Search

The present work investigates whether the assumed religious background of a perpetrator in a carried out (Study 1) and attempted mass shooting (Study 2) influences attribution of the crime to mental health problems or terrorist motives as well as to evaluation of appropriate punishment. In two experimental studies (n = 113 and n = 340) participants were confronted with a scenario depicting an (attempted) mass shooting that was either carried out by a perpetrator with a German or an Arabic/Muslim name. Results indicate that compared to a perpetrator with a German name, a shooting carried out by a perpetrator with an Arabic/Muslim name led to increased attributions to a terrorist motive and fewer attributions to mental health problems. Moreover, in Study 2, this attribution pattern was accompanied by increased punitiveness. The findings are discussed against the background of previous work showing comparable results as well as practical implications.

This research was partly supported by a senior postdoctoral research grant from the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO) awarded to Jasper VanAssche (FWO.3E0.2021.0085.01) under the supervision of Arne Roets. Data collection for the South African studies was supported by the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, for which the authors thank Steve Vertovec. This research was also funded by grants from the NORFACE ERA NET Plus Migration in Europe program, TheLeverhulme Trust, and the Central Community Relations Unit. Intergroup contact provides a reliable means of reducing prejudice. Yet, critics suggested that its efficacy is undermined, even eliminated, under certain conditions. Specifically, contact may be ineffective in the face of threat, especially to (historically) advantaged groups, and discrimination, experienced especially by (historically) disadvantaged groups. We considered perceived intergroup threat and perceived discrimination as potential moderators of the effect of contact on prejudice. Two meta-analyses of correlational data from 34 studies (totaling 63,945 respondents-drawn from 67 subsamples across 19 countries) showed that contact was associated with decreased prejudice and increased out-group positivity, in cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, among advantaged and disadvantaged group members, and in both Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) and non-WEIRD contexts. Both perceived threat and perceived discrimination moderated the contact-attitude association, but in an unanticipated direction. Indeed, contact's beneficial effects were at least as strong among individuals high (r = .19) as among individuals low (r = .18) in perceived threat. Similarly, the effects of contact were at least as strong among those high (r = .23) as among those low (r = .20) in perceived discrimination. We conclude that contact is effective for promoting tolerant societies because it is effective even among subpopulations where achieving that goal might be most challenging. Postprint

Intergroup contact is an established pathway to improve intergroup relations. Research has long focused on mainly positive intergroup contact and its capability to improve intergroup relations. Yet, if members of different groups meet, they will not only make positive, but possibly also negative intergroup contact experiences. Recent research considering both positive as well as negative intergroup contact has raised concerns about potentially stronger effects of negative compared to positive contact. These new insights and the increasing awareness of potentially detrimental effects of contact could lead to doubts about whether it is always sensible to bring individuals from different groups together. Our article first updates the latest review on joint effects of positive and negative intergroup contact. We find that there is no clear tendency for either positive or negative intergroup contact to yield stronger effects on intergroup relations, and we portray factors that might influence these effects. Such factors—for example an individual's prior experiences—could play a crucial role in defining the relevance of negative contact in everyday settings. We continue by answering calls to increase a more qualitative understanding of what kinds of experiences are seen to be intergroup contact, and where intergroup contact in everyday life is experienced from a lay understanding, with new qualitative data from British White and British Asian individuals. Our results demonstrate that positive as well as negative contact is often rather casual and happens in public spaces and at work. Interventions explicitly addressing these spaces may help to reach more people. We also demonstrate that positive contact is much more frequent than negative contact. This finding is confirmed in the third section, which reviews the relative frequency of positive and negative intergroup contact. Last but not least, we discuss the implications of our review for practitioners and researchers alike.

Modern societies and organisations are becoming increasingly diverse, leading many to argue that diversity should be valued because it can benefit teams, organisations and societies more widely. Co...

