Intergroup Discrimination: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?

Brewer, Marilynn B.

doi:10.1017/9781316161579.005

Cited by 77 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 95 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another possible explanation is that trust may play a great role in who employers want to assign to the position of a (chief) accountant. As studies have shown (Brewer 2016), it may be the case that outgroup members are trusted less than ingroup members, which may explain the high level of discrimination in the profession of (chief) accountants.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple Discrimination against Female Immigrants Wearing Headscarves

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Western countries have experienced a large influx of Muslim immigrants, and concomitantly the Muslim headscarf has become the subject of major controversy. Drawing on theories of stigma, social identity, and multiple discrimination/intersectionality, this study examines the effect of wearing this headscarf in the German labor market. The author applies the method of correspondence testing that allows measuring discrimination in a controlled field setting. Findings show that when applying for a job in Germany, women with a Turkish migration background are less likely to be invited for an interview, and the level of discrimination increases substantially if the applicant wears a headscarf. The results suggest that immigrant women who wear a headscarf suffer discrimination based on multiple stigmas related to ethnicity and religion.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple Discrimination against Female Immigrants Wearing Headscarves

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, Brewer (2017) recently noted that prejudice and discrimination are likely reciprocally related so here we aimed to assess differences in the magnitude FAVORITISM, HOSTILITY AND MULTICULTURALISM 18 of these associations without necessarily presuming a direction of effects. More importantly, we were unable to explicitly test the hypothesized process via which different levels of threat moderate the association between ingroup favoritism and discrimination, and it remains possible that content differences in the policy opposition measures other than threat were driving the varying effects of ingroup favoritism.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers to Multiculturalism: Ingroup Favoritism and Outgroup Hostility are Independently Associated with Policy Opposition

Perry¹,

Priest²,

Paradies³

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bias in favor of the ingroup is a key determinant of discrimination, and is thought to be largely independent of, and qualitatively distinct from, outgroup hostility. One key difference, according to Realistic Conflict Theory, is that ingroup preferences become more closely associated with discrimination when intergroup threat is salient. The current study presents a direct comparison of the level of association of ingroup favoritism and outgroup hostility with opposition to multiculturalism policies in New Zealand. With both predictors operationalized as affect ratings of warmth and anger across separate models, ingroup favoritism and outgroup hostility were independently associated with European New Zealanders' (N = 10,869) opposition to both resourcespecific and symbolic policies. Furthermore, ingroup favoritism was more strongly associated with opposition to resource-specific policies which represent high realistic threat (compared with symbolic policies). In contrast, outgroup hostility was more consistently associated with both policy domains.

show abstract

“…The Stigma Framework draws on theoretical conceptualizations of stigma from a range of fields, including medical anthropology, sociology, and psychology, that have been applied to a variety of socially devalued and discredited characteristics, including HIV, mental illness, race, and gender (Allport, 1954; Goffman, 1963; Link, 1987; Meyer, 1995; Link and Phelan, 2001; Parker and Aggleton, 2003; Herek et al, 2003; Brewer, 2007; Phelan et al, 2008). The sociological and anthropological theories describe stigma as a social process dependent on social context, which ultimately maintains social inequity between groups of people (Link and Phelan, 2001; Parker and Aggleton, 2003).…”

Section: Introductonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The sociological and anthropological theories describe stigma as a social process dependent on social context, which ultimately maintains social inequity between groups of people (Link and Phelan, 2001; Parker and Aggleton, 2003). The psychological theories describe ways in which individual people living with and without socially devalued and discredited characteristics enact, perpetuate, and perceive this social process (Allport, 1954; Meyer, 1995; Brewer, 2007). The Stigma Framework identifies measurable stigma mechanisms from this literature, which reflect an individual’s distinct psychological responses to the knowledge that they possess a socially devalued and discredited characteristic, including: enacted stigma, anticipated stigma, and internalized stigma (Earnshaw and Chaudoir, 2009).…”

Section: Introductonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Substance use stigma: Reliability and validity of a theory-based scale for substance-using populations

Smith

Earnshaw

Copenhaver

et al. 2016

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

147

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Substance use disorders consistently rank among the most stigmatized conditions worldwide. Thus, substance use stigma fosters health inequities among persons with substance use disorders and remains a key barrier to successful screening and treatment efforts. Current efforts to measure substance use stigma are limited. This study aims to advance measurement efforts by drawing on stigma theory to develop and evaluate the Substance Use Stigma Mechanisms Scale (SU-SMS). The SU-SMS was designed to capture enacted, anticipated, and internalized substance use stigma mechanisms among persons with current and past substance use disorders, and distinguish between key stigma sources most likely to impact this target population. Methods This study was a cross-sectional evaluation of the validity, reliability, and generalizability of the SU-SMS across two independent samples with diverse substance use and treatment histories. Results Findings support the structural and construct validity of the SU-SMS, suggesting the scale was able to capture enacted, anticipated, and internalized stigma as distinct stigma experiences. It also further differentiated between two distinct stigma sources (family and healthcare providers). Analysis of these mechanisms and psychosocial metrics suggests that the scale is also associated with other health-related outcomes. Furthermore, the SU-SMS demonstrated high levels of internal reliability and generalizability across two independent samples of persons with diverse substance use disorders and treatment histories. Conclusion The SU-SMS may serve as a valuable tool for better understanding the processes through which substance use stigma serves to undermine key health behaviors and outcomes among persons with substance use disorders.

show abstract

Intergroup Discrimination: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?

Cited by 77 publications

References 95 publications

Multiple Discrimination against Female Immigrants Wearing Headscarves

Multiple Discrimination against Female Immigrants Wearing Headscarves

Barriers to Multiculturalism: Ingroup Favoritism and Outgroup Hostility are Independently Associated with Policy Opposition

Substance use stigma: Reliability and validity of a theory-based scale for substance-using populations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About