{"id":45767,"date":"2020-03-29T07:13:06","date_gmt":"2020-03-29T07:13:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/essays.homeworkacetutors.com\/2020\/03\/effect-of-discrimination-on-sociopolitical-ideologies\/"},"modified":"2020-03-29T07:13:06","modified_gmt":"2020-03-29T07:13:06","slug":"effect-of-discrimination-on-sociopolitical-ideologies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/effect-of-discrimination-on-sociopolitical-ideologies\/","title":{"rendered":"Effect of Discrimination on Sociopolitical Ideologies"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Pride and Prejudice: How
\nDiscrimination Affects Sociopolitical Ideologies<\/p>\n

Abstract<\/h3>\n

Prior research suggests that members of minority groups are
\nless likely to hold social dominant and color-blind racial ideologies, and tend
\nto experience higher levels of discrimination than members of majority groups
\n(Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; Ho et al., 2015; Williams,
\nYu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997). \u00a0The
\ncurrent study explores the relationship between everyday discrimination and
\nattitudes about inequality among social groups (whether an aggressive form of
\noppression, a passive preference for hierarchy-enhancing ideologies, or denial
\nthat inequality is an issue). \u00a0The
\nparticipants were recruited from the psychology participant pool at a private,
\nCatholic Hispanic-serving institution and encouraged to share the survey link
\nwith others aged 18 and over. \u00a0Members of
\nminority groups were expected to report experiencing higher levels of
\ndiscrimination. \u00a0More frequent
\nexperiences of perceived discrimination, measured using the Everyday Discrimination
\nScale, were expected to be inversely related to social dominance orientation,
\nmeasured using the updated Social Dominance Orientation- short scale, and
\ncolor-blind racial ideologies, measured using the Color-blind Racial Attitudes
\nScale. \u00a0The study found that the Everyday Discrimination Scale was
\nsignificantly related to Social Dominance Orientation, and that Social
\nDominance Orientation could be predicted by the Everyday Discrimination Scale
\nand Color-blind Racial Attitude Scale.\u00a0
\nThe study also found that Social Dominance Orientation could predict
\npredilection to Color-blind Racial Attitudes.<\/p>\n

Pride and Prejudice: How Discrimination Affects Sociopolitical Ideologies<\/h2>\n

The last recorded lynching took place in Mobile, Alabama in 1981, where a 19-year-old black man was killed by two members of the Klu Klux Klan (Koppel, 2008). Although discrimination seems to have decreased since then, discrimination is still alive and thriving<\/a>, just not in the same manifestation as before. \u00a0Discrimination can be distinguished into discrimination measured by major events and everyday discrimination (Williams, Yu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997). \u00a0Major discrimination events tend to be more salient than minor events of discrimination, but consideration must be given to discrimination that occurs more covertly and more often. \u00a0The Everyday Discrimination Scale measures minor, but frequent experiences of discrimination in everyday life (Williams et al., 1997). \u00a0Discrimination is typically aimed toward minority groups, and experiencing discrimination can adversely affect individuals of said groups; Black and Latino teenagers who are discriminated against exhibit depressive symptoms (Priest et al., 2013) and marginalization can impede minority individuals attempting to climb in socioeconomic status (Corcoran & Nichols-Casebolt, 2004). <\/p>\n

Attitudes toward other groups, whether negative or positive, drive behaviors and preferences for certain policies and institutional forces. \u00a0Individuals that come from denigrated groups (i.e. women, ethnic\/racial minorