Cross category coalitions: Reducing bias across identity dimensions in intra-minority intergroup relations

Author
Publication Year
2014

Type

Thesis
Abstract

Relations among members of different stigmatized and/or minority groups (i.e., intraminority intergroup relations) may be influenced differently from relations between dominant and minority group members due to the experiences that often distinguish stigmatized from dominant group members—discrimination or disadvantage. The current literature examining the effect of perceived discrimination on intra-minority intergroup relations suggests that different processes may occur when intra-minority intergroup relations are within an identity dimension (e.g., within race) rather than across identity dimensions (e.g., across the dimensions of gender and race). One aim of this dissertation is to explore further whether salient anti-ingroup discrimination promotes bias against members of disadvantaged groups across identity dimensions. Analyses of two nationally-representative datasets and an experiment (Studies 1-3) reveal that anti-ingroup discrimination is associated with and leads to more negative attitudes toward and less support for policies that would benefit sexual minorities. A second aim of this dissertation is to examine whether a personal connection to disadvantage (i.e., personally experienced discrimination) may promote commonality or connection among groups stigmatized on different dimensions of identity and, thus, reduce the expression of bias after exposure to discrimination. Study 3 finds a positive association between personally-experienced discrimination and attitudes toward another stigmatized group across identity dimensions. Study 4 reveals that whereas making group-based sexism salient leads White women to express more negative attitudes toward stigmatized groups from a different dimension of identity (i.e., sexual minorities), compared to when sexism is not salient; making personally-experienced sexism salient, however, does not lead to more negative attitudes, compared to when sexism is not salient. Study 5 explores the potential mediating role of identification as “disadvantaged” in fostering more positive intergroup attitudes after making personal, rather than group, experiences with sexism salient. Last, Study 6 suggests further that strengthening perceptions that one has personally experienced sexism protects against the intergroup bias toward stigmatized outgroups evoked from making group-level sexism salient. Overall, the present work provides compelling evidence that making group experiences of discrimination salient negatively affects intra-minority intergroup relations across identity dimensions, but making personal experiences of discrimination salient may buffer against this negative effect.

Thesis Type
Dissertation
University
Northwestern University
Full text

The following is an excerpt of the intervention methodology. For more information, please see the full text of the article on the publisher's website or through your institution's library.

Study 1

Data & Method

The present study examined the cumulative data set from the General Social Surveys (GSS) conducted between 1972 and 2012. The GSS is a survey of residents of the United States that is conducted by the National Opinion Research Center to create a nationally-representative dataset of many social and policy attitude items across several decades. In the interviews, which generally take about 1.5 hours to conduct, respondents are asked about their attitudes and behaviors in relation to different political and social issues. [...] Analyses focused on the sample of self-identified Black respondents who were born in the United States, participated in the GSS during those years, and who had completed the variables of interest (n = 1230; 63.82% women, Mage = 42.97, SDage = 16.32).

Perceived discrimination. Although several items assessing perceived racial discrimination are present within the GSS dataset, many items were asked in only a few years. [...] In the present analyses, perceived discrimination was operationalized by an item that was asked in the greatest number of surveys [...]. Specifically, respondents indicated whether they thought that the reason that Black Americans have worse jobs, income, and housing than White people was due to discrimination. [...]

Attitudes toward homosexuality. Four items that were included in the greatest number of surveys [...] assessed individuals’ attitudes toward homosexuality. Specifically, respondents were asked to indicate whether they thought that a gay man should be allowed to 1) make a speech in his community or 2) teach in a college or university. [...] A third item asked respondents to indicate whether they would support removing a hypothetical book that was in favor of homosexuality from their public library. [...] A final item asked respondents to indicate the degree to which they considered sexual relations between two adults of the same sex to be wrong (1 = Always wrong, 4 = Not wrong at all). [...]

Demographic variables. The following indicators of respondents’ demographic characteristics were assessed: age, gender (0 = Female, 1 = Male), the frequency of the respondents’ religious attendance (0 = Never, 8 = Several times a week), and educational attainment (0 = Less than high school, 4 = Graduate degree).

Study 2

Participants. Thirty-five participants (15 Latino, 20 Black) took part in the experiment for partial course credit. All participants (23 women, Mage = 18.46, SDage = 0.56) identified as a 0 or 1 on the Kinsey scale of sexual orientation (0 = Exclusively heterosexual and 6 = Exclusively homosexual).

Materials & measures

Perceived discrimination manipulation. [...] Participants read three newspaper articles. All participants first read two neutral articles, followed by an article about an alleged research study related to Blacks or Latinos in the United States (see Appendix A for the full articles). In the discrimination-salient condition, the study outlined the social and economic consequences of racial discrimination against Blacks for Black participants or anti-Latino discrimination for Latino participants. In the control condition, the study explored risk factors for lupus, including information that Blacks (for Black participants) or Latinos (for Latino participants) are more likely to develop aggressive forms of lupus. [...]

Attitudes toward sexual minorities and policy support. The Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale assessed attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. [...] Participants indicated their agreement to statements (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) [...].

