What Constitutes 'Discrimination' in Everyday Talk? Argumentative Lines and the Social Representations of Discrimination

Most people agree that discrimination is wrong, but the boundary between 'discrimination' and 'not discrimination' is often highly contested in everyday practice. We explore the social representations of 'discrimination' as an object of study in qualitative interviews and focus groups with both minority (self-identified as BAME and/ or gay men) and majority (self-identified as white and/ or heterosexual) participants (n= 54). Our analysis suggests three repeated and pervasive argumentative lines in social representations of discrimination; (1) that there are two distinct kinds of discrimination (hard versus soft), (2) that you need to understand the intention of the actor(s), and (3) that a claim of discrimination requires strong evidence. We outline the macro Functions of these resources to argue that each was non-performative: they appeared to be tools to make claims of discrimination, but in practice they were much more effective at making claims of what was not discrimination

Effects of promotion and compunction interventions on real intergroup interactions: promotion helps but high compunction hurts

We show the promotion intervention has positive effects during intergroup contact, but that high levels of compunction can have negative effects. Intergroup contact is probably the longest standing and most comprehensively researched intervention to reduce discrimination. It is also part of ordinary social experience, and a key context in which discrimination is played out. In this paper, we explore two additional interventions which are also designed to reduce discrimination, but which have not yet been applied to real intergroup interactions. The promotion intervention encourages participants to relax and enjoy an interaction, while the compunction intervention motivates participants to avoid discrimination. Across two studies, we tested the separate effects of promotion (Study 1) and then compunction (Study 2) on participants' interactions with a confederate whom they believed to have a history of schizophrenia. In Study 1, participants received either a promotion intervention to “relax and have an enjoyable dialogue” or no intervention (control; n = 67). In Study 2, participants completed a Single-Category Implicit Attitude Test before being told that they were high in prejudice (high compunction condition) or low in prejudice (low compunction condition; n = 62). Results indicated that promotion was associated with broadly positive effects: participants reported more positive experience of the interaction (enjoyment and interest in a future interaction), and more positive evaluations of their contact partner (increased friendliness and reduced stereotyping). There were no effects on participants' reported intergroup anxiety. In contrast, high compunction had broadly negative effects: participants reported more negative experiences of the interaction and more negative evaluations of their contact partner (using the same dependent measures outlined above). In addition, participants in the high compunction condition reported increased intergroup anxiety and increased self-anxiety (anxiety around thinking or doing something that is prejudiced). Participants in the high compunction condition also reported reduced expectancies of self-efficacy (i.e., they were less confident that they would be able to make a good impression)

Implicit racism, colour blindness, and narrow definitions of discrimination: Why some White people prefer ‘All Lives Matter’ to ‘Black Lives Matter'

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has been called the ‘civil rights issue of our time’(Holt & Sweitzer, 2020, Self and Identity, 19, p. 16) but the All Lives Matter (ALM) movement swiftly emerged as an oppositional response to BLM. Prior research has investigated some predictors of support for ALM over BLM, but these predictors have thus far not included levels of racial bias or potentially relevant constructions of racism.This pre-registered, cross-sectional study (N = 287) tested the degree to which White participants’ support for ALM could be predicted using measures of racism (implicit and explicit) and ideological stances around the construction of ‘racism’ (that discourage the recognition of contemporary inequalities and discrimination). Using multiple regression analyses, we found that implicit racism, colour-blind ideology, and narrow definitional boundaries of discrimination positively predicted support for ALM over BLM. Explicit racism, collective narcissism, and right-wing political orientation did not predict ALM support, nor did any (2-way) interaction of these predictors. Implications for our understanding of the All Lives Matter movement are discussed

Beware of "reducing prejudice": imagined contact may backfire if applied with a prevention focus

Imagined intergroup contact—the mental simulation of a (positive) interaction with a member of another group—is a recently developed, low-risk, prejudice-reducing intervention. However, regulatory focus can moderate of the effects of prejudice-reducing interventions: a prevention focus (as opposed to a promotion focus) can lead to more negative outcomes. In two experiments we found that a prevention focus altered imagined contact's effects, causing the intervention to backfire. In Experiment 1, participants who reported a strong prevention-focus during imagined contact subsequently reported higher intergroup anxiety and (indirectly) less positive attitudes toward Asians. We found similar moderating effects in Experiment 2, using a different outgroup (gay men) and a subtle regulatory focus manipulation. Theoretical and practical implications for imagined contact are discusse

Gay men's identity work and the social construction of discrimination

Although the lives of gay men in the post-closet generation are easier in many ways, everyday discrimination still exists in the forms of heterosexism and microaggressions. These forms of discrimination are difficult and risky to talk about, partly because they are often ambiguous, and also because these conversations can disrupt the status quo. In this paper, we explore how the idea of ‘discrimination’ is more complex than it might first appear, and how the boundaries between ‘discrimination’ and ‘not discrimination’ are socially constructed. We conducted qualitative interviews with 15 undergraduate students who self-identified as gay men, and used dialogical analysis to explore their identity work. Participants constructed discrimination/not discrimination in different ways as they shifted between different I− positions: I− as authentic individual, I− as what I am not (not camp and not a victim), and I− as powerful. Our analysis indicates the extent to which ‘discrimination’ is socially constructed (rather than an objective reality), and suggests means by which practitioners and advocates can support clients in talking about discrimination

Categorization and intergroup anxiety in contact between British and Japanese nationals

Two studies examined the relationship between categorization, intergroup anxiety and intergroup attitudes (intergroup bias and negative affect). Study 1 consisted of a survey of 236 British and Japanese nationals. Study 2 was a longitudinal study of 54 Japanese students studying in the UK. Of the three categorization variables (interpersonal, superordinate and intergroup), only intergroup categorization was shown to have a relationship to generalized intergroup attitudes. In addition, intergroup anxiety and quality of contact were associated with ingroup bias and negative affect to the outgroup. Study 2 revealed an interaction between intergroup categorization and quality of contact in predicting negative affect. Intergroup anxiety was also associated with increased intergroup categorization. It is concluded that the effects of categorization during contact are still poorly understood, and that intergroup anxiety is a far more powerful variable in contact than the current literature acknowledges. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

Acculturation and contact in Japenese students studying in the United Kingdom

Acculturation theory has been the dominant model that investigators use in examining the effects of transmigration. This theory indicates the problematic effects of intercultural contact in terms of adjustment and stress. One criticism of this theory, however, is its lack of integration with the more generic contact literature. This literature suggests that intergroup contact can have positive effects on intergroup relations. The authors presented a longitudinal study of 35 Japanese nationals living in the United Kingdom over a period of 12 months. The present results suggested that both conventional acculturation variables (e.g., language ability and perceived cultural distance) and intergroup variables (e.g., in-group bias and intergroup anxiety) were associated with acculturative stress and psychosomatic illness over time. Higher intergroup anxiety was associated with increased acculturative stress, whereas higher in-group bias was associated with reduced psychosomatic illness. The present results indicated the possibility that these variables add an important dimension to the acculturation literature

The repeal of Section 28: it ain't over 'til it's over

Section 28 (part of the Local Government Act of 1988) was a notorious piece of legislation that sought to prevent local education authorities in the UK from ‘promoting homosexuality’. The effect of Section 28 was to create uncertainty and fear among teachers as to what was (and what was not) permitted in schools. Over time practitioners and policy‐makers have become increasingly concerned about the failure to address the range of sexualities [i.e. lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT)] that children bring to the classroom. While the Section was repealed in Scotland in 2000 and in England and Wales in 2003, we suggest that the negative effects of Section 28 may yet remain. We present questionnaire data from 39 secondary school teachers in Wales. The results indicate that nearly half of the sample remained unaware of the repeal of Section 28. A smaller, but still substantial, proportion agreed that Section 28 still affected their practice in schools. Importantly, this included teachers who were also aware of the repeal of the Act. We suggest that the continuing effects of Section 28 need to be understood in the wider context in which it was enacted, and the more general uncertainties and discomforts around doing LGBT issues in schools