Refine
Year of publication
- 2022 (4) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- hate speech (3)
- Hatespeech (2)
- Intervention (2)
- Kindes- und Jugendalter (2)
- Prävention (2)
- Schule (2)
- childhood and adolescence (2)
- intervention (2)
- prevention (2)
- school (2)
Institute
Der vorliegende Beitrag informiert über 14 deutschsprachige Programme zur Prävention und Intervention bei Hatespeech unter Kindern und Jugendlichen (Jahrgangsstufen 5–12). Inhalte und Durchführungsmodalitäten der Programme sowie Ergebnisse einer kriteriengeleiteten Qualitätseinschätzung anhand von fünf Kriterien werden im Hinblick auf deren Anwendung in der schulischen Praxis beschrieben und erörtert. Der Überblick über Schwerpunkte, Stärken und Entwicklungspotentiale schulbezogener Hatespeech-Programme ermöglicht Leser*innen eine informierte Entscheidung über den Einsatz der Programme in der Schule sowie in der offenen Kinder- und Jugendarbeit.
Der vorliegende Beitrag informiert über 14 deutschsprachige Programme zur Prävention und Intervention bei Hatespeech unter Kindern und Jugendlichen (Jahrgangsstufen 5–12). Inhalte und Durchführungsmodalitäten der Programme sowie Ergebnisse einer kriteriengeleiteten Qualitätseinschätzung anhand von fünf Kriterien werden im Hinblick auf deren Anwendung in der schulischen Praxis beschrieben und erörtert. Der Überblick über Schwerpunkte, Stärken und Entwicklungspotentiale schulbezogener Hatespeech-Programme ermöglicht Leser*innen eine informierte Entscheidung über den Einsatz der Programme in der Schule sowie in der offenen Kinder- und Jugendarbeit.
Little is known about the current state of research on the involvement of young people in hate speech. Thus, this systematic review presents findings on a) the prevalence of hate speech among children and adolescents and on hate speech definitions that guide prevalence assessments for this population; and b) the theoretical and empirical overlap of hate speech with related concepts. This review was guided by the Cochrane approach. To be included, publications were required to deal with real-life experiences of hate speech, to provide empirical data on prevalence for samples aged 5 to 21 years and they had to be published in academic formats. Included publications were full-text coded using two raters (kappa = .80) and their quality was assessed. The string-guided electronic search (ERIC, SocInfo, Psycinfo, Psyndex) yielded 1,850 publications. Eighteen publications based on 10 studies met the inclusion criteria and their findings were systematized. Twelve publications were of medium quality due to minor deficiencies in their theoretical or methodological foundations. All studies used samples of adolescents and none of younger children. Nine out of 10 studies applied quantitative methodologies. Eighteen publications based on 10 studies were included. Results showed that frequencies for hate speech exposure were higher than those related to victimization and perpetration. Definitions of hate speech and assessment instruments were heterogeneous. Empirical evidence for an often theorized overlap between hate speech and bullying was found. The paper concludes by presenting a definition of hate speech, including implications for practice, policy, and research.
Hate speech has become a widespread phenomenon, however, it remains largely unclear why adolescents engage in it and which factors are associated with their motivations for perpetrating hate speech. To this end, we developed the multidimensional "Motivations for Hate Speech Perpetration Scale" (MHATE) and evaluated the psychometric properties. We also explored the associations between social norms and adolescents' motivations for hate speech perpetration. The sample consisted of 346 adolescents from Switzerland (54.6% boys; Mage=14; SD=0.96) who reported engagement in hate speech as perpetrators. The analyses revealed good psychometric properties for the MHATE, including good internal consistency. The most frequently endorsed subscale was revenge, followed by ideology, group conformity, status enhancement, exhilaration, and power. The results also showed that descriptive norms and peer pressure were related to a wide range of different motivations for perpetrating hate speech. Injunctive norms, however, were only associated with power. In conclusion, findings indicate that hate speech fulfills various functions. We argue that knowing the specific motivations that underlie hate speech could help us derive individually tailored prevention strategies (e.g., anger management, promoting an inclusive classroom climate). Furthermore, we suggest that practitioners working in the field of hate speech prevention give special attention to social norms surrounding adolescents.