Implicit Measures Reveal Evidence of Personal Discrimination

A well-known result, the person–group discrimination discrepancy (PGDD), shows that members of disadvantaged groups believe that other members of their social groups are discriminated against, but that they themselves are not. In this paper, we test whether this explicit self-protective strategy is also obtained on indirect measures of personal discrimination. Three experiments, using both explicit (self-report) and implicit (IAT) measures of discrimination showed that although members of disadvantaged groups do not explicitly report self-discrimination (replicating previous research), they do reveal self-discrimination on the implicit measure. That the PGDD effect is bound to explicit measurement should be recognized both when implementing research protocols and when understanding the effects of discrimination whether it is consciously recognized or not.     

Now you see it, now you don't: explicit versus implicit measures of the personal/group discrimination discrepancy

When making explicit self-report ratings, members of status- and racial-minority groups report less personal experience with discrimination than that encountered by their group—a phenomenon called the personal/group discrimination discrepancy (PGDD). This study provides evidence, for the first time, that the PGDD may be, in part, a product of the procedure used to measure it. White women and men completed explicit and implicit measures of personal and group discrimination based on sex. The PGDD surfaced among women in the explicit measures, but not in the implicit measures. These findings suggest that explicit and implicit measures might provide different assessments of experience with discrimination.     

When do women respond against discrimination? Exploring factors of subtlety,form, and focus

We examined the personal‐group discrimination discrepancy (PGDD), the tendency for women to recognize that others encounter sexism while simultaneously minimizing their own personal experiences with sexism, and the degree to which it (a) applies to all manifestations of discrimination, and (b) extends beyond perceptions of discrimination to taking action against it. Our findings replicated the PGDD when it comes to perceptions of discrimination, but this effect was reversed for behavioral action such that women were more likely to take action against discrimination when it was directed at them personally. We also disentangled the factors of subtlety (subtle vs. overt) and form (formal vs. interpersonal) by showing that women can reliably distinguish between these factors when determining their reactions to discrimination.     

Perceptions of ethnic discrimination by minority and majority early adolescents in the Netherlands

This research investigates perceptions of discrimination among ethnic majority and minority group early adolescents (aged between 10 and 12 years) living in the multi‐ethnic context of the Netherlands. In two studies (N = 679 and N = 2630), personal and group discrimination was examined in terms of name‐calling and social exclusion, and in relation to ethnic identity and family allocentrism. All early adolescents reported more group than personal discrimination. The personal‐group discrimination discrepancy (PGDD) was found independently of ethnic group, gender, allocentrism, and ethnic identity. Hence, the PGDD seems a more general phenomenon that already exists among early adolescents and across different domains. However, minority group participants perceived far more discrimination overall than majority group early adolescents, and the Turkish participants reported more discrimination than the Moroccan and Surinamese early adolescents. Furthermore, family allocentrism was positively related to perceived discrimination among all ethnic groups in Study 2 and among the Dutch in Study 1. In agreement with ethnic identity development models, strength of ethnic identity was not related to perceived discrimination. Ethnic identity was, however, positively related to allocentrism. In both studies, ethnic minority group participants had higher scores for allocentrism and for ethnic identity than majority group participants. In addition, boys had stronger ethnic identity than girls and ethnic identity was negatively associated with perceived discrimination for the boys but not for the girls. It is concluded that in order to understand early adolescents' perception of discrimination it is necessary to pay attention to basic (cognitive) tendencies that cross ethnic lines, to cultural and status differences between the majority group and ethnic minorities as a category and between ethnic minority groups, and to within‐group differences or individual level variables.     

The Personal/Group Discrimination Discrepancy: Women Talk About Their Experiences1

Participants in research on discrimination consistently rate discrimination directed at their group higher than at themselves personally as a member of that group. In order to examine this personal/group discrimination discrepancy, women were asked to spontaneously verbalize their thoughts as they made ratings for personal and group discrimination on 11-point scales. In Study 1, university women who raised a greater number of life domains for group discrimination than for personal discrimination showed a larger personal/group discrimination discrepancy because of lower ratings for personal discrimination. An analysis of participants' protocols revealed that many attended to different domains when rating personal and group discrimination, and that these participants showed a larger personal/group discrimination discrepancy because of lower ratings for personal discrimination. Participants' ratings for group discrimination did not differ as a function of the number or content of the domains. The findings were replicated in Study 2 with working women, and are identified as two contributing factors to the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. The societal implications of the results are discussed in terms of the tendency for disadvantaged group members to downplay their personal experience with discrimination because it does not fit the stereotype of what is being experienced by the group.     

Social Identity, Modern Sexism, and Perceptions of Personal and Group Discrimination by Women and Men

Perceptions of gender-related discrimination against the self and group were examined in women and men, with a focus on the predictive utility of modern sexism and 3 dimensions of social identification (ingroup ties, centrality, and ingroup affect). Questionnaires were completed by 321 undergraduates (206 women and 115 men), of whom 78% self-identified as White and 10% as Asian. Higher levels of personal and group discrimination tended to be perceived by high-neosexism men and low-neosexism women. The centrality of gender identification was positively related to men's personal-level perceptions of discrimination, whereas effects of the emotional facets of social identity—ingroup ties and ingroup affect—occurred jointly with both gender and modern sexism. The results are discussed with reference to social identity theory and the personal/group discrimination discrepancy.     

Self-Esteem, Discrimination, and Coping Among Refugees: The Moderating Role of Self-Categorization

The present study examines the relationship between the personal self and ethnic identity among Iranian refugees living in the Netherlands. The extent to which participants considered themselves to be typical members of their ethnic minority group moderated the relationship between (a) personal self-esteem and ethnic self-esteem; (b) perceived personal discrimination and group discrimination; and (c) ethnic self-esteem and the use of emotion-focused and problem-focused strategies for coping with discrimination. Participants who saw themselves as typical Iranians showed a stronger association between personal and ethnic self-esteem, less personal/group discrimination discrepancy, and a relationship between ethnic self-esteem and coping with discrimination. In addition, participants favored problem-focused coping over emotion-focused coping, and perceived greater group discrimination than personal discrimination overall.     

Self-esteem, construal, and comparisons with the self, friends, and peers

Extending the better than average effect, 3 studies examined self-, friend, and peer comparisons of personal attributes. Participants rated themselves as better off than friends, who they rated as superior to generalized peers. The exception was in direct comparisons, where the self and friends were not strongly differentiated on unambiguous negative attributes. Self-esteem and construal played moderating roles, with persons with high self-esteem (HSEs) exploiting both ambiguous positive and ambiguous negative traits to favor themselves. Persons lower in self-esteem exploited ambiguous positive traits in their favor but did not exploit ambiguous negative traits. Across self-esteem level, ratings of friends versus peers were exaggerated when attributes were ambiguous. HSEs seemed to take advantage of ambiguity more consistently to present favorable self-views; people with low self-esteem used ambiguity to favor their friends but were reluctant to minimize their own faults.     

Is the Positive Illusory Bias Illusory? Examining Discrepant Self-Perceptions of Competence in Girls with ADHD

It has been claimed that excessively positive self-perceptions of competence are a key risk factor for concurrent and subsequent impairments in youth with attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We examined whether girls with ADHD demonstrate positive illusory self-perceptions in scholastic competence, social acceptance, and behavioral conduct domains. We then tested, across a five-year longitudinal span, whether (a) such self-perceptions versus (b) the constituent informant ratings or test scores were more strongly predictive of adolescent impairment and positive adjustment. Participants included an ethnically diverse sample of 140 girls with ADHD and 88 comparison girls, aged 6-12 at baseline (M?=?9.0, SD?=?1.7). Girls with ADHD rated themselves as more positive than indicated by external ratings, but these self-reports were still in a negative direction (comparison girls rated themselves as less positive than these indicators). ADHD subtypes were not related to discrepancy scores. Higher rates of depression symptoms were associated with attenuated discrepancy scores. Crucially, measures of actual competence were more strongly associated with adolescent impairment and positive adjustment than were "illusory" self-perceptions for girls with ADHD. Our findings challenge the view that, at least in girls with ADHD, overly positive and "illusory" appraisals of competence are strongly associated with future impairment and adjustment. The key psychometric point is that, in difference or discrepancy scores, the individual components of such scores should be separately examined.     

Justice Beliefs,Personal Well-Being and Harsh Social Attitudes: Initial Demonstration of a Polynomial Regression and Response Surface Methodology

Tendencies to believe in justice are multidimensional and include beliefs that the world is fair to one’s self (personal justice beliefs) as well as to others (general justice beliefs). Previous research suggests that personal and general justice beliefs are divergently linked to well-being and harsh social attitudes, respectively. However, whether and how these justice tendencies conjointly affect well-being and harsh social attitudes is less well known. Guided by equity theory, the current study used polynomial regression and surface response methodology to demonstrate how specific discrepancies between justice beliefs for self and others predict personal well-being and harsh social attitudes. Participants (N?=?1079) completed measures of tendencies to believe in personal and general justice, as well as measures of physical symptoms associated with illness and attitudes towards the poor. Results suggested that discrepancy between personal and general justice beliefs had detrimental effects on these outcomes (i.e., higher number of illness symptoms and harsher attitudes towards the poor). Moreover, discrepancy resulting from a strong belief in general justice and a weak belief in personal justice (i.e., other-favorable discrepancy) was more strongly negatively associated with well-being and positively associated with harsh attitudes towards the poor than discrepancy resulting from a strong personal justice belief and a weak general justice belief (i.e., self-favorable discrepancy). The current research highlights the potential for personal and general justice beliefs to conjointly predict well-being and social attitudes, while simultaneously demonstrating the capacity to better understand these interactive relationships through the use of surface response methodology.     

Self-Perceived Gender Typicality, Gender-Typed Attributes, and Gender Stereotype Endorsement in Elementary-School-Aged Children

This study examined relations among self-perceived gender typicality, gender-typed attributes, and gender stereotype endorsement with a sample of elementary-school-aged children (N?=?100, ages 6–12) from the Midwestern United States. Children who perceived themselves as more gender-typical were more interested in same-gender-typed activities and occupations and less interested in other-gender-typed activities and occupations than children who perceived themselves as less gender-typical. Gender typicality was linked to gender stereotype endorsement, as predicted based on Liben and Bigler’s (2002) dual-pathway model of gender development, with children who perceived themselves as less gender-typical having more egalitarian (less stereotyped) attitudes than children who perceived themselves as more gender-typical. The observed relations between gender-typed attributes and self-perceived gender typicality and between self-perceived gender typicality and gender stereotype endorsement did not differ across gender or age. These findings indicate that even young elementary-school-aged children use their knowledge of cultural gender roles to make subjective judgments regarding the self, and, conversely, that views of the self may influence personal endorsement of cultural gender stereotypes. Although the majority of extant research has focused on negative outcomes associated with low self-perceived gender typicality (e.g., low self-esteem), this research indicates that positive outcomes (e.g., flexible gender role attitudes) may also be associated with low self-perceived gender typicality.     

When does it hurt? Intergroup permeability moderates the link between discrimination and self‐esteem

Research shows that personal discrimination and group discrimination have distinct effects on personal self‐esteem. Specifically, whereas personal discrimination negatively impacts self‐esteem, group discrimination increases it. We suggest that this pattern is dependent on the socio‐structural context in which individuals experience discrimination. To test this hypothesis, we manipulate intergroup permeability and examine its impact on the link between personal/group discrimination and personal self‐esteem. Results show that a control condition replicates previous research, that is, a positive association between group discrimination and self‐esteem and a negative association for personal discrimination. The positive association of group discrimination disappeared in a permeable context and reversed when the context was presented as impermeable. Moreover, the deleterious effect of personal discrimination on self‐esteem vanished in impermeable contexts. Results are discussed in light of the literature on stigmatization. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity

This study examined group identification and situational ambiguity as moderators of attributions to discrimination and self-esteem following negative feedback. As predicted, high gender-identified women made more discrimination attributions than low identified women when situational prejudice cues were ambiguous, but not when prejudice cues were absent or overt. Also as predicted, women exposed to overt prejudice cues had higher self-esteem than those exposed to ambiguous cues or no prejudice cues. The relationship between discrimination attributions and self-esteem was positive among women exposed to overt prejudice but negative among those exposed to no prejudice. Across conditions, however, the more that women discounted ability as a cause of their negative feedback (i.e., blamed discrimination more than ability), the higher their self-esteem. Results qualify and extend prior research and demonstrate that personal and situational factors moderate both the tendency to make attributions to discrimination and the consequences of those attributions for self-esteem.     

Ideological beliefs as determinants of discrimination in positive and negative outcome distributions

Social identity theory proposes that discrimination contributes favourably to group members' social identity. In minimal group paradigm (MGP) studies involving positive outcome distributions (e.g. money), discrimination is associated with a more positive social identity. But studies on the positive‐negative asymmetry effect show that categorization leads to less discrimination when negative (salary cuts) than when positive outcomes (salary increases) are distributed. Using structural equation modelling, this study (N = 279) tested whether discrimination involving negative outcome distributions could contribute as much to group members' positive social identity as discrimination on positive outcomes. The study also tested if ideological beliefs (i.e. social dominance orientation, authoritarianism), measured one month before the MGP experiment, could predict positive and negative outcome discrimination. While the fit of the hypothesized model was adequate, only social dominance orientation predicted both positive and negative outcome discrimination. Also, discrimination on positive outcomes but not on negative ones contributed to positive social identity. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Does social identification harm or serve as a buffer? The impact of social identification on anger after experiencing social discrimination

Research on targets' affective reactions to social discrimination has not yet addressed self- and other-directed anger at the same time. Four studies tested the hypothesis that the perceived cause of negative feedback moderates the impact of social identification on self-directed anger. In Studies 1 and 2, high levels of social identification led to less self-directed anger when negative feedback was attributed to social discrimination but not when it was attributed either to other external causes or internally. In Study 3, a cross-lagged design showed that higher identification led to less self-directed anger when negative feedback was attributed to social discrimination but not the other way around. This effect was found using scenarios (Studies 1-3) and also when using the recollection of personal experiences to manipulate attribution (Study 4). These results indicate that following social discrimination, social identification protects the self and does not increase individual vulnerability.     

The precuneus and the insula in self-attributional processes

Attributions are constantly assigned in everyday life. A well-known phenomenon is the self-serving bias: that is, people’s tendency to attribute positive events to internal causes (themselves) and negative events to external causes (other persons/circumstances). Here, we investigated the neural correlates of the cognitive processes implicated in self-serving attributions using social situations that differed in their emotional saliences. We administered an attributional bias task during fMRI scanning in a large sample of healthy subjects (n = 71). Eighty sentences describing positive or negative social situations were presented, and subjects decided via buttonpress whether the situation had been caused by themselves or by the other person involved. Comparing positive with negative sentences revealed activations of the bilateral posterior cingulate cortex (PCC). Self-attribution correlated with activation of the posterior portion of the precuneus. However, self-attributed positive versus negative sentences showed activation of the anterior portion of the precuneus, and self-attributed negative versus positive sentences demonstrated activation of the bilateral insular cortex. All significant activations were reported with a statistical threshold of p ≤ .001, uncorrected. In addition, a comparison of our fMRI task with data from the Internal, Personal and Situational Attributions Questionnaire, Revised German Version, demonstrated convergent validity. Our findings suggest that the precuneus and the PCC are involved in the evaluation of social events with particular regional specificities: The PCC is activated during emotional evaluation, the posterior precuneus during attributional evaluation, and the anterior precuneus during self-serving processes. Furthermore, we assume that insula activation is a correlate of awareness of personal agency in negative situations.     

Positive and negative responses to personal discrimination: does coping make a difference?

Although researches (e.g., K. L. Dion, K. K. Dion, & A. W.-p. Pak, 1992) have associated perceiving personal discrimination with negative psychological symptoms, group consciousness theorists (e.g., S. L. Bartky, 1977) have suggested that perceiving personal discrimination can be empowering. To attempt to reconcile these presumably opposing findings, the author suggested that the method of coping with perceiving personal discrimination would better predict whether the outcomes are negative or positive than would the perception of personal discrimination alone. Female university students (N = 262) in the United States completed questionnaires assessing perceptions of personal discrimination, psychological symptoms, and psychosocial behaviors. Coping mechanisms predicted psychosocial behaviors better than did personal discrimination: The more the participants used social support to cope, the more collective action and less helplessness behavior they reported. Also, the more the participants used avoidance to cope, the more helplessness behavior they reported.     

Contact and the personal/group discrimination discrepancy in an Inuit community

The personal/group discrimination discrepancy involves disadvantaged group members rating discrimination directed at their group considerably higher than ratings of discrimination aimed at themselves personally as members of that group. This robust phenomenon has been found in samples of women, African Americans, and aboriginal people. In the present study, the authors used a sample of Inuit from a remote Arctic community to confirm the perceived discrepancy. However, ratings for perceived group discrimination were surprisingly low. The authors argue that geographical isolation may have led Inuit to be unaware of the impact of discrimination on their lives. In support of this argument, findings showed that group discrimination ratings were higher for Inuit who did have contact with mainstream Canadian culture. Implications for the traditional contact hypothesis are discussed.     

Self-discrepancies and emotional vulnerability: how magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect

Two studies examined whether the type of emotional change experienced by individuals is influenced by the magnitude and accessibility of the different types of self-discrepancies they possess. In both studies, subjects filled out a measure of self-discrepancy a few weeks prior to the experimental session. Subjects were asked to list up to 10 attributes each for different self-states--their actual self, their ideal self (their own or others' hopes and goals for them), and their ought self (their own or others' beliefs about their duty and obligations). Magnitude of self-discrepancy was calculated by comparing the attributes in the actual self to the attributes in either the ideal self or the ought self, with the total number of attribute pairs that matched being subtracted from the total number of attribute pairs that mismatched. In Study 1, subjects were asked to imagine either a positive event or a negative event and were then given a mood measure and a writing-speed task. Subjects with a predominant actual:ideal discrepancy felt more dejected (e.g., sad) and wrote more slowly in the negative event condition than in the positive event condition, whereas subjects with a predominant actual:ought discrepancy, if anything, felt more agitated (e.g., afraid) and wrote more quickly in the negative event condition. In Study 2, subjects were selected who were either high in both kinds of discrepancies or low in both. Half of the subjects in each group were asked to discuss their own and their parents' hopes and goals for them (ideal priming), and the other half were asked to discuss their own and their parents' beliefs concerning their duty and obligations (ought priming). For high-discrepancy subjects, but not low-discrepancy subjects, ideal priming increased their dejection whereas ought priming increased their agitation. The implications of these findings for identifying cognitive-motivational factors that may serve as vulnerability markers for emotional problems is discussed.     

Defining Discrimination in the Personal/Group Discrimination Discrepancy

Members of low-status groups typically report that their group experiences more discrimination than they do personally, a phenomenon referred to as the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. It is hypothesized that manipulating the meaning of discrimination affects the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. In three studies, 301 female undergraduates (259 Whites; 42 non-Whites) from a large midwestern university read vignettes depicting discriminatory events that varied according to severity and frequency. Participants in high-frequency conditions perceived both more personal and group discrimination than low-frequency participants, and they showed smaller personal/group discrepancies. This effect was found for work-related discrimination and social sexism. Results indicate that severe and infrequent events are what people typically think of as discrimination and that using the term discrimination affects personal and group judgments. The importance of defining discrimination when investigating the personal/group discrimination discrepancy is discussed.