@misc{SeewannVerwiebe2020,
  author    = {Seewann, Lena and Verwiebe, Roland},
  title     = {How do people interpret the value concept?},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {4},
  issn      = {1867-5808},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-51584},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-515843},
  pages     = {16},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Value research has a long and extensive history of theoretical definitions and empirical investigations using large scale quantitative surveys. However, the way the general population understands, defines, and relates to the concept of values, and how these views vary across individuals is seldom addressed. The present study examined subjective interpretations of the term through focus group interviews, and reports on the development of a Value Conceptualisation Scale (VCS) that distinguishes six dimensions of different views on values: normativity, relevance, validity, stability, consistency, and awareness. Focus group interviews (n = 38) as well as several surveys (n = 100, n = 1519, n = 903, n = 94) were used to develop, refine, and test the scale in terms of response variety, temporal stability, as well as convergent and discriminant validity. These systematic results show that views on values do indeed vary significantly between participants. Correlations with dogmatism, preference for consistency, and metacognition were found for corresponding dimensions. The VCS provides an original measure, which enables future research to explore this variation on the conceptualisation of values.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{WrightWachs2018,
  author    = {Wright, Michelle F. and Wachs, Sebastian},
  title     = {Does parental mediation moderate the longitudinal association among bystanders and perpetrators and victims of cyberbullying?},
  series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Humanwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {679},
  issn      = {1866-8364},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-47230},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-472303},
  pages     = {12},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {The purpose of the present study was to examine the moderation of parental mediation in the longitudinal association between being a bystander of cyberbullying and cyberbullying perpetration and cyberbullying victimization. Participants were 1067 7th and 8th graders between 12 and 15 years old (51\% female) from six middle schools in predominantly middle-class neighborhoods in the Midwestern United States. Increases in being bystanders of cyberbullying was related positively to restrictive and instructive parental mediation. Restrictive parental mediation was related positively to Time 2 (T2) cyberbullying victimization, while instructive parental mediation was negatively related to T2 cyberbullying perpetration and victimization. Restrictive parental mediation was a moderator in the association between bystanders of cyberbullying and T2 cyberbullying victimization. Increases in restrictive parental mediation strengthened the positive relationship between these variables. In addition, instructive mediation moderated the association between bystanders of cyberbullying and T2 cyberbullying victimization such that increases in this form of parental mediation strategy weakened the association between bystanders of cyberbullying and T2 cyberbullying victimization. The current findings indicate a need for parents to be aware of how they can impact adolescents' involvement in cyberbullying as bullies and victims. In addition, greater attention should be given to developing parental intervention programs that focus on the role of parents in helping to mitigate adolescents' likelihood of cyberbullying involvement.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{KhalilKohlerTjaden2022,
  author    = {Khalil, Samir and Kohler, Ulrich and Tjaden, Jasper Dag},
  title     = {Is There a Rural Penalty in Language Acquisition? Evidence From Germany's Refugee Allocation Policy},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  publisher = {Universit{\"a}tsverlag Potsdam},
  address   = {Potsdam},
  issn      = {1867-5808},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-56626},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-566264},
  pages     = {1 -- 11},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Emerging evidence has highlighted the important role of local contexts for integration trajectories of asylum seekers and refugees. Germany's policy of randomly allocating asylum seekers across Germany may advantage some and disadvantage others in terms of opportunities for equal participation in society. This study explores the question whether asylum seekers that have been allocated to rural areas experience disadvantages in terms of language acquisition compared to those allocated to urban areas. We derive testable assumptions using a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) which are then tested using large-N survey data (IAB-BAMF-SOEP refugee survey). We find that living in a rural area has no negative total effect on language skills. Further the findings suggest that the "null effect" is the result of two processes which offset each other: while asylum seekers in rural areas have slightly lower access for formal, federally organized language courses, they have more regular exposure to German speakers.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{HarkHackmannWolffetal.2023,
  author    = {Hark, Sabine and Hackmann, Nina and Wolff, Christina and Voigt, Anna and Krall, Lisa and Niehus-Kettler, Melinda and Barry, C{\´e}line and Malmedie, Lydia and Rain Hornstein, Ren{\´e} and Giesche-von R{\"u}den, Doro and Beck, Florian and Busch-Geertsema, Max and von R{\"o}mer, Jasper and Sch{\"u}tze, Christin and Rothermel, Ann-Kathrin and Lembke, Ulrike and Tischbirek, Alexander and G{\"o}tschel, Helene and H{\"u}hne, RyLee},
  title     = {Geschlechter in Un-Ordnung},
  editor    = {Hackmann, Nina and Shirchinbal, Dulguun and Wolff, Christina},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-59994},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-599948},
  pages     = {234},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Wie blicken verschiedene Wissenschaftsdisziplinen (auch intersektional) auf trans, inter und nicht-bin{\"a}re (TIN) Subjektpositionen jenseits der zweigeschlechtlichen Norm und Devianzen heterosexueller Lebensweisen? Wie werden Geschlechtervielfalt und Geschlechterrollen(-bilder) in zivilgesellschaftlichen Einrichtungen thematisiert? Die Autor*innen er{\"o}rtern hochaktuelle gesellschaftliche, rechtliche und alltagspraktische Diskurse und Forderungen: Unter anderem werden die {\"A}nderung des Personenstandsgesetzes, das geplante Selbstbestimmungsrecht, geschlechtergerechte Sprache und die Idee der „TINklusiven" Universit{\"a}t behandelt. Der erste Teil der Anthologie bietet theoretische Auseinandersetzungen {\"u}ber Wechselwirkungen zwischen Gesellschaft und Geschlechterkonstruktionen. Der zweite Teil wendet sich den praktischen Handlungsfeldern und institutionellen Bew{\"a}ltigungsstrategien zu, mit in denen bin{\"a}r strukturierte Organisationen und Instanzen realer Geschlechtervielfalt begegnen und intentional oder unbeabsichtigt Zweigeschlechtlichkeit und Heteronormativit{\"a}t (re-)produzieren bzw. dekonstruieren. Auch m{\"o}gliche Verst{\"a}rkungen anderer Diskriminierungsformen durch Othering-Prozesse im Genderdiskurs werden thematisiert. Im dritten und letzten Teil werden hochschulpolitische Spielr{\"a}ume anhand verfassungsrechtlicher Pr{\"u}fung und digitaler Handlungsoptionen ausgelotet.},
  language  = {de}
}