Content uploaded by Ananthi Al Ramiah
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ananthi Al Ramiah on Jun 07, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
The social psychology of discrimination: theory, measurement and consequences
Abstract
Social psychologists engage with the prevalence and problems
of discrimination by studying the processes that underlie it.
Understanding when discrimination is likely to occur suggests
ways that we can overcome it. In this chapter, we begin by discussing
the ways in which social psychologists talk about discrimination
and discuss its prevalence. Second, we outline some
theories underlying the phenomenon. Third, we consider the
ways in which social psychological studies have measured discrimination, discussing findings from laboratory and field studies
with explicit and implicit measures. Fourth, we consider the
systemic consequences of discrimination and their implications
for intergroup relations, social mobility and personal wellbeing.
Finally, we provide a summary and some conclusions.
... Discrimination is defined as the negative behaviors carried out by privileged individuals that lead to disparities in the histories of reinforcement and punishment for marginalized racial groups, even when all other conditions remain the same. Internal thoughts and feelings as well as external actions contribute to systemic disadvantages based on factors such as race, gender, and disability (Al Ramiah et al., 2010). Discrimination and prejudice are not always experienced due to a single identity of a person as many people hold identities that intersect with one another (Combahee River Collective, 1978;. ...
... Definitions for 'racial discrimination' and 'gender discrimination' adapted from Al Ramiah et al. (2010). Definitions related to stereotyping 'racial stereotype,' 'racial stereotyping,' 'gender stereotype,' and 'gender stereotyping' adapted from Maass & Cadinu (2003) & Schaff (1984. ...
Behavior analysts are becoming increasingly aware of and involved in the study of issues related to sex, gender, disability, prejudice, and discrimination. This thesis integrates and discusses two collaborative manuscripts that revolve around the shared subject matter of multi-level research on systemic issues. In the first chapter, sexism and gender bias are conceptualized and informed by the framework of the nested sociobehavioral model of racism developed by Belisle et al. (2022), including implicit bias, selective gender norms, and systemic oppression, while integrating feminist and queer theories in the analysis. A model-dependent scoping review of research in major behavior analytic journals from 2000 to 2022 was conducted to locate research related to racism and sexism. Results were categorized using the nested model and the theory-to- impact framework developed by Dixon et al. (2018). Results showed that 7 of the included journals contained studies focusing on racism or sexism. Discrepancies were observed between conceptual studies that emphasized systemic oppression and experimental studies that focused on implicit bias and relational framing. Results indicate a clear need for more extensive research to guide the advancement and widespread use of practical technologies. To support emerging research in areas of stigmatization and discrimination, the second chapter summarizes a set of 2 experiments that evaluated negative stigmatization beliefs toward autistic individuals using an analytic framework rooted in Relational Density Theory (RDT; Belisle & Dixon, 2020). In the first experiment, the relational network was modeled using a multidimensional scale containing positive and negative stigmatic descriptors, and labels referring to autism. The results indicated the presence of negative stigmatic biases in all three samples, with the behavior analysts and technicians sample demonstrating the greatest overall biases. In the second experiment, a new sample was asked to report their preference among various individuals to complete tasks given the presence or absence of autism and stigmatizing descriptors. Participants showed a preference for the average person when in the presence of stigmatic descriptor words. Altogether, results show the interaction between complex relational behavior and stigmatization and speak to the potential interlocking behavior contingencies and metacontengencies that harm marginalized individuals.
... Finalmente, la discriminación no sólo tiene consecuencias permanentes en las vidas de las personas, sino que su efecto multiplicador de las desventajas puede extenderse a lo largo de diferentes situaciones, ámbitos y membresías grupales (Al Ramiah et al., 2010), como ocurre con los pueblos indígenas; en este caso, el trato peyorativo y la exclusión de los que han sido objeto durante siglos han trascendido de las diferentes esferas de la vida social hasta su propia existencia (Walsh, 2007), es decir, a su negación como personas. De este modo, la discriminación no puede dejarse en manos de las voluntades individuales; por el contrario, su erradicación y la transformación del orden que la reproduce requiere de la acción dirigida de los Estados por medio de sus leyes, instituciones y políticas. ...
En este trabajo analizamos las prácticas de discriminación que afrontan un grupo de estudiantes indígenas de dos universidades de la Ciudad de México. La indagación consistió en una etnografía colaborativa, para lo cual realizamos entrevistas a profundidad a una selección de 16 alumnos de diferentes carreras. Encontramos que los jóvenes viven diversas formas de discriminación, tanto de tipo institucional como cultural; los principales detonantes del trato peyorativo hacia ellos son el lugar de origen, la situación económica, la vestimenta y el idioma. Concluimos que estas formas de discriminación se remiten a los sistemas de inequidad arraigados en la estructura social, sin embargo, las instituciones educativas pueden contribuir a cambiarlos si miran críticamente los conocimientos que transmiten, los valores y prácticas que detentan, así como los procesos que excluyen a las personas que han sido etiquetadas como “diferentes”.
... A considerable body of empirical research on discrimination has explored the practical, social, and institutional boundaries and causes of discrimination (Arrow 1973;Baert and De Pauw 2014;Barron et al. 2020;Bohren et al. 2023;Ewens et al. 2014;Gundacker et al. 2021;Phelps 1972;Zschirnt and Ruedin 2016) and identified various psychological antecedents and socio-psychological group dynamics as possible explanations for contemporary ethnic and racial discrimination (Al Ramiah et al. 2010;Fibbi et al. 2021;Portmann 2022;Poteat et al. 2017;Roth et al. 2019). These explanations often assume that while people generally hold anti-discrimination sentiments, they may still discriminate due to external pressures-such as institutional or social influences-or because their decisions are biased by prejudice or flawed reasoning (Bohren et al. 2023;Esses 2021;Hutchings and Piston 2011). ...
Racial and ethnic discrimination is a strongly politicized issue. Across ideological divides, people discuss whether and why contemporary discriminatory practices are ethically and politically problematic. Whereas much empirical research has investigated the practical, social, and institutional boundaries and causes of discrimination, little research explores when and why people accept it. It may be that some discriminatory practices prevail because people find them morally acceptable. I therefore conduct two preregistered survey experiments to investigate which properties of discrimination influence people’s assessments. The results show that respondents are more willing to accept discrimination if they are informed that it reflects accurate statistical group differences. Respondents care little about the intention of the discriminator and pass harsh moral judgments on discriminators who rely on inaccurate understandings of group differences. These results suggest that rationalizing discrimination by appealing to accurate statistics can be misused to foster the acceptance of discriminatory practices.
Behavior analysts are becoming increasingly aware of and involved in the study of issues related to sex, gender, and racial prejudice and discrimination. In the current article, we conceptualized sexism and gender bias informed by the framework of the nested sociobehavioral model of racism developed by Belisle et al. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 15(4), 1134–1150 (2022), including implicit bias, selective gender norms, and systemic oppression, while integrating feminist and queer theories. We then conducted a model-dependent scoping review of research in major behavior analytic journals from 2000 to 2022 related to racism and sexism categorized using the nested models and the theory-to-impact framework developed by Dixon et al. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 41(1), 241–267 (2018). Of the 10 journals included for the scoping review, nine contained research related to racism or sexism and an overall increasing trend appears to be occurring in the field. Inconsistencies were evident between conceptual work that emphasized systemic oppression versus experimental work that emphasizes implicit bias and relational framing. Only three studies met the criteria for “applied” or “implementation” research, suggesting that significantly more research is needed to inform the development and dissemination of applied technologies. We conclude with a discussion of the current state of this research in multiple areas and recommendations for future research.
This research investigates discrimination and coping mechanisms within the Indian cultural context, shedding light on the nuanced experiences and responses of individuals facing various forms of discrimination. A representative sample of 84 individuals participated in the study, providing insights into the diverse manifestations and impacts of discrimination across different demographic groups. Utilizing both the Everyday Discrimination Scale (EDS) and the Coping with Discrimination Scale (CDS), the study explores the frequency of discriminatory experiences and the strategies individuals employ to cope with them. Results indicate a significant positive correlation (r=0.50, p<0.01) between perceived discrimination and coping strategies. Religious affiliation, educational attainment, age, gender, socioeconomic status, and disability status are explored as factors shaping individuals' experiences of discrimination and their coping strategies. Coping strategies varied, including education, advocacy, spiritual practices, and self-improvement. Through open-ended responses, participants share their personal experiences of discrimination and diverse coping strategies, reflecting resilience and resourcefulness in navigating discriminatory environments. The findings underscore the complex interplay between discrimination, individual coping mechanisms, and broader societal factors, emphasizing the importance of addressing discrimination as a social determinant of well-being. This research contributes to our understanding of discrimination within Indian culture and informs efforts to promote inclusivity, equality, and social justice.
Perceived everyday discrimination is a transversal phenomenon with a negative impact on people’s health. This study aimed to explore the factor structure and psychometric properties of three versions of the Everyday Discrimination Scale, with three different samples: the European Portuguese validation (EDS-PT, considering any reason for discrimination), using a sample of adults from the community (N = 610), a specific version for sexual minority (EDS-SM), with a sample of sexual minority individuals (N = 352), and a specific version for gender minority (EDS-GM), in a sample of gender minority individuals (N = 108). Factor structure and reliability of the different versions were examined. A second-order two-factor model (Everyday discrimination with factor 1 Unfair Treatment and factor 2 Personal Rejection) presented good adjustment and adequate reliability. Furthermore, all versions of EDS revealed weak to moderate correlations with indicators of convergent validity (mental health, satisfaction with life, social safeness, and social support). This study's outcomes provide insights into different types of everyday discrimination and suggest that the EDS-PT, EDS-SM and EDS-GM are valid and reliable measures useful in research and clinical contexts.
Reciprocity, regarded as a fundamental psychological phenomenon, may underlie a wide range of interpersonal and intergroup behaviors. Various disciplines such as behavioral economics, anthropology, sociology, and psychology as well documented how reciprocity is a strong determinant of human behavior. On the other hand, less is known about intergroup reciprocity, its functions and consequences as well as the psychological mechanisms through which these effects manifest, remain mostly unknown. In this paper, we propose a model to understand how the reciprocity norm operates in the intergroup contexts, through employing the Personal Norm of Reciprocity model (Perugini et al., 2003) and the Self-Categorization Theory (Turner et al., 1987). We suggest that the conditions that give rise to intergroup reciprocal behavior are ingroup identification, labeling outgroup behavior as a favor or transgression, and the internalization of the reciprocity norm. We also propose that the intergroup outcomes, such as ingroup favoritism, discrimination, collective action, and conflict resolution, might become more understandable when taking into account the reciprocity as an explanatory variable.
Sorting students on the basis of their academic performance into hierarchically ordered curriculums (i.e., between-school tracking) is common practice in various educational systems. International studies show that this form of tracking is associated with increased educational inequalities. As track placement is often based on teacher recommendations, biased track recommendations may contribute to this inequality. To shed light on the role that teachers play in the reproduction of inequalities in school, we conducted a systematic review of 27 recent articles on teachers' between-school tracking recommendations and students’ socio-economic or ethnic background. We find that teacher recommendations are biased against students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds, yet evidence with respect to ethnic biases is more mixed. While student, parent, teacher, and contextual factors seem to play a role in tracking recommendations, they cannot account for the biases in tracking recommendations. We discuss promising areas for future studies and argue that research on institutional moderators may have more potential than research on psychological mediators to effectively reduce bias in educational institutions.
The aim of this paper is not to expand the argument that racism is a problem particular to Russia but to examine the transformation in the discrimination experienced by African migrants in Russia and their coping strategies. Using 32 in-depth interviews and an analysis of informal conversations with sub-Saharan African migrants in Moscow describing their experiences within the social and economic spheres of the country, the paper demonstrates the subtleness and implicit nature of racial discrimination that sub-Saharan African migrants experience in their social spaces, such as using the transport system and getting accommodation, and also within the economic sector. There is an overall feeling of being unwelcome that the African migrants perceive from the treatment received from their host community. The paper contributes to the global perspective of understanding the coping strategies used by African migrants to deal with their socio-economic conundrum in Russia.
Using federal court data collected by the U.S. Sentencing Commission for the years 1993-1996, this study examines racial/ethnic differences-white versus black versus white-Hispanic versus black-Hispanic-in sentencing outcomes and criteria under the federal sentencing guidelines. Regression analyses of incarceration and term-length decisions reveal considerable judicial consistency in the use of sentencing criteria for all defendants; however, important racial/ethnic disparities in sentencing emerge. Consistent with theoretical hypotheses, the authors find that ethnicity has a small to moderate effect on sentencing outcomes that favors white defendants and penalizes Hispanic defendants; black defendants are in an intermediate position. Hispanic drug offenders are most at risk of receiving the harshest penalties, and their harsher treatment is most pronounced in prosecutor-controlled guidelines departure cases. These findings highlight both a classic organizational tension noted by Weber and a fundamental dilemma in policy efforts to structure sentencing processes (formal rationality) while allowing for judicial and prosecutorial discretion (substantive rationality). The findings also broaden our view of the continuing significance of race in American society-as a matter confronting not only blacks but also Hispanics and perhaps other ethnic groups as well.
The current study of Black patients focuses on how discrimination contributes to racial disparities in health. The authors used a longitudinal methodology to study how perceived past discrimination affects reactions to medical interactions and adherence to physician recommendations. In addition, they explored whether these reactions and/or adherence mediate the relationship between discrimination and patients' health. The participants in this study were 156 Black patients of low socioeconomic status at a primary care clinic. Patients completed questionnaires on their current health, past adherence, and perceived past discrimination. Then, they saw a physician and rated their reactions to the visit. Four and 16 weeks later they reported on their adherence to physician recommendations and overall health. Perceived discrimination was significantly and negatively associated with patient health, reactions to the physician, and adherence. Path analyses indicated that adherence mediated the relationship between discrimination and patient health, but patient reactions to the interaction did not.
The current research studies discrimination from the perspective of people in stigmatized roles in actual employment settings. Confederates, who were portrayed as being homosexual or not, applied for jobs at local stores. Measures of formal bias (e.g., job offers), interpersonal behavior (e.g., length of interactions), and perceptions of bias (e.g., anticipated job offers by applicants) were assessed. Although confederates portrayed as homosexual were not discriminated against in formal ways relative to confederate applicants not presented as gay, they were responded to significantly more negatively in interpersonal ways. Moreover, there was a stronger relationship between interpersonal treatment and anticipated employment actions for confederates than there was between interpersonal responses and actual job offers by employers. These findings reveal the dynamics of the development of different impressions and expectations by stigmatizers and targets. Theoretical and practical implications are considered.
Women in quantitative fields risk being personally reduced to negative stereotypes that allege a sex-based math inability. This situational predicament, termed stereotype threat, can undermine women’s performance and aspirations in all quantitative domains. Gender-stereotypic television commercials were employed in three studies to elicit the female stereotype among both men and women. Study 1 revealed that only women for whom the activated stereotype was self-relevant underperformed on a subsequent math test. Exposure to the stereotypic commercials led women taking an aptitude test in Study 2 to avoid math items in favor of verbal items. In Study 3, women who viewed the stereotypic commercials indicated less interest in educational/vocational options in which they were susceptible to stereotype threat (i.e., quantitative domains) and more interest in fields in which they were immune to stereotype threat (i.e., verbal domains).
Organizational Identity presents the classic works on organizational identity alongside more current thinking on the issues. Ranging from theoretical contributions to empirical studies, the readings in this volume address the key issues of organizational identity, and show how these issues have developed through contributions from such diverse fields of study as sociology, psychology, management studies and cultural studies. The readings examine questions such as how organizations understand who they are, why organizations develop a sense of identity and belonging where the boundaries of identity lie and the implications of postmodern and critical theories' challenges to the concept of identity as deeply-rooted and authentic. Includes work by: Stuart Albert, Mats Alvesson, Blake E. Ashforth, Marilynn B. Brewer, George Cheney, Lars Thoger Christensen, C.H. Cooley, Kevin G. Corley, Barbara Czarniawska, Janet M. Dukerich, Jane E. Dutton, Kimberly D. Elsbach, Wendi Gardner, Linda E. Ginzela, Dennis A. Gioia, E. Goffman, Karen Golden-Biddle, Mary Jo Hatch, Roderick M. Kramer, Fred Rael, G.H. Mead, Michael G. Pratt, Anat Rafaeli, Hayagreeva Rao, Majken Schultz, Howard S. Schwartz, Robert I. Sutton, Henri Taijfel, John Turner, David A. Wherren, and Hugh Willmott. Intended to provide easy access to this material for students of organizational identity, it will also be of interest more broadly to students of business, sociology and psychology.
Part I. From There to Here - Theoretical Background: 1. From visiousness to viciousness: theories of intergroup relations 2. Social dominance theory as a new synthesis Part II. Oppression and its Psycho-Ideological Elements: 3. The psychology of group dominance: social dominance orientation 4. Let's both agree that you're really stupid: the power of consensual ideology Part III. The Circle of Oppression - The Myriad Expressions of Institutional Discrimination: 5. You stay in your part of town and I'll stay in mine: discrimination in the housing and retail markets 6. They're just too lazy to work: discrimination in the labor market 7. They're just mentally and physically unfit: discrimination in education and health care 8. The more of 'them' in prison, the better: institutional terror, social control and the dynamics of the criminal justice system Part IV. Oppression as a Cooperative Game: 9. Social hierarchy and asymmetrical group behavior: social hierarchy and group difference in behavior 10. Sex and power: the intersecting political psychologies of patriarchy and empty-set hierarchy 11. Epilogue.
Crime and welfare are now widely viewed as "coded" issues that activate white Americans' negative views of blacks without explicitly raising the "race card." But does the desire of whites to combat crime or curtail welfare really stem from their dislike of blacks? Are these not pressing problems about which Americans rightly should be concerned--apart from any associations these issues may have with race? In this paper I assess the extent to which white Americans' opposition to welfare is rooted in their attitudes toward blacks. Using conventional survey modeling techniques and a randomized survey-based experiment from a national telephone survey, I find that racial attitudes are the single most important influence on whites' welfare views. I also show that whites hold similar views of comparably described black and white welfare mothers, but that negative views of black welfare mothers are more politically potent, generating greater opposition to welfare than comparable views of white welfare mothers.
It is argued that members of low status groups are faced with a psychological conflict between group justification tendencies to evaluate members of one’s own group favorably and system justification tendencies to endorse the superiority of higher status out-groups. In Study 1, members of low status groups exhibited less ingroup favoritism and more ingroup ambivalence than did members of high status groups. Perceptions that the status differences were legitimate increased outgroup favoritism and ambivalence among low status groups, and they increased ingroup favoritism and decreased ambivalence among high status groups. In Study 2, the belief in a just world and social dominance orientation increased ambivalence on the part of women toward female victims of gender discrimination, but they decreased ambivalence on the part of men. Evidence here indicates that system-justifying variables increase ingroup ambivalence among low status group members and decrease ambivalence among high status group members.