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.     

But I'm No Bigot: How Prejudiced White Americans Maintain Unprejudiced Self‐Images

Four experiments investigate a modern paradox: White Americans harbor racial prejudice, but view themselves as unprejudiced. We hypothesized that social representations of prejudice available in American culture lead many Whites to conclude that they are relatively unprejudiced. In Experiment 1, participants primed with the bigot stereotype viewed themselves as less prejudiced. In Experiments 2 and 3, participants exposed to media representations of racists viewed themselves as less prejudiced. In Experiment 4, participants sought exposure to media representations of prejudice after a threat to their unprejudiced self‐image. These experiments suggest that representations of prejudice in American culture lead prejudiced individuals to view themselves as unprejudiced, and the effect of these representations on people's unprejudiced self‐images can be passive or intentional.     

Technology and the management of trust in insurance medicine

This article deals with the question how technologycontributed to the performing of objective assessmentsof health risks and to the public trust in theinsurance institution. Many authors have pointed tothe relevance of medical or statistical technologywith regard to the constitution of objectivity,because these technologies should be capable ofdiminishing the influence of social interactions – the``human element' – on the process of producingknowledge about health risks. However, in this articleit is shown that the constitution of objective riskassessments and public trust cannot be seen as theproduct of one particular type of technology, but thatit is the product of a socio-technical network, inwhich several heterogeneous elements becomeinterrelated and interdependant. The historicalreconstruction of this network also sheds a new lighton the role of `the human element' in the constitutionof objectivity and trust. It shows that elements inthe network which regulate the social interactionbetween the subjects involved are of no lessimportance to generate trust than technologies whichtend to abstract from this interaction. In otherwords, objective and subjective elements areintertwined much more than is often recognized, andpublic trust is to a fairly large degree depends onconventions in social interaction.