多种族背景下的歧视归因:隔离目标群体成员的影响。

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-25 DOI:10.1037/xge0001475
Laurie T O'Brien, Maria Casteigne, Tyler Waldon-Lee, Caley Lowe, Stefanie Simon
{"title":"多种族背景下的歧视归因:隔离目标群体成员的影响。","authors":"Laurie T O'Brien, Maria Casteigne, Tyler Waldon-Lee, Caley Lowe, Stefanie Simon","doi":"10.1037/xge0001475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Historically, psychological models of how people make judgments of discrimination have relied on a binary conceptualization of intergroup relations, making it unclear how people make judgments of discrimination in diverse, multigroup contexts. We propose that groups can vary in the extent to which they fit the prototype for targets of discrimination and that this variation influences judgments of discrimination in ambiguous circumstances. The present research examined attributions to discrimination when job applicants are rejected for a white-collar position. People consistently made more attributions to discrimination (ATDs) when managers rejected Black American as compared to Asian American job applicants, and when managers rejected Asian American as compared to White American job applicants. People also made more ATDs for rejected Black American as compared to Latino American applicants, but ATDs were similar for Latino and Asian American applicants. Overall, similar patterns were observed in majority White American samples and a Black/African American sample; only an Asian American sample did not make more ATDs for rejected Black than Asian American applicants. Six experiments (<i>N</i> = 2,321) found strong support for the relative fit hypothesis and suggest that, in a white-collar employment context, White Americans are a distant fit to the prototype for targets of discrimination, Asian and Latino Americans are an intermediate fit, and Black Americans are a close fit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":"2751-2770"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Attributions to discrimination in multiracial contexts: Isolating the effect of target group membership.\",\"authors\":\"Laurie T O'Brien, Maria Casteigne, Tyler Waldon-Lee, Caley Lowe, Stefanie Simon\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xge0001475\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Historically, psychological models of how people make judgments of discrimination have relied on a binary conceptualization of intergroup relations, making it unclear how people make judgments of discrimination in diverse, multigroup contexts. We propose that groups can vary in the extent to which they fit the prototype for targets of discrimination and that this variation influences judgments of discrimination in ambiguous circumstances. The present research examined attributions to discrimination when job applicants are rejected for a white-collar position. People consistently made more attributions to discrimination (ATDs) when managers rejected Black American as compared to Asian American job applicants, and when managers rejected Asian American as compared to White American job applicants. People also made more ATDs for rejected Black American as compared to Latino American applicants, but ATDs were similar for Latino and Asian American applicants. Overall, similar patterns were observed in majority White American samples and a Black/African American sample; only an Asian American sample did not make more ATDs for rejected Black than Asian American applicants. Six experiments (<i>N</i> = 2,321) found strong support for the relative fit hypothesis and suggest that, in a white-collar employment context, White Americans are a distant fit to the prototype for targets of discrimination, Asian and Latino Americans are an intermediate fit, and Black Americans are a close fit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2751-2770\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001475\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001475","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从历史上看,人们如何判断歧视的心理模型依赖于群体间关系的二元概念化,这使得人们在不同的多群体背景下如何判断歧视变得不清楚。我们认为,群体在多大程度上符合歧视目标的原型,这种差异会影响在模糊情况下对歧视的判断。本研究调查了白领职位求职者被拒绝时的歧视归因。当经理拒绝美国黑人求职者时,与亚裔求职者相比,以及当经理拒绝亚裔求职者时与白人求职者相比时,人们总是更多地归因于歧视。与拉丁裔美国人相比,人们为被拒绝的美国黑人申请人制作了更多的ATD,但拉丁裔和亚裔美国人的ATD相似。总体而言,在大多数美国白人样本和黑人/非裔美国人样本中观察到类似的模式;只有一个亚裔美国人的样本并没有为被拒绝的黑人申请人提供比亚裔美国人更多的ATD。六项实验(N=2321)有力地支持了相对适合假说,并表明,在白领就业背景下,美国白人与歧视目标的原型相去甚远,亚裔和拉丁裔美国人是中等适合,而美国黑人则非常适合。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Attributions to discrimination in multiracial contexts: Isolating the effect of target group membership.

Historically, psychological models of how people make judgments of discrimination have relied on a binary conceptualization of intergroup relations, making it unclear how people make judgments of discrimination in diverse, multigroup contexts. We propose that groups can vary in the extent to which they fit the prototype for targets of discrimination and that this variation influences judgments of discrimination in ambiguous circumstances. The present research examined attributions to discrimination when job applicants are rejected for a white-collar position. People consistently made more attributions to discrimination (ATDs) when managers rejected Black American as compared to Asian American job applicants, and when managers rejected Asian American as compared to White American job applicants. People also made more ATDs for rejected Black American as compared to Latino American applicants, but ATDs were similar for Latino and Asian American applicants. Overall, similar patterns were observed in majority White American samples and a Black/African American sample; only an Asian American sample did not make more ATDs for rejected Black than Asian American applicants. Six experiments (N = 2,321) found strong support for the relative fit hypothesis and suggest that, in a white-collar employment context, White Americans are a distant fit to the prototype for targets of discrimination, Asian and Latino Americans are an intermediate fit, and Black Americans are a close fit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
×
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