scholarly journals Intergroup inequality heightens reports of discrimination along alternative identity dimensions

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riana Brown ◽  
Maureen A. Craig
Keyword(s):  
Social Class ◽  
Sexual Minority ◽  
Perceived Discrimination ◽  
Moral Character ◽  
Social Identities ◽  
Dominant Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Different Dimensions ◽  
Intergroup Inequality

How do members of societally-valued (dominant) groups respond when considering inequality? Prior research suggests that salient inequality may be viewed as a threat to dominant-group members’ self and collective moral character (e.g., Knowles et al., 2014). However, people possess multiple social identities and may be advantaged in one domain (e.g., White) while concurrently disadvantaged in another domain (e.g., sexual minority). The present research tests whether individuals may reduce the moral-image threat of being societally-advantaged in one domain by highlighting discrimination they face in other domains. Four experiments with individuals advantaged along different dimensions of inequality (race, social-class, sexuality) reveal that making such inequality salient evokes greater perceived discrimination faced by oneself and one’s ingroups along other identity dimensions.

scholarly journals Intergroup Inequality Heightens Reports of Discrimination Along Alternative Identity Dimensions

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. 869-884 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riana M. Brown ◽  
Maureen A. Craig
Keyword(s):  
Social Class ◽  
Sexual Minority ◽  
Perceived Discrimination ◽  
Moral Character ◽  
Social Identities ◽  
Dominant Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Different Dimensions ◽  
Intergroup Inequality

How do members of societally valued (dominant) groups respond when considering inequality? Prior research suggests that salient inequality may be viewed as a threat to dominant-group members’ self and collective moral character. However, people possess multiple social identities and may be advantaged in one domain (e.g., White) while concurrently disadvantaged in another domain (e.g., sexual minority). The present research tests whether individuals may reduce the moral-image threat of being societally advantaged in one domain by highlighting discrimination they face in other domains. Four experiments with individuals advantaged along different dimensions of inequality (race, social class, sexuality) reveal that making such inequality salient evokes greater perceived discrimination faced by oneself and one’s ingroups along other identity dimensions.

Beyond prejudice: Relational inequality, collective action, and social change revisited

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 451-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Dixon ◽  
Mark Levine ◽  
Steve Reicher ◽  
Kevin Durrheim
Keyword(s):  
Social Change ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Intergroup Relations ◽  
Prejudice Reduction ◽  
Dominant Group ◽  
Negative Attitudes ◽  
Main Target ◽  
Subordinate Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Intergroup Inequality

AbstractThis response clarifies, qualifies, and develops our critique of the limits of intergroup liking as a means of challenging intergroup inequality. It does not dispute that dominant groups may espouse negative attitudes towards subordinate groups. Nor does it dispute that prejudice reduction can be an effective way of tackling resulting forms of intergroup hostility. What it does dispute is the assumption that getting dominant group members and subordinate group members to like each other more is the best way of improving intergroup relations that are characterized by relatively stable, institutionally embedded, relations of inequality. In other words, the main target of our critique is the model of change that underlies prejudice reduction interventions and the mainstream concept of “prejudice” on which they are based.

System Justification or Social Dominance? A Multilevel Test of the Ideological Motivators of Perceived Discrimination

2021 ◽  
pp. 014616722110360
Author(s):  
Joaquín Bahamondes ◽  
Chris G. Sibley ◽  
Danny Osborne
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Perceived Discrimination ◽  
Social Dominance Orientation ◽  
System Justification ◽  
Societal Implications ◽  
Reverse Discrimination ◽  
High Status ◽  
Majority Group ◽  
Group Members

Although system-justifying beliefs often mitigate perceptions of discrimination, status-based asymmetries in the ideological motivators of perceived discrimination are unknown. Because the content and societal implications of discrimination claims are status-dependant, social dominance orientation (SDO) should motivate perceptions of (reverse) discrimination among members of high-status groups, whereas system justification should motivate the minimization of perceived discrimination among the disadvantaged. We tested these hypotheses using multilevel regressions among a nationwide random sample of New Zealand Europeans ( n = 29,169) and ethnic minorities ( n = 5,118). As hypothesized, group-based dominance correlated positively with perceived (reverse) discrimination among ethnic-majority group members, whereas system justification correlated negatively with perceived discrimination among the disadvantaged. Furthermore, the proportion of minorities within the region strengthened the victimizing effects of SDO-Dominance, but not SDO-Egalitarianism, among the advantaged. Together, these results reveal status-based asymmetries in the motives underlying perceptions of discrimination and identify a key contextual moderator of this association.

scholarly journals Climate and the distribution of cooperative breeding in mammals

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 160897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Lukas ◽  
Tim Clutton-Brock
Keyword(s):  
Cooperative Breeding ◽  
Breeding Systems ◽  
Annual Rainfall ◽  
Alloparental Care ◽  
Arid Environments ◽  
Social Monogamy ◽  
Dominant Group ◽  
Group Members

Cooperative breeding systems, in which non-breeding individuals provide care for the offspring of dominant group members, occur in less than 1% of mammals and are associated with social monogamy and the production of multiple offspring per birth (polytocy). Here, we show that the distribution of alloparental care by non-breeding subordinates is associated with habitats where annual rainfall is low. A possible reason for this association is that the females of species found in arid environments are usually polytocous and this may have facilitated the evolution of alloparental care.

scholarly journals Ethnisierung als Ressource und Praxis

2000 ◽  
Vol 30 (120) ◽  
pp. 399-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Scherr
Keyword(s):  
Social Class ◽  
Social Construction ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Social Practices ◽  
Social Identities ◽  
Contemporary Society ◽  
Collective Identities

Forms of doing ethnicity question an understanding of modern society as a society of free and equal individuals as well as the idea, that membership of social class determines social identities. What kind of a challenge the obversation of processes of ethnicitation represents in regard of the theories of contemporary society should discuss more precisely. In front of this background it is supposed to see ethnicitation as an indeterminate collective name for intern heterogene social practices of social construction of collective identities. It is argued, that even so processes of ethnicitation often indicate conflicts between majorities and minorities and the structural and manifested discrimination of the latter, it can not be sufficiently and exclusively explained in this way.

scholarly journals Co-Cultural Theory and Communication

Communication ◽  
2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Lived Experiences ◽  
Cultural Difference ◽  
Cultural Theory ◽  
The United States ◽  
Basic Question ◽  
Cultural Group ◽  
Cultural Groups ◽  
Dominant Group ◽  
Group Status ◽  
Group Members

Co-cultural communication theory, or co-cultural theory for short, emerged from the scholarly research of Mark Orbe in the 1990s. A co-cultural theoretical approach provides a lens to understand how traditionally underrepresented group members communicate within societal structures governed by cultural groups that have, over time, achieved dominant group status. The theory’s foundation was established by Orbe and colleagues by exploring the communicative lived experiences of underrepresented group members in the United States; the earliest work engaged the communication of co-cultural groups defined through race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, and sexual orientation. The theory centralizes the lived experiences of co-cultural group members and focuses on instances when cultural difference is regarded as salient. At its core, co-cultural theory explores one basic question: How do co-cultural group members use communication to negotiate their cultural identities with others (both like and unlike themselves) in a societal context where they are traditionally marginalized? Through discovery-oriented qualitative research, six factors emerged (field of experience, abilities, perceived costs and rewards, communication approach, preferred outcome, and situational context) as central to the selection of specific co-cultural practices. Since its inception, co-cultural theory has been embraced as a core theory for individuals interested in studying the intersection of culture, power, and communication.

Entitlement Makes People Ignorant, Egocentric, and Mean

2021 ◽  
pp. 145-175
Author(s):  
Kristin J. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Sexual Violence ◽  
People Of Color ◽  
Dominant Group ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Better Than

This chapter explores the ways in which entitlement facilitates ignorance, egocentrism, and inconsiderateness. People with power tend to engage in shoddy information processing. Compared to those who are marginalized, dominant group members think in shortcuts. Power emboldens people to be careless about repercussions, at least compared to those without power. Power holders do not feel compelled to view things from another person’s perspective and they do not feel obliged to know much about people with less power. For marginalized people, their very lives depend on understanding the idiosyncrasies of power holders and they understand these dynamics much better than powerful people. Power entitles people to conveniently and self-servingly assume they know more than they actually do when it comes to telling women and people of color how to think about sexism and racism (e.g., mansplaining and whitesplaining). At the same time, power entitles people to claim they know less than they actually do when they are called to account for sexual violence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document