Compared to the impressive amount of research on consequences of intergroup contact, relatively little work has been devoted to predictors of intergroup contact. Although opportunities for intergroup contact are constantly growing in modern diverse societies, these contact opportunities are not necessarily exploited. In the present review article, we describe current research on predictors of intergroup contact and drivers of contact seeking on a micro‐, meso‐, and macro‐level. We provide an overview of predictors, while focusing on recent research that is especially relevant for designing interventions and planning social policies aiming at increasing contact between different groups in varied societies. On the micro‐level, we discuss relational self‐expansion motives and confidence in contact as predictors of intergroup contact. On the meso‐level, we focus on the role of intragroup processes and historical intergroup conflicts in facilitating contact. On the macro‐level, we reflect on changing societal norms as a potential tool to increase the frequency intergroup contact. By focusing on the applied value of research findings, discussing diverse predictors, and applying a multilevel approach, we also address recent criticisms of the intergroup contact literature and demonstrate the generative nature of contemporary research in this area.

Additional co-authors: Ivan Ropovik, Balazs Aczel, Lena F. Aeschbach, Luca Andrighetto, Jack D. Arnal, Holly Arrow, Peter Babincak, Bence E. Bakos, Gabriel Banik, Ernest Baskin, Radomir Belopavlovic, Michael H. Bernstein, Michal Bialek, Nicholas G. Bloxsom, Bojana Bodroža, Diane B. V. Bonfiglio, Leanne Boucher, Florian Bruhlmann, Claudia C. Brumbaugh, Erica Casini, Yiling Chen, Carlo Chiorri, William J. Chopik, Oliver Christ, Antonia M. Ciunci, Heather M. Claypool, Sean Coary, Marija V. Cˇolic, W. Matthew Collins, Paul G. Curran, Chris R. Day, Anna Dreber, John E. Edlund, Filipe Falcao, Anna Fedor, Lily Feinberg, Ian R. Ferguson, Maire Ford, Michael C. Frank, Emily Fryberger, Alexander Garinther, Katarzyna Gawryluk, Kayla Ashbaugh, Mauro Giacomantonio, Steffen R. Giessner, Jon E. Grahe, Rosanna E. Guadagno, Ewa Halasa, Rias A. Hilliard, Joachim Huffmeier, Sean Hughes, Katarzyna Idzikowska, Michael Inzlicht, Alan Jern, William Jimenez-Leal, Magnus Johannesson, Jennifer A. Joy-Gaba, Mathias Kauff, Danielle J. Kellier, Grecia Kessinger, Mallory C. Kidwell, Amanda M. Kimbrough, Josiah P. J. King, Vanessa S. Kolb, Sabina Kolodziej, Marton Kovacs, Karolina Krasuska, Sue Kraus, Lacy E. Krueger, Katarzyna Kuchno, Caio Ambrosio Lage, Eleanor V. Langford, Carmel A. Levitan, Tiago Jesse Souza de Lima, Hause Lin, Samuel Lins, Jia E. Loy, Dylan Manfredi, Łukasz Markiewicz, Madhavi Menon, Brett Mercier, Mitchell Metzger, Venus Meyet, Jeremy K. Miller, Andres Montealegre, Don A. Moore, Rafal Muda, Gideon Nave, Austin Lee Nichols, Sarah A. Novak, Christian Nunnally, Ana Orlic, Anna Palinkas, Angelo Panno, Kimberly P. Parks, Ivana Pedovic, Emilian Pekala, Matthew R. Penner, Sebastiaan Pessers, Boban Petrovic, Thomas Pfeiffer, Damian Pienkosz, Emanuele Preti, Danka Puric, Tiago Ramos, Jonathan Ravid, Timothy S. Razza, Katrin Rentzsch, Juliette Richetin, Sean C. Rife, Anna Dalla Rosa, Kaylis Hase Rudy, Janos Salamon, Blair Saunders, Przemyslaw Sawicki, Kathleen Schmidt, Kurt Schuepfer, Thomas Schultze, Stefan Schulz-Hardt, Astrid Schutz, Ani N. Shabazian, Rachel L. Shubella, Adam Siegel, Ruben Silva, Barbara Sioma, Lauren Skorb, Luana Elayne Cunha de Souza, Sara Steegen, L. A. R. Stein, R. Weylin Sternglanz, Darko Stojilovic, Daniel Storage, Gavin Brent Sullivan, Barnabas Szaszi, Peter Szecsi, Orsolya Szoke, Attila Szuts, Manuela Thomae, Natasha D. Tidwell, Carly Tocco, Ann-Kathrin Torka, Francis Tuerlinckx, Wolf Vanpaemel, Leigh Ann Vaughn, Michelangelo Vianello, Domenico Viganola, Maria Vlachou, Ryan J. Walker, Sophia C. Weissgerber, Aaron L. Wichman, Bradford J. Wiggins, Daniel Wolf, Michael J. Wood, David Zealley, Iris Žeželj, Mark Zrubka, and Brian A. Nosek

