Definitional boundaries of discrimination: Tools for deciding what constitutes discrimination (and what doesn't)

Greenland, Katy; West, Keon; Laar, Colette van

doi:10.1111/jasp.12902

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 135 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Where people draw this metaphorical line between ‘discrimination’ and ‘not discrimination’ can be referred to as their definitional boundaries of discrimination (DBDs) (see Greenland et al., under review). These definitional boundaries can be very narrow (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It's only discrimination when they do it to us: When White men use ingroup‐serving double standards in definitional boundaries of discrimination

West

Greenland

Laar

et al. 2022

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a widespread agreement that discrimination is bad, but disagreement about how discrimination is defined and identified. Discrimination is sometimes defined narrowly (including only a restricted range of behaviours), and sometimes broadly (encompassing a wide range of behaviours). Three experiments (the latter two preregistered) found that White men define sexist discrimination (Study 1, N = 88) and racist discrimination (Study 2, N = 130; Study 3, N = 128) more narrowly when it was committed by their group against others and more broadly when it was directed against their group by others. Collective narcissism moderated (i.e. exacerbated) this effect in all three studies. However, when social dominance orientation (SDO) was considered simultaneously, it emerged as the more reliable moderator (Study 3). These results highlight that definitions of discrimination are not static but employed flexibly depending on context and hierarchy-supporting motivations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

It's only discrimination when they do it to us: When White men use ingroup‐serving double standards in definitional boundaries of discrimination

West

Greenland

Laar

et al. 2022

Euro J Social Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar to individuals' construal of diversity, the concept of "discrimination" can also be defined narrowly or broadly, depending on individuals' definitions of discrimination (Greenland et al, 2022). Specifically, dominant group members strategically employ the broad and narrow definitional boundary of discrimination motivated by their ingroup-serving and hierarchy-maintaining motivations (West et al, 2021(West et al, , 2022.…”

Section: Anti-egalitarian Belief and Diversity Construalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who counts as diverse? The strategic broadening and narrowing of diversity

Zhang,

Kirby

2024

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionA large majority of US organizations profess a commitment to diversity, but their definitions of diversity can vary greatly. While previous research demonstrates a shift in diversity definitions to include fewer protected demographic groups and more non-demographic characteristics, the present research examines whether this shift might be a motivated process among dominant group members related to anti-egalitarian and colorblind belief systems.MethodsUsing quantitative and qualitative methods, we explored potential underlying ideologies that may be associated with White Americans’ shifting definitions of diversity. White Americans (N = 498) were asked how they define diversity, as well as who should be included in a range of diversity initiatives.ResultsWhite participants’ higher anti-egalitarian belief was associated with stronger colorblind ideology endorsement, which was then associated with shifting their definition of diversity to include fewer disadvantaged demographic groups, more advantaged demographic groups, and non-demographic groups, as well as employing a colorblind inclusion rhetoric.DiscussionInstead of only “broadening” diversity to include more characteristics than diversity’s original focus, White Americans higher in anti-egalitarian and colorblind motives exhibited a simultaneous “narrowing” of diversity to include fewer protected demographic characteristics. Taken together, these findings have implications for dominant group members’ definition of diversity and the subtle ways in which colorblind ideology may be enacted.

show abstract

“…Indeed, notwithstanding variance within differentially racialized groups (Martinez and Paluck, 2024), several studies indicate that targets of prejudice perceive potentially discriminatory behavior as more discriminatory than non-targets, on average (Carter and Murphy, 2015). Along the same lines, individuals belonging to an ethno-racial minority, on average, have a broader understanding of discrimination (Greenland et al, 2022). 1 Thus, although there might be reason to conceptually differentiate between subtle and blatant prejudice from an actor perspective, from targets' perspectives this might look different.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discriminatory, yet socially accepted? Targets’ perceptions of subtle and blatant expressions of ethno-racial prejudice

Stanke,

Kuper,

Fetz

et al. 2024

Front. Soc. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionExtant research has studied prejudice expressions mainly from the majority perspective. We examined whether prejudice expressions conceptualized as subtle (vs. blatant) are perceived differently by their targets.MethodsParticipants who self-identified as potential targets of ethno-racial or religious prejudice (e.g., anti-Muslim, anti-Asian, anti-Arab, anti-Slavic, and anti-Black prejudice), answered questions about verbal expressions of prejudice taken from the subtle and blatant prejudice scales in an online survey.ResultsItems of the subtle (vs. blatant) prejudice scale were rated as more socially accepted and less discriminatory, elicited less negative emotions, and were reported to be experienced more often. Subtle expressions of prejudice were not more familiar to participants than blatant ones. Remarkably, blatant prejudice expressions were also perceived as relatively socially accepted and subtle prejudices as relatively discriminatory, as indicated by mean ratings above the scale midpoint. Lower discrimination ratings of subtle (vs. blatant) prejudice expressions were mainly due to perceptions of expressions exaggerating cultural differences. Exploratory analyses indicate that participants who reported more (vs. less) frequent overall exposure to the prejudice expressions perceived subtle and blatant stimuli as similarly discriminatory. This finding is compatible with the idea that individuals factor their personal experiences with prejudice into their assessments of discrimination.DiscussionWe discuss implications for interventions, especially regarding the social acceptability of blatant prejudice and promoting awareness of the discriminatory impact of subtle prejudice.

show abstract

Definitional boundaries of discrimination: Tools for deciding what constitutes discrimination (and what doesn't)

Cited by 8 publications

References 135 publications

It's only discrimination when they do it to us: When White men use ingroup‐serving double standards in definitional boundaries of discrimination

It's only discrimination when they do it to us: When White men use ingroup‐serving double standards in definitional boundaries of discrimination

Who counts as diverse? The strategic broadening and narrowing of diversity

Discriminatory, yet socially accepted? Targets’ perceptions of subtle and blatant expressions of ethno-racial prejudice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About