluded from the analysis. The purpose of the comparison was to establish concordance versus discordance of the results obtained by means of two research procedures. The results of the application of two procedures were considered concordant when a given respondent in his reply to the closed question (i.e. on the scale) indicated such an intensity of the trait given by him earlier in his reply to the open question, which did not altered the meaning of that trait. All the remaining results were considered discordant. Discordances are a complex category and among them were distinguished two kinds: contradictions and inadequacies. As contradictions were regarded those cases in which a respondent, after having given in his reply to the open-ended question a certain trait, indicated such an intensity of it on the scale as to alter its meaning. Discordances called inadequacies were those cases in which a respondent ascribed the value zero on the scale to the trait given in his reply to the open-ended question. The unit of analysis in the study was a relation, within the pair of traits, between the trait given by the respondent in his reply to the open-ended question and the one ascertained on the basis of the closed question (on the scale). This approach made it possible to construct a typology of respondents in respect of the relations between traits. Most numerous were respondents in whose replies all traits were concordant (61% as regards the stereotype of a peasant, 39% of a clerk and 64% of a workman); respondents whose replies contained both concordant and discordant traits constituted 27% (stereotype of a peasant), 32% (stereotype of a clerk) and 21% (stereotype of a workman); among such respondents most frequently only one trait was discordant. The third type of respondents were those in whose replies all traits were discordant; they constituted 12%, 23% and 12% for, respectively, stereotypes of a peasant, a clerk and a workman. Further analysis concerning the set of traits showed that with the increase of the number of traits enumerated by respondents there increased the number of cases of concordance. Analysed were also the relationship between the valence of traits and their discordance; it turned out that discordance was related with negative traits, i.e. respondents who mentioned negative traits in reply to the open-ended question, in their next reply to the question with scales most frequently “retracted” them; the contrary cases being very rare.

1989-01-01T00:00:00Z Sztabiński, Franciszek Sztabiński, Paweł B. http://hdl.handle.net/11089/3803 2018-02-01T11:18:43Z 1989-01-01T00:00:00Z

Podział na „swoich” i „obcych”. Analiza kategoryzacji społecznych funkcjonujących wśród robotników Sztabiński, Franciszek; Sztabiński, Paweł B. The study deals with further deepened analyses being a continuation of those undertaken in the previous one. In the previous study stereotypes of particular groups were considered in isolation from each other; in the present one the unit of analysis is the stereotype of a workman in comparison with the stereotypes of a peasant and of a clerk. In the interpretation of results of these analyses exploited was the conception of social categorization developed by H. Tajfel. According to this conception the categories distinguished by every individual in order to structure the social milieu have an evaluative nature. To one’s own category attaches a positive evaluation whilst all other categories are discriminated against. Comparison of the stereotypes of a peasant, a clerk and a workman ascertained on the basis of graphical scales has revealed a surprising absence of inter-group discrimination. Among nearly 75% of respondents (workmen) there appeared, together with a positive evaluation of own group, the same positive evaluation of peasants, and/or clerks. Three possible explanations of this phenomenon come to mind: first, the adopted criterion of recognizing certain beliefs as stereotypes was too loose; second, the lack of discrimination resulted from deficiency of the research procedure; third, the conception of H. Tajfel was not confirmed in our research results. These three possibilities are discussed in the study. As regards the first possibility, one should keep in mind that it is not so that every belief to which may be assigned the plus or minus sign (i.e. the value of the synthetic index of valence different from zero) is a stereotype. Very weak beliefs cannot fulfill the social functions of stereotypes as described in scientific literature. Therefore, in further analyses such weak beliefs were considered as ambivalent ones, i.e. such in which the positive and negative traits indicated by a respondent are in equilibrium. The comparison of the stereotypes of a peasant, a clerk and a workman after introduction of this rectification revealed a considerable increase of the cases of discrimination on the part of workmen against the two remaining groups. This shows that recognizing weak beliefs as stereotypes has actually contributed to the “dilution” of the emerging tendencies – but only to a certain degree as still nearly 60% of respondents having a positive stereotype of a workman had also a positive stereotype of at least one group. The next possibility to explain the phenomenon in question was to ascribe it to the deficiency of the applied research procedure. Its analysis showed that the division of society into peasants, clerks and workmen introduced at the beginning of the questionnaire was not presented as the only possible and exhaustive social categorization in a given situation; besides, this division was not consistently applied in the course of the whole interview. Therefore it seems justified to think that most of the respondents adopted their own categorization which partly overlapped with that presented in the research. The group with which such respondents might have identified themselves would then have embraced, in addition to workmen, also peasants and/or clerks. In order to verify this hypothesis full sets of the traits assigned by respondents to peasants, clerks and workmen were compared (this was the third possible explanation of the lack of inter-group discrimination). If the people belonging to two or more from among the groups distinguished in our research were actually treated as one group, then according to Tajfel’s conception, they should be perceived as similar to each other. The results of this comparison corroborated the hypothesis. When the group of workmen as well as that of peasants and/or clerks were evaluated positively there appeared much overlapping of the traits assigned to them; but if the positive evaluation related to the group of workmen only and the negative one to peasants and/or clerks, then the cases of overlapping were very few. This meant that the groups whose evaluation was negative, were treated as out-groups. So, inter-group discrimination did appear in our research but it could be observed only after reconstruction of those social categorizations which were actually adopted by the respondents. Further evidence of validity of this conclusion was provided by the comparison of social images of own group with those of out-groups: there appeared always an over-evaluation of the former group (regardless of whether included into it were only workmen or, at the same time, also peasants or/and clerks) and-a discrimination accompanied by depreciation (negative evaluation) or without depreciation (ambivalent evaluation) in relation to tie out-group members. Analysis of the content of social images or stereotypes of the groups distinguished by respondents was not considered advisable as the assignment to a given group, of certain traits composing its stereotype serves only the purpose of manifesting one’s attitude toward it. So, though on the basis of any set of traits it is possible to identity an attitude of a given person toward this group – it is not possible to ascertain that it is only these traits that determine this attitude in an exhaustive manner. No finite set of traits exhausts the full content of a stereotype. Analyses done so far enable one to present social categorizations adopted by respondents in our research. The most frequent was the categorization in which as “own group” was treated the group embracing workmen, peasants and clerks – whilst as a depreciated out-group was seen some other group difficult to identify; perhaps it was a question of the division between “people living by their labor” and “loafers” or the like. Other most frequent categorization consisted in the division between the workmen as an in-group and the peasants and clerks as out-groups with depreciation of the latter or without it (when accentuation of the distinctness of own group was limited to its over-evaluation). The analyses presented in the study show that social stereotypes should not be seen in isolation from social categorizations and apart from the feeling of social identity of respondents. One must not assume that respondents – workmen, identify themselves always with workmen and always treat other groups as out-groups. It is possible to impose on them exactly such a categorization (or nearly any other one) but in that case it should be clearly introduced and be present in the course of the whole interview. In the contrary case the categorizations adopted by respondents can by only reconstructed ex post.