As part of the Many Labs 5 project, we ran a replication of van Dijk, van Kleef, Steinel, and van Beest’s (2008) study examining the effect of emotions in negotiations. They reported that when the consequences of rejection were low, subjects offered fewer chips to angry bargaining partners than to happy partners. We ran this replication under three protocols: the protocol used in the Reproducibility Project: Psychology, a revised protocol, and an online protocol. The effect averaged one ninth the size of the originally reported effect and was significant only for the revised protocol. However, the difference between the original and revised protocols was not significant.

Beitrag zum Diskussionsforum Integrität und Anreizsysteme in der Wissenschaft der DGPs: Vorschläge für eine familienfreundliche Wissenschaft

This paper reports findings from a crowdsourced replication. Eighty-five independent teams attempted a computational replication of results reported in an original study of policy preferences and immigration by fitting the same statistical models to the same data. The replication involved an experimental condition. Random assignment put participating teams into either the transparent group that received the original study and code, or the opaque group receiving only a methods section, rough results description and no code. The transparent group mostly verified the numerical results of the original study with the same sign and p-value threshold (95.7%), while the opaque group had less success (89.3%). Exact numerical reproductions to the second decimal place were far less common (76.9% and 48.1%), and the number of teams who verified at least 95% of all effects in all models they ran was 79.5% and 65.2% respectively. Therefore, the reliability we quantify depends on how reliability is defined, but most definitions suggest it would take a minimum of three independent replications to achieve reliability. Qualitative investigation of the teams’ workflows reveals many causes of error including mistakes and procedural variations. Although minor error across researchers is not surprising, we show this occurs where it is least expected in the case of computational reproduction. Even when we curate the results to boost ecological validity, the error remains large enough to undermine reliability between researchers to some extent. The presence of inter-researcher variability may explain some of the current “reliability crisis” in the social sciences because it may be undetected in all forms of research involving data analysis. The obvious implication of our study is more transparency. Broader implications are that researcher variability adds an additional meta-source of error that may not derive from conscious measurement or modeling decisions, and that replications cannot alone resolve this type of uncertainty.

We investigated manifestations of ethnic and gender-based prejudice in a rather understudied high-status environment, that is we studied biased ratings of physicians with a migration background and female physicians. In a preregistered, archival study, we analyzed ratings of more than 140,000 physicians on a German rating website for medical professionals. Results indicate that general practitioners (but not dentists or specialists) with non-German names are rated less favorably than general practitioners with German names. This effect did not vary across regional contexts with varying prosperity and diversity. Our analyses also revealed that female physicians are evaluated less positively than male physicians. Contrary to our assumptions, bias against female physicians was especially strong in medical sub-disciplines that are characterized by a high share of female physicians.

Abstract. In this article, we reflect on 50 years of the journal Social Psychology. We interviewed colleagues who have witnessed the history of the journal. Based on these interviews, we identified three crucial periods in Social Psychology’s history, that are (a) the early development and further professionalization of the journal, (b) the reunification of East and West Germany, and (c) the internationalization of the journal and its transformation from the Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie to Social Psychology. We end our reflection with a discussion of changes that occurred during these periods and their implication for the future of our field.

In general, diversity beliefs are beliefs about the instrumentality of diversity for the functioning of groups. Focusing on a societal level, recent social-psychological research addressed pro-diversity beliefs as individuals’ beliefs that diversity is beneficial for the progress of society. Despite the growing interest in societal pro-diversity beliefs, no systematically validated scale measuring pro-diversity beliefs is available to date. We addressed this shortcoming and studied the reliability and validity of the newly developed Pro-Diversity Beliefs Scale (PDBS) across four samples. Results indicate that the PDBS is reliable, adequately distinct from related and established scales, and valid in predicting external criteria such as outgroup attitudes or intergroup threat.

