Talking About Privilege: Framing Inequality as Advantage Is More Likely for Inequality in Positive Than in Negative Outcomes.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Annette Malapally, Susanne Bruckmüller
{"title":"Talking About Privilege: Framing Inequality as Advantage Is More Likely for Inequality in Positive Than in Negative Outcomes.","authors":"Annette Malapally, Susanne Bruckmüller","doi":"10.1177/01461672241265779","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Inequality is often one-sidedly framed as disadvantage, a practice identified as problematic by empirical research and critical scholarship, as it renders privilege invisible and shapes perceptions of and reactions to inequality. Importantly, inequality can mean differences in positive (e.g., promotions) or negative outcomes (e.g., harassment). Drawing on cognitive processes involved in (group) comparisons and the processing of positive and negative content, we predict that the valence of outcomes moderates the preference for disadvantage (vs. advantage) frames. We coded social media posts on gender inequality (Study 1, <i>n</i> = 1,402) and had participants in an online experiment (Study 2, <i>n</i> = 164) describe gender and sexual orientation inequality in positive and negative outcomes. Confirming hypotheses, people overall used disadvantage frames more, but were more likely to use advantage frames for inequality in positive (compared with negative) outcomes. We discuss theoretical implications for inequality framing research and practical implications for privilege awareness interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":19834,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","volume":" ","pages":"1461672241265779"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241265779","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Inequality is often one-sidedly framed as disadvantage, a practice identified as problematic by empirical research and critical scholarship, as it renders privilege invisible and shapes perceptions of and reactions to inequality. Importantly, inequality can mean differences in positive (e.g., promotions) or negative outcomes (e.g., harassment). Drawing on cognitive processes involved in (group) comparisons and the processing of positive and negative content, we predict that the valence of outcomes moderates the preference for disadvantage (vs. advantage) frames. We coded social media posts on gender inequality (Study 1, n = 1,402) and had participants in an online experiment (Study 2, n = 164) describe gender and sexual orientation inequality in positive and negative outcomes. Confirming hypotheses, people overall used disadvantage frames more, but were more likely to use advantage frames for inequality in positive (compared with negative) outcomes. We discuss theoretical implications for inequality framing research and practical implications for privilege awareness interventions.

谈论特权:将不平等定格为优势对于积极结果中的不平等比消极结果中的不平等更有可能。
不平等往往被片面地归结为劣势,这种做法被实证研究和批判性学术研究认为是有问题的,因为它使特权被忽视,并形成了对不平等的看法和反应。重要的是,不平等可能意味着积极结果(如晋升)或消极结果(如骚扰)的差异。根据(群体)比较和积极与消极内容处理所涉及的认知过程,我们预测结果的价值会调节对不利(与有利)框架的偏好。我们对社交媒体上有关性别不平等的帖子进行了编码(研究 1,n = 1,402),并让参加在线实验(研究 2,n = 164)的参与者用积极和消极的结果来描述性别和性取向的不平等。结果证实了我们的假设,人们总体上更多地使用劣势框架,但在正面(与负面)结果的不平等中更多地使用优势框架。我们讨论了不平等框架研究的理论意义和特权意识干预的实际意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin is the official journal for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology. The journal is an international outlet for original empirical papers in all areas of personality and social psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信