Procedure. Participants came into the lab individually and were met by an Asian American experimenter. After providing informed consent, participants read the two neutral articles, followed by either the article that made discrimination-salient or the control article, based on random assignment. Participants then completed the measures of explicit and implicit attitudes toward sexual minorities. The order of presentation for the IAT and the self-report questions was randomized and no order effect emerged. Finally, participants were thanked and debriefed.

Study 3

Data & Method

Study 3 examined data from a survey of 3511 Asian Americans that was conducted with telephone interviews from January to March 2012 in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. [...] Analyses focused on the sample of Asian Americans who primarily identified with their Asian American identity, who were not Hispanic, and who were US citizens (n = 2526; 51.39% women, Mage = 49.90, SDage = 17.14).

Perceived discrimination. Two items assessed perceived discrimination. One item asked respondents to indicate the degree to which they thought that discrimination against _____ Americans was a major problem, minor problem, or not a problem (the country of origin/ethnic background that respondents identified with most was inserted in the blank; e.g., Chinese). [...]

Attitudes toward homosexuality. There was only one item in the dataset that assessed individuals’ attitudes toward homosexuality; in this item, respondents were asked to indicate the statement that was closer to their views, “Homosexuality should be accepted by society” or “Homosexuality should be discouraged by society.”

Demographic variables. The following indicators of respondents’ demographic characteristics were included in the analyses: age, gender (0 = Female, 1 = Male), the frequency of the respondents’ religious attendance (0 = Never, 6 = More than once a week), and educational attainment (0 = Less than high school, 7 = Post-graduate training or professional schooling after college).

Study 4

Study 4 examined one potential method for preventing intergroup bias across dimensions of identity in response to salient discrimination: making salient a connection between the self and disadvantage. [...]

Participants. Sixty-eight White women were recruited from the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk.com) marketplace to participate in the study in exchange for $0.30. Participants (Mage = 33.21, SDage = 15.25) lived in 31 different states.

Materials & measures

Perceived sexism manipulation. [...] Specifically, participants were asked either to write about a time in which they felt discriminated against because of their gender (personal experience of sexism condition), write about an instance of discrimination against women as a group in the United States (group experience of sexism condition), or write about their living room (control condition).

Attitudes toward sexual minorities. Attitudes toward sexual minorities were assessed with the Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale. Participants indicated their agreement (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) [...].

Procedure. Participants were recruited from MTurk.com for a study allegedly about the link between memory, writing styles, and beliefs. After providing informed consent, participants were randomly assigned to write about personally-experienced gender discrimination, groupbased gender discrimination, or their living room, completed the attitudes toward sexual minorities measure, and then reported their demographic characteristics (e.g., race, gender, age).

Study 5

Participants. Ninety-one White women (Mage = 18.77, SDage = 0.84) were recruited from the Northwestern campus in exchange for partial course credit.

Materials & measures

Perceived sexism manipulation. The same essay-writing manipulation described in Study 4 was used to prime thoughts about sexism in the United States (personal experience of sexism condition, group experience of sexism condition, control condition).

Implicit identification with disadvantage. To assess identification as “disadvantaged,” participants completed a self-other IAT with categories of “Disadvantaged” and “Privileged” [...].

Attitudes toward sexual minorities. Self-report attitudes toward sexual minorities were assessed with the Support for Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights Scale and the Attitudes toward Gay Men and Lesbians Scale. [...]

Attitudes toward Blacks. Participants completed nine items from the Anti-Black Scale to assess attitudes toward Blacks. Participants indicated their agreement on a 7-point scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7 = Strongly Agree) [...].

Procedure. [...] After providing informed consent, participants were randomly assigned to write about personally-experienced gender discrimination, group-based gender discrimination, or their living room, and then completed the identification as disadvantaged IAT. Finally, self-report attitudes toward racial and sexual minority groups were assessed, participants reported their demographic characteristics, and were debriefed.

Study 6

A main goal of Study 6 was to directly examine whether increasing White women’s perceptions of themselves as “disadvantaged” would attenuate the expression of more negative attitudes toward other stigmatized groups when group-level sexism was made salient. [...]

Participants. One hundred seventy White women (Mage = 37.38, SDage = 14.03) were recruited from MTurk.com to participate in a study about political and social topics in exchange for $0.30.

Materials & measures

Personal connection with sexism manipulation. [...] Half of participants were randomly assigned to indicate their agreement (1 = Agree somewhat, 6 = Agree completely) to statements about personally experiencing sexism (personally experienced sexism condition). The other half of participants indicated their agreement to statements unrelated to sexism or gender (control statement agreement condition). [...]

Group-based sexism manipulation. Similar to Studies 4 and 5, participants completed an essay-writing manipulation to prime thoughts about group-based sexism in the United States. [...]

Attitudes toward Blacks. Similar to Study 5, participants completed the Anti-Black Scale. [...]

Attitudes toward sexual minorities. Attitudes toward sexual minorities were again assessed with the Attitudes toward Gay Men and Lesbians Scale. [...]

Procedure. [...] After providing informed consent, participants were asked to complete some items for later studies, which served as the FASE manipulation; participants were randomly assigned to indicate their agreement to statements about personally experiencing sexism or statements unrelated to sexism or gender. Participants then were randomly assigned to write about group-based gender discrimination or their living room, followed by measures of attitudes toward sexual and racial minorities.

Type of Prejudice/Bias
Country