Previous research has shown negative effects of discrimination on ethnic minority members’ health and well-being. In this study, we examined cross-sectional and longitudinal effects of discrimination by members of the police and security personnel over and above other types of discrimination and ethnic victimization on the health of immigrant minority students from three different European countries (N = 4,334 immigrant students from 580 ethnically mixed school classes in Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden). Results indicate that perceptions of ethnic victimization in the school (measured via social network data) as well as three types of discrimination outside school (discrimination in clubs, public transportation as well as by the police and private security) are associated with current and future negative health outcomes (i.e., psychosomatic problems) in immigrant minority students. Among the different types of discrimination, discrimination by the police and private security personnel was most common and had the most negative effect on immigrant minority students’ health. Practical and political implications of our findings as well as differences in discrimination and violence by the police between the US and Europe are discussed.

Instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs (i.e., beliefs that diverse groups outperform homogenous groups in terms of group functioning) have been shown to improve intergroup attitudes. However, such valuing of diversity due to its expected instrumentality holds the risk that outgroups may be devalued in situations when diversity ends up being detrimental to group functioning. Across four experiments, we studied the interplay between instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs, actual instrumentality of ethnic diversity, and outgroup attitudes. Our results do not reveal a robust interaction effect between instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs and actual instrumentality of diverse groups. Some evidence, however, supports the assumption that instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs yielded a weaker positive or even a negative effect on ethnic outgroup attitudes when ethnic diversity was perceived as non-instrumental (i.e., when diversity was perceived as having a negative impact on group functioning). Theoretical contributions, practical implications, and directions for future research are discussed.

As part of the Many Labs 5 project, we ran a replication of Van Dijk, Van Kleef, Steinel, & Van Beest’s (2008) study “A social functional approach to emotions in bargaining: When communicating anger pays and when it backfires,” which examined the effect of emotions in negotiations. Van Dijk et al. (2008) report that when the consequences of rejection were low, subjects offered fewer chips to angry bargaining partners when compared to happy partners. In the current study, we ran this replication under three protocols: the protocol used in the Replication Project (2015), a revised protocol, and an online protocol.

Replications in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If replications use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replications from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) in which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection and only one of which was “statistically significant” (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate (Gilbert et al., 2016). We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replications. We administered the RP:P and Revised protocols in multiple laboratories (Median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5; Range 3 to 9; Median total sample = 1279.5; Range 276 to 3512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, Revised protocols produced similar effect sizes as RP:P protocols following the preregistered analysis plan (Δr = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for Revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than the original studies (r = .37). The cumulative evidence of original study and three replication attempts suggests that effect sizes for all 10 (median r = .07; range .00 to .15) are 78% smaller on average than original findings (median r = .37; range .19 to .50), with very precisely estimated effects.

While some research suggests that ethnic and cultural diversity hinders societal cohesion, other studies show that it promotes intergroup contact opportunities, which, if exploited, help to overcome intergroup prejudice. Recently, however, intergroup contact theory has been criticized for neglecting the wider social context as well as for ignoring potential demobilizing contact effects for minority members. Using two cross-sectional general population surveys (European Social Survey in 22 countries, Swiss MOSAiCH), we address these criticisms by examining whether ethnic majority members' positive contact influences ethnic minority members' support for ingroup rights at the social context level. Applying multilevel path analysis, we show that minority members are more likely to support anti-discrimination laws and immigrant rights when living in social contexts in which majority members have positive intergroup contact experiences. Theoretical and practical implications of our findings are discussed for understanding how minority groups are affected by the climate of the social context they reside in.

