Changing "us" and hostility towards "them"-Implicit theories of national identity determine prejudice and participation rates in an anti-immigrant petition

National identity definitions determine who belongs to the national ingroup (e.g., “us Germans”) versus the “foreign” outgroup prone to hostile outgroup bias. We conducted five studies in two countries investigating if viewing the ingroup's national identity as fixed exacerbates the perceived divide between ingroup and outgroup and thus increases anti‐immigrant hostility, while a malleable view blurs the divide and reduces anti‐immigrant hostility. In a Prestudy (58 participants), an Implicit Theory of National Identity Scale was developed. In Studies 1 (154 participants) and 2 (390 participants), our scale predicted individuals’ prejudice and participation rates in a hypothetical referendum and a real petition against immigrants. In Studies 3 (225 participants) and 4 (225 participants), experimental evidence was obtained. Leading participants to believe that the definition of “a true compatriot” changes over time (rather than remaining the same) resulted in lower levels of prejudice and participation rates in an anti‐immigrant petition

Evaluating compulsory minimum volume standards in Germany: how many hospitals were compliant in 2004?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Minimum hospital procedure volumes are discussed as an instrument for quality assurance. In 2004 Germany introduced such annual minimum volumes nationwide on five surgical procedures: kidney, liver, stem cell transplantation, complex oesophageal, and pancreatic interventions. The present investigation is the first part of a study evaluating the effects of these minimum volumes on health care provision. Research questions address how many hospitals and cases were affected by minimum volume regulations in 2004, how affected hospitals were distributed according to minimum volumes, and how many hospitals within the 16 German states complied with the standards set for 2004.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The evaluation is based on the mandatory hospital quality reports for 2004. In the reports, all hospitals are statutorily obliged to state the number of procedures performed for each minimum volume. The data were analyzed descriptively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 2004, 485 out of 1710 German hospitals providing acute care and approximately 0.14% of all hospital cases were affected by minimum volume regulations. Liver, kidney, and stem cell transplantation affected from 23 to hospitals; complex oesophageal and pancreatic interventions affected from 297 to 455 hospitals. The inter-state comparison of the average hospital care area demonstrates large differences between city states and large area states and the eastern and western German states ranging from a minimum 51 km²up to a maximum 23.200 km², varying according to each procedure. A range of 9% – 16% of the transplantation hospitals did not comply with the standards affecting 1% – 2% of the patients whereas 29% and 18% of the hospitals treating complex oesophageal and pancreatic interventions failed the standards affecting 2% – 5% of the prevailing cases.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In 2004, the newly introduced minimum volume regulations affected only up to a quarter of German acute care hospitals and few cases. However, excluding the hospitals not meeting the minimum volume standards from providing the respective procedures deserves considering two aspects: the hospital health care provision concepts by the German states as being responsible and from a patient perspective the geographically equal access to hospital care.</p