PDF(1607 KB)
PDF(1607 KB)
PDF(1607 KB)
整合威胁研究:学术脉络、理论意涵及其在跨文化传播中的应用
Integrated Threat Theory: Academic Evolution, Theoretical Implications and its Application in Intercultural Communication
偏见于人与生俱来亦无处不在,是跨文化研究的经典议题。但传统的心理学、社会学等研究范式取径单一,缺乏统合性的理论视角和模型指标。整合威胁理论沿袭了社会认同论、现实群体冲突论与象征种族主义对偏见的系统性探索,将对威胁的关注提升至偏见研究的中心地位,搭建起从多元前因到偏见后果的流程链路。研究以此出发,挖掘整合威胁研究的学术脉络、廓清理论体系,尝试在文化差异、群际关系、多元文明与边缘群体等维度将该理论应用于跨文化传播中来,以解构、重构核心议题,从而为穿越地方性文化场景探索文化偏见之源、理解多文明政治与跨文化交往的现实逻辑提供可扩展的方向。
The existence of prejudice in human beings is innate and ubiquitous, making it a classic topic of cross-cultural research. However, the conventional research paradigms in fields like psychology and sociology have tended to take a narrow approach, lacking a unifying theoretical perspective and comprehensive indicator models. Integrated threat theory builds upon the systematic exploration of prejudice by social identity theory, realistic group conflict theory and symbolic racism, elevates the focus on threat to the central position of prejudice research, and sets up a process path from multiple antecedents to the consequences of prejudice. Starting from this, the research delves into the academic context of integrated threat theory and elucidates its theoretical framework, trying to apply this theory to intercultural communication in the dimensions of cultural differences, intergroup relations, diversified civilization and marginal groups, so as to deconstruct and reconstruct the core issues. Thus, it provides an expandable direction for exploring the origins of cultural prejudice in navigating local cultural scenes and comprehending the reality logic of multicultural politics and cross-cultural interactions.
偏见 / 感知威胁 / 整合威胁论 / 跨文化传播 / 文化差异
Prejudice / perceived threat / integrated threat theory / intercultural communication / cultural difference
| [1] |
安东尼·吉登斯(2007/2012). 全球时代的民族国家(郭忠华,何莉君译).载郭忠华(主编),《全球时代的民族国家:吉登斯讲演录》(第3-20页). 南京: 江苏人民出版社.
|
| [2] |
陈薇(2022). “对话的对话”与再思理解的可能性:跨文化传播的诠释之维. 《南京社会科学》,(8),96-104.
|
| [3] |
戴维·莫利(2006/2010). 《传媒、现代性和科技——“新”的地理学》(郭大为译). 北京: 中国传媒大学出版社.
|
| [4] |
弗朗西斯·培根(1620/1986). 《新工具》(许宝骙译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
|
| [5] |
戈登·奥尔波特(1954/2020). 《偏见的本质》(凌晨译). 北京: 九州出版社.
|
| [6] |
汉斯-格奥尔格·伽达默尔(1986/1999). 《真理与方法——哲学诠释学的基本特征》(洪汉鼎译). 上海: 上海译文出版社.
|
| [7] |
雷蒙·潘尼卡(1999/2001). 《宗教内对话》(王志成,思竹译). 北京: 宗教文化出版社.
|
| [8] |
鲁珀特·布朗(2010/2021). 《偏见》(张彦彦译). 北京: 中国人民大学出版社.
|
| [9] |
罗洛·梅(1977/2010). 《焦虑的意义》(朱侃如译). 桂林: 广西师范大学出版社.
|
| [10] |
齐格蒙特·鲍曼(1991/2003). 《现代性与矛盾性》(邵迎生译). 北京: 商务印书馆.
|
| [11] |
塞缪尔·亨廷顿(1996/2010). 《文明的冲突》(周琪等译). 北京: 新华出版社.
|
| [12] |
斯图亚特·霍尔, 托尼·杰斐逊(主编)(1975/2015). 《通过仪式抵抗:战后英国的青年亚文化》(孟登迎,胡疆锋,王蕙译). 北京: 中国青年出版社.
|
| [13] |
汤一介(2004). “文明的冲突”与“文明的共存”. 《北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(6),7-15.
|
| [14] |
乌尔里希·贝克(2004/2008). 《世界主义的观点:战争即和平》(杨祖群译). 上海: 华东师范大学出版社.
|
| [15] |
吴飞(2019). 共情传播的理论基础与实践路径探索. 《新闻与传播研究》,(5),59-76.
|
| [16] |
许靖(2010). 《偏见心理学》. 北京: 北京理工大学出版社.
|
| [17] |
张隆溪(2014). 《阐释学与跨文化研究》. 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店.
|
| [18] |
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
This paper addresses the question of interaction between home and international students using qualitative data from 100 home students at two ‘teaching intensive’ universities in the southwest of England. Stephan and Stephan's Integrated Threat Theory is used to analyse the data, finding evidence for all four types of threat that they predict when outgroups interact. It is found that home students perceive threats to their academic success and group identity from the presence of international students on the campus and in the classroom. These are linked to anxieties around ‘mindful’ forms of interaction and a taboo around the discussion of difference, leading to a ‘passive xenophobia’ for the majority. The paper concludes that Integrated Threat Theory is a useful tool in critiquing the ‘internationalisation at home’ agenda, making suggestions for policies and practices that may alleviate perceived threats, thereby improving the quality and outcomes of intercultural interaction.
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
Two studies examined intergroup schadenfreude--malicious pleasure at an out-group's misfortune. Study 1 showed that schadenfreude regarding a German loss in soccer was increased by interest in soccer and threats of Dutch inferiority. The effect of inferiority threat was especially strong for participants less interested in soccer; the more interested showed relatively high schadenfreude. Study 2 replicated these effects by showing a similar pattern of schadenfreude regarding losses by Germany and Italy in another setting. However, schadenfreude toward legitimately superior Italy was lower when a norm of honest and direct expression was made salient to participants lower in soccer interest. These results establish schadenfreude as an emotion that is moderated by the salient dimensions of particular intergroup relations.
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
|
| [56] |
|
| [57] |
|
| [58] |
An integrated threat theory composed of four variables was used to predict attitudes toward immigrant groups in Spain and Israel. The four threats are symbolic threats based on value differences between groups; realistic threats to the power, resources, and well-being of the in-group; anxiety concerning social interaction with out-group members; and feelings of threat arising from negative stereotypes of the out-group. All four threats were significant predictors of attitudes toward one or more of the immigrant groups. It was predicted, and found, that intergroup anxiety and negative stereotypes were more powerful and consistent predictors of prejudicial attitudes toward immigrants than were realistic threats or symbolic threats. The implications of the theory for the causes and reduction of prejudice were discussed.
|
| [59] |
|
| [60] |
|
| [61] |
|
| [62] |
|
| [63] |
|
| [64] |
|
| [65] |
|
| [66] |
|
| [67] |
|
1. 华中科技大学新闻与信息传播学院硕士研究生丁宇梁、管天浩参与了本研究部分文献的收集和整理。
2. 整合威胁研究的前导模型和理论假设要追溯至20世纪80年代,例如“无知-偏见”因果模型(1984年)、群际焦虑模型(1985年)等对于最终模型的提出有着重大贡献。斯蒂芬团队在1998年的研究中首次使用“integrated threat theory”表述,并于2000年首次发表ITT模型,后经数论修订逐步完善。基于研究主旨和字数所限,本文仅详细介绍几次重大修订,示意
3. 该图基于斯蒂芬2000年提出的ITT模型绘制。该模型通过对美国移民、西班牙和以色列移民、不同性别群体、平权行动受益者、卢旺达难民等展开的实证研究来验证威胁的四种基本类型,但对于威胁前因的分类并未予以验证。原模型对于后果“偏见”的表述为“态度”(attitudes),为便于理解,本研究结合原文意思略作修改。
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |