WHO CONSIDERS THEMSELVES VICTIMS OF DISCRIMINATION?

We focus on the general issue of how and why individuals might decide if they have been victims of gender discrimination and how social status differences between women and men may change the significance of experiencing gender discrimination. Because both self-protective and situational factors have been found to influence interpretation of prejudicial events, in the present study we explore several individual-difference factors that might differentially predict perceived gender discrimination in women and men. We found that, for men, low self-esteem and high personal assertiveness were related to higher ratings of personal discrimination. Low self-esteem was also related to men's perceptions of discrimination against men as a group. For women, high need for approval was negatively related to perceptions of personal discrimination whereas depression was positively related. Depression was also related to higher ratings of discrimination against women, as was feminism. We argue that perceptions of discrimination serve different purposes for structurally privileged and disadvantaged groups.     

Person perception when aggressive or nonaggressive sports are primed

Previous research investigating the factors contributing to sports spectator violence has focused primarily on conscious processes such as the disinhibiting effects of aggressive models and physiological arousal. The current research borrows a methodology from social cognition work to examine the role of passive, category accessibility effects on fan hostility. Prior research has indicated that as a schema becomes more accessible in memory, the use of it to encode subsequent information is increased. It was therefore hypothesized that individuals for whom the category of hostility had been unobtrusively primed with aggressive-sports names (e.g., boxing) would rate an ambiguous target person as more hostile and as more likely to prefer hostile activities relative to persons who were primed with sports names which were not associated with violence (e.g., golf). The results supported the hypotheses, with subjects who were primed with aggressive-sports rating an unrelated target person's behavior as significantly more hostile and as more likely to prefer aggressive activities relative to subjects exposed to sentences containing references to nonaggressive-sports. Discussion includes the potential ramifications for spectator aggression at sporting events.     

Perceivers' responses to in-group and out-group members who blame a negative outcome on discrimination

The authors extend recent research concerning the social costs of claiming discrimination by examining men's and women's responses to in-group and out-group targets who either blamed a failing grade on discrimination or answer quality. Although participants generally responded more negatively to targets who blamed discrimination, rather than answer quality, dislike was greatest and gender group identification was lowest when participants evaluated an in-group target. Moreover, an in-group target who claimed discrimination was perceived as avoiding personal responsibility for outcomes to a greater extent than was a similar out-group target. Perceptions that the target avoided outcome responsibility by claiming discrimination were shown to mediate the relationship between attribution type and dislike of the in-group target. The authors discuss their results in terms of intragroup processes and suggest that social costs may especially accrue for in-group members when claiming discrimination has implications for the in-group's social identity.     

Group commitment in the face of discrimination: The role of legitimacy appraisals

In contrast to everyday use of the term discrimination, we propose that discrimination can be appraised as either illegitimate or legitimate, and a comprehensive analysis of responses to discrimination needs to account for both ways of experiencing discrimination. We examine how perceived pervasiveness of discrimination and legitimacy appraisals affect group commitment among women in academia (Study 1) and tobacco smokers facing an upcoming smoking ban (Study 2). We found support for our hypothesis that legitimacy of discrimination appraisals moderates the effect of pervasiveness of discrimination. In both studies, group identification and collective action intentions were undermined most when the ingroup claimed that discrimination against them was legitimate and discrimination was perceived as pervasive. In both studies, group identification mediated the effects on collective action intentions. The results highlight the important role of legitimacy appraisals in understanding disadvantaged group members' responses to discriminatory treatment. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Observers' benefit finding for victims: Consequences for perceived moral obligations

In three studies we examined how observers making meaning of victimization by finding benefits for the victim leads to the perception that victims are morally obligated to help others and not do harm. In Experiment 1, participants perceived a victim as having greater moral obligations when the meaning of victimization was considered for the victim rather than the perpetrator. This effect on moral obligations was mediated by the extent to which participants believed victims should have found benefits. Experiments 2 and 3 examined the consequences when victims fail or fulfill their moral obligations. Greater social distance from a victim who did harm was sought when participants focused on the meaning of victimization for the victim as compared to the perpetrator. Less social distance from a victim who helped was sought when participants focused on the meaning of victimization for the victim as compared to the perpetrator or when they made no meaning. These studies show that how observers make meaning of victimization has implications for subsequent responses to victims. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Collective Action on Behalf of Women: Testing the Conceptual Distinction Between Traditional Collective Action and Small Acts in College Women

Sex Roles - The current study examines the nature of actions that U.S. college women (N?=?267) engage in to promote, protect, or enhance the welfare of other women. The study had two...     

The role of threat,emotions, and prejudice in promoting collective action against immigrant groups

In two studies we assessed the role of distinctiveness threat, group‐based emotions (angst, fear, and anger), and prejudice on people's willingness to engage in collective action against immigrant groups. In Study 1 (N = 222) White British participants were either informed that in the next 40 years the proportion of immigrants in the UK is unlikely to change (control condition) or that there will be more immigrants than White British people living in Britain (threat condition). We obtained support for a sequential multiple mediator model in which threat predicted British people's willingness to engage in collective action via the emotions first and then prejudice. This finding was replicated in Study 2 with an Italian sample (N = 283). These results enhance understanding of when and why advantaged groups undertake collective action against disadvantaged groups by demonstrating that distinctiveness threats and emotions promote such actions.     

How the disadvantaged appraise group-based exclusion: The path from legitimacy to illegitimacy

Although many forms of differential treatment based on group membership are perceived to be legitimate, disadvantaged group members’ responses to discrimination have been studied primarily in contexts in which such treatment is appraised as illegitimate. This has resulted in an impoverished understanding of differential group-based treatment and a failure to illuminate the processes by which discrimination can shift from being seen as legitimate to being viewed as illegitimate. We discuss the determinants of disadvantaged group members’ legitimacy appraisals and the de-legitimisation process, whereby forms of discrimination appraised as legitimate come to be increasingly perceived as illegitimate. Whether group-based exclusion is addressed collectively or individually depends on socio-structural factors such as the pervasiveness of discrimination, impermeability of intergroup boundaries, and the availability of cognitive alternatives to the status quo. We conclude that understanding the antecedents and consequences of legitimacy appraisals is necessary to develop a comprehensive account of disadvantaged group members’ experiences of group-based discrimination.     

Victim and Perpetrator Groups' Responses to the Canadian Government's Apology for the Head Tax on Chinese Immigrants and the Moderating Influence of Collective Guilt

European and Chinese Canadians' perceptions and expectations of the Canadian government's apology for the head tax placed on Chinese immigrants during the early twentieth century were examined, along with Chinese Canadians' willingness to forgive the transgression. Among both European and Chinese Canadians, beliefs about the importance attributed to the event and perception of the apology as deserved and sincere heightened expectations of improved intergroup relations. Collective guilt acceptance among European Canadians heightened the relation between perceived sincerity and positive expectations, whereas collective guilt assignment by Chinese Canadians heightened the relation between sincerity and forgiveness. A one‐year follow‐up of whether Chinese Canadians were equally satisfied with the apology indicated that their willingness to grant forgiveness had waned, and although on the whole expectations of improved relations were met, those who assigned more collective guilt were less convinced. Intergroup apologies and their effectiveness at facilitating intergroup relations are discussed.