1989-01-01T00:00:00Z Wejland, Andrzej Paweł http://hdl.handle.net/11089/3795 2018-02-01T11:18:43Z 1989-01-01T00:00:00Z

Stereotyp grupy zawodowej. Analiza odpowiedzi na pytania otwarte o jej typowego przedstawiciela Wejland, Andrzej Paweł Stereotypes, as a particular kind of beliefs involved in a system of perception by people of e.g. occupational groups, have their formal shape and their content, The form of a stereotype is determined in linguistic expression first of all by the name, which relates to a certain group and evokes – once it is used – particular cognitive associations; besides, the name suggests positive or negative attitude toward the group, etc. A number of names relating to the same group – but evoking various, cognitive associations or having a different emotional aura – constitute the nominational frame of a stereotype. The form of a stereotype is also composed of a predication matrix by means of which to the group are assigned various traits. Such a matrix may embrace different modifiers (including quantifiers) — but as a rule, the linguistic expression of a stereotype is deprived of them (the phenomenon of ellipticity). Various names and various predication matrices may appear in different formal combinations. The content of a stereotype is made up of the traits assigned to a given group. In respect of its content a stereotype may be more or less complex which means that the number of traits making it may be smaller or greater. A comparison of the stereotypes of different groups makes it possible to reveal the traits that are common and those which are different. Certain traits may relate to the same aspect of life and work of these groups, others may constitute oppositions, etc. Moreover, the traits may appear in various combinations filling in linguistic forms of different kinds. The study presents the form and the content of the stereotypes of three occupational groups: peasants, clerks and workmen. The stereotypes of each of these groups were revealed in an interview by means of an open-ended question concerning a typical representative of the group. In describing peculiarities of form and content of these stereotypes particular consideration was given to the degree to which their formal properties and the traits making their content were widespread socially, i.e. to what extent there appeared social regularities in the perception of peasants, clerks and workmen as occupational groups. Taken up was the question whether the stereotypes, of peasants, clerks and workmen – considered as wholes in respect of form and content – are widespread socially to such an extent that it is justified to treat them as social stereotypes. Analysed were so-called social images of the groups, i.e. the images obtained by studying and interpreting the frequency lists of the traits. Criticized were those approaches which present the study of social images as the study of social stereotypes. Another question raised in the study was whether the stereotypes with the properties assumed when using open-ended questions about a typical representative do actually exhaust socially relevant ways of a stereotyped perception of occupational groups of peasants, clerks and workmen. In this connection, the “stereotyped thinking” was related with the perception of inter-group relationships so that the appearance of stereotypes was linked with the phenomenon of identification with particular occupational groups.

1989-01-01T00:00:00Z