In an era of mass migration, social scientists, populist parties and social movements raise concerns over the future of immigration-destination societies. What impacts does this have on policy and social solidarity? Comparative cross-national research, relying mostly on secondary data, has findings in different directions. There is a threat of selective model reporting and lack of replicability. The heterogeneity of countries obscures attempts to clearly define data-generating models. P-hacking and HARKing lurk among standard research practices in this area.This project employs crowdsourcing to address these issues. It draws on replication, deliberation, meta-analysis and harnessing the power of many minds at once. The Crowdsourced Replication Initiative carries two main goals, (a) to better investigate the linkage between immigration and social policy preferences across countries, and (b) to develop crowdsourcing as a social science method. The Executive Report provides short reviews of the area of social policy preferences and immigration, and the methods and impetus behind crowdsourcing plus a description of the entire project. Three main areas of findings will appear in three papers, that are registered as PAPs or in process.

Bringing members of different social groups into contact is thought to be as one of the most promising approaches for improving intergroup relations. Indeed, a plethora of studies has shown that this intergroup contact is an effective means not only to reduce mutual prejudice but also to increase trust and forgiveness. In this chapter, we will first review evidence for the effectiveness of intergroup contact and introduce different forms of intergroup contact – direct (i.e., face-to-face contact) as well as more indirect forms of contact (i.e., extended, vicarious, and imagined contact). We will then discuss moderators (e.g., types of in- and outgroup categorization) and mediators (e.g., intergroup anxiety and empathy) of contact effects as well as potential unintended effects of intergroup contact. Finally, we will summarize research on the effectiveness of intergroup contact interventions and give two examples of such interventions that have been implemented in the context of conflictual intergroup relations (i.e., Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Hutu-Tutsi conflict in Rwanda).

Positive neighborhood norms, such as strong local networks, are critical to people's satisfaction with, perceived disadvantage of, and intentions to stay in their neighborhood. At the same time, local ethnic diversity is said to be detrimental for these community outcomes. Integrating both frameworks, we tested whether the negative consequences of diversity occur even when perceived social norms are positive. Study 1 ( N = 1,760 German adults) showed that perceptions of positive neighborhood norms buffered against the effects of perceived diversity on moving intentions via neighborhood satisfaction and perceived neighborhood disadvantage. Study 2 ( N = 993 Dutch adults) replicated and extended this moderated mediation model using other characteristics of diversity (i.e., objective and estimated minority proportions). Multilevel analyses again revealed consistent buffering effects of positive neighborhood norms. Our findings are discussed in light of the ongoing public and political debate concerning diversity and social and communal life. ispartof: PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN vol:44 issue:5 pages:700-716 ispartof: location:United States status: published

In two studies, we tested the relationship between non-immigrant individuals' perceptions of deviant behavior carried out by Muslims and foreigners and discriminatory intentions towards these outgroups. Based on a longitudinal and a representative cross-sectional sample, we showed that two different types of perceived deviant behavior (Study 1, Muslims' unwillingness to integrate; and Study 2, foreigners' hostility towards the non-immigrant majority group) are related to increased intergroup threat, which in turn is related to increased intentions to show passive discrimination (i.e., avoidance) towards these outgroups. In line with theorizing about an increased sensitivity for threat in authoritarian individuals, the relationship between perceptions of deviant behavior and threat was especially strong among high authoritarian individuals. Theoretical and practical implications of our results are discussed.

Based on two cross-sectional probability samples (Study 1: N = 1,382, Study 2: N = 1,587), we studied the interplay between positive and negative intergroup contact, different types of intergroup emotions (i.e., episodic intergroup emotions encountered during contact and more general chronic intergroup emotions), and outgroup behavior in the context of intergroup relations between non-immigrant Germans and foreigners living in Germany. In Study 1, we showed that positive and negative contact are related to specific episodic intergroup emotions (i.e., anger, fear and happiness). Results of Study 2 indicate an indirect effect of episodic intergroup emotions encountered during contact experiences on specific behavioral tendencies directed at outgroup members via more chronic situation-independent intergroup emotions. As expected, anger predicted approaching (discriminatory) behavioral tendencies (i.e., aggression) while fear predicted avoidance. The results extend the existing literature on intergroup contact and emotions by addressing positive and negative contact simultaneously and differentiating between situation-specific episodic and chronic intergroup emotions in predicting discriminatory behavioral tendencies.

We studied the influence of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) on the relationship between a multicultural ideology and attitudes about ethnic diversity and immigrants. We hypothesized that a multicultural ideology poses a threat to authoritarian individuals, which leads to a decrease in positive diversity beliefs and an increase in prejudice toward immigrants. On the basis of representative survey-data from 23 European countries, we showed that the negative relationship between RWA and positive diversity beliefs was stronger the more a country engages in multiculturalism (Study 1). In addition, in two experiments we demonstrated that RWA moderated the relationship between a video promoting multiculturalism (Study 2) or a picture showing a multicultural group (Study 3) and attitudes toward immigrants and diversity. As expected, for high-RWAs, both stimuli led to an increase in prejudice. In Study 3, perceived threat mediated the relationship between a multicultural norm and prejudice for people high in RWA.

The paper examined the effect of positive beliefs about the value of ethnic diversity (i.e. diversity beliefs) on discrimination due to foreign sounding names. It was hypothesized that pro-diversity beliefs reduce discrimination. Results from two studies (N = 29 and N = 104) confirmed this hypothesis. Practical implications of our results are discussed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Previous findings demonstrate that believing in the value of diverse groups is related to positive attitudes toward immigrants. Based on these results, we hypothesized that pro-diversity beliefs are negatively related to discrimination of immigrants. In a representative multinational survey study (Study 1; N = 6,500), we demonstrate that diversity beliefs of nonimmigrant citizens from seven different European countries are negatively related to their discriminatory behavioral tendencies against immigrants. Moreover, it is revealed that this relationship is mediated by reduced realistic and symbolic threat. These findings are replicated in an experimental study (Study 2; N = 64), which confirms that diversity beliefs causally influence discriminatory behavioral tendencies. However, in the economic context of Study 2, the relationship is mediated by realistic but not by symbolic threat.

Five studies tested whether intergroup contact reduces negative outgroup attitudes through a process of ingroup distancing. Based on the deprovincialization hypothesis and Social Dominance Theory, we hypothesized that the indirect effect of cross-group friendship on outgroup attitudes via reduced ingroup identification is moderated by individuals’ Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), and occurs only for members of high status majority groups. We tested these predictions in three different intergroup contexts, involving conflictual relations between social groups in Germany (Study 1; N = 150; longitudinal Study 2: N = 753), Northern Ireland (Study 3: N = 160; Study 4: N = 1,948), and England (Study 5; N = 594). Cross-group friendship was associated with reduced ingroup identification and the link between reduced ingroup identification and improved outgroup attitudes was moderated by SDO (the indirect effect of cross-group friendship on outgroup attitudes via reduced ingroup only occurred for individuals scoring high, but not low, in SDO). Although there was a consistent moderating effect of SDO in high-status majority groups (Studies 1–5), but not low-status minority groups (Studies 3, 4, and 5), the interaction by SDO was not reliably stronger in high- than low-status groups. Findings are discussed in terms of better understanding deprovincialization effects of contact.

Ethnic diversity poses a threat to authoritarians, as it indicates non-conformism to group norms and poses a threat to group conformity. According to authoritarian dynamic theory, threats elicit authoritarian reactions in people with authoritarian predispositions. In the present article we tested a mediation model derived from authoritarian dynamic theory in a sample of 171 students. As expected, authoritarian predisposition negatively predicted diversity beliefs. This effect was fully mediated by an authoritarian manifestation, that is, authoritarian aggression. The two other components of right-wing authoritarianism, authoritarian submission and conventionalism, did not mediate the effect. Results confirm contemporary research on authoritarianism and the differentiation of authoritarian predispositions and its manifestations.

Science and politics are complicatedly related. Here, we will analyse the relationship of social sciences and politics. We will confine ourselves to those cases where science is used to help politics to realise its goals. Adopting from Popper (1935) and Campbell (1969), we will describe a normative model of evidence based policies: PETER – a model of mutual influences and dependencies of Politics, Evidence, Treatment, Evaluation, and Responsibility. The chapter ends with a sketch on the needed competencies to make the model work – the model PETER-S.