Journalartikel

Jahr der Veröffentlichung: 2017

Seiten: 337-360

Zeitschrift: KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie

Bandnummer: 69

ISSN: 0023-2653

eISSN: 1861-891X

DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0467-9

Verlag: Springer

Abstract: 
Due to their focus on variable-oriented comparisons and large-N samples, survey methods are prone to lack information on the context-specific, practical meaning of measured constructs. This issue is explicated via the concept of "ecological validity". A sequential quantitative-qualitative mixed-methods-study on anti-American prejudice in Germany is presented to demonstrate how semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 22) can compensate for lacking ecological validity in standardized prejudice measurements (CATI-survey, n = 808, summer 2011). Qualitative analyses provide context-sensitive insight into the rhetorical functions of anti-American speech. They are used to generate explanatory hypotheses for correlations between anti-American, anti-Semitic, and racist prejudice in the survey data. This complementarity of research methods is closely connected to an enhanced theoretical perspective: The combination of attitude-based and speech-act-theoretical concepts of prejudice helps to increase construct validity in the example study.

Harvard-Zitierstil: Knappertsbusch, F. (2017) Ecological validity through mixed-methods-designs Qualitative interviews as a complement to standardized measures of prejudice, KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 69, pp. 337-360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0467-9

APA-Zitierstil: Knappertsbusch, F. (2017). Ecological validity through mixed-methods-designs Qualitative interviews as a complement to standardized measures of prejudice. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. 69, 337-360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0467-9