Charakterpathologie – Persönlichkeitsorganisationen – Strukturniveaus

Following the recent development of special treatment for people with defective ego structures, the diagnosis of ego structures has become highly relevant. Four models, developed during the last 40 years for the differentiation of particular levels of the ego structure are presented: the classification of character pathology (Kernberg 1966), the personality organisations (Kernberg 1977 and 1996), the structure axis of the OPD (Operationalized Psychodynamic Diagnosis 1996) and the personality organisations of the STIPO (2006). Because the levels of character pathology, the personality organisations as well as the structural levels of the OPD are widely used and the last two often even in parallel, it is worthwhile comparing them concerning their strengths, weaknesses and compatibility. It turns out that especially the categories between the neurotic and the borderline personality organisation (Kernberg 1977) show significant differences. The fact that the OPD as well as the STIPO pay much more attention to these levels as the models of personality organisations also do, is to be considered because of its great clinical significance as an advantageous innovation. In addition, both instruments offer the possibility to assign different structural levels to particular dimensions and, due to their operationalization, assure comparability and allow change measurement.     

The Burdens of Love

While we primarily love individual persons, we also love our work, our homes, our activities and causes. To love is to be engaged in an active concern for the objective well-being—the thriving—of whom and what we love. True love mandates discovering in what that well-being consists and to be engaged in the details of promoting it. Since our loves are diverse, we are often conflicted about the priorities among the obligations they bring. Loving requires constant contextual improvisatory adjustment of priorities among our commitments. Besides delighting in—and being enhanced by—the presence and existence of another person (a place, an institution, profession), love requires extended reflection and work.     

How planning facilitates behaviour change: Additive and interactive effects of a randomized controlled trial

Planning interventions have proven effective to change behaviour. However, less is known about their underlying mechanisms. To better understand the processes by which planning interventions unfold their effects, a combined action planning and coping planning intervention was tested in a field setting, with the focus on mediating and moderating effects of theory‐derived social‐cognitive variables. In a randomized controlled trial, 374 employees of a logistics company were asked to participate in either a combined action planning and coping planning intervention or an active control group. Four weeks later, self‐reported changes in fruit and vegetable intake, action planning, coping planning, intentions and self‐efficacy were measured. Single and simultaneous mediating effects on behaviour were tested with intention‐to‐treat analyses, along with interaction effects between planning processes. Action planning and coping planning mediated intervention effects on fruit and vegetable intake not only separately, but also simultaneously (multiple mediation). Action planning and coping planning had main and interactive effects on behaviour change (moderation). Action planning and coping planning may exert both additive and synergistic effects on health behaviour change. Volitional interventions should include both action planning and coping planning components and stimulate the use of planning in everyday life. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

We all live in Germany but … Ingroup projection,group‐based emotions and prejudice against immigrants

Immigration, cultural diversity and integration are among the most central challenges for modern societies. Integration is often impeded by negative emotions and prejudices held by the majority members towards immigrants in a common society. Based on the ingroup projection model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999), we examined the impact of perceived relative ingroup prototypicality on intergroup emotions and prejudice. Additionally, we examined whether this impact is causal and explored the issue of causality in more detail contrasting a linear causal model with bi‐directional or reciprocal causality. Hypotheses were tested in a study with a two‐wave panel of majority members (N=1085) in Germany. We examined the proposed relations between relative ingroup prototypicality, intergroup emotions and prejudice and determined the causal direction of these relationships. Results support the predictive power of relative ingroup prototypicality on intergroup emotions and prejudice. Moreover, most causal relations between our measures are reciprocally causal. We discuss the implications of these findings for the general conception of prejudice and intergroup emotions. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Less negative=more positive? Social discrimination as avoidance or approach

A motivational approach to ingroup favoritism based on regulatory focus theory (RFT; Higgins, 1997) is introduced. RFT suggests that individual self-regulation is either more concerned with approaching positive events (promotion focus) or with avoiding negative events (prevention focus). It is suggested that if an individual self-categorizes as a group member, resource allocations to one’s group will be based on these mechanisms of self-regulation. Thus, a promotion focus should engender ingroup favoritism during the distribution of positive resources but not during the distribution of negative resources, whereas a prevention focus should engender ingroup favoritism for negative but not for positive resources. The results of two studies support this prediction based on momentary and chronic regulatory focus. The self-regulation approach to ingroup favoritism provides an explanation for social discrimination in the distribution of positive and negative resources.     

The judgement of behaviour as aggressive and sanctionable

The influence of the factors norm deviation, intent, and injury, on the judgement of a critical act as aggressive and sanctionable was tested using a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design. Scenarios depicting aggressive interactions represented the experimental conditions. 859 school children rated these scenarios on bipolar rating scales. The results show that norm deviation, intent, and injury, are important criteria for the interpretation of aggressive behaviour. Judging an action as sanctionable proved to be more sensitive for the variation of factors than the interpretation of behaviour as aggressive. In addition, an analysis of how the scenarios representing the experimental conditions were subjectively interpreted by the subjects was carried out. This showed that all combinations of the three definition criteria are psychologically meaningful. However, preferences were observed for specific interpretation patterns.     

For better or for worse: the congruence of personal and group outcomes on targets' responses to discrimination

This paper reports two studies examining how (in‐) congruence between personal and group outcomes affects emotional well‐being, outcome attributions and procedural justice perceptions of individuals who are exposed to subtle discrimination. In Study 1 (N = 82) participants are either accepted or rejected in a (bogus) job application procedure, and either do or do not receive additional information indicating group‐level disadvantage. In Study 2 (N = 79), participants were either accepted or rejected, and received information indicating either advantage or disadvantage for members of their group. Results of both studies reveal that not only emotional well‐being and outcome attributions, but also procedural justice perceptions are primarily guided by personal outcomes. That is, being informed of group‐level disadvantage does not intensify but can instead alleviate negative affect resulting from personal rejection. Furthermore, group disadvantage is only seen as an indicator of an unjust procedure by individual group members who have personally suffered rejection. Results are discussed in relation to current insights on discrimination, tokenism and social justice. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The relationship between acculturation preferences and prejudice: Longitudinal evidence from majority and minority groups in three European countries

A longitudinal field survey tested the reciprocal effects of acculturation preferences and prejudice among ethnic minorities and majorities. Data were collected at two points in time from 512 members of ethnic minorities and 1143 majority members in Germany, Belgium and England. Path analyses yielded not only the lagged effects of prejudice on acculturation preferences but also the reverse for both majority and minority members. The mutual longitudinal effects between prejudice and desire for culture maintenance were negative, and the mutual effects between prejudice and desire for culture adoption were positive for majority members. The reverse was the case for minority participants. Moreover, the two acculturation dimensions interacted in their effect on prejudice for majority participants but not for minority participants. The effect of desire for culture adoption on prejudice was moderated by perceived intergroup similarity. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When different means bad or merely worse. How minimal and maximal goals affect ingroup projection and outgroup attitudes

Group members tend to perceive their ingroup relative to an outgroup as more prototypical for a common superordinate group because they project features of their ingroup onto the superordinate group. As a consequence, the ingroup is perceived as more positive than the outgroup (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999). We extend the ingroup projection model by examining different types of ingroup goals: minimal and maximal goals as well as actual and ideal goals. Minimal goals should engender either‐or thinking and lead to more ingroup projection compared with maximal goals that should involve more nuanced thinking. Ingroup prototypicality in terms of ideal goals (e.g., what we ideally should strive for) was expected to show a stronger relation to outgroup attitudes than ingroup prototypicality in terms of actual goals (e.g., what we are actually striving for). We manipulated minimal and maximal goal orientation and assessed actual and ideal goals. Across two studies, relative ingroup prototypicality was higher in the minimal compared with the maximal goal condition. Moreover, ingroup prototypicality referring to ideal goals showed a stronger relation to outgroup evaluation than ingroup prototypicality referring to actual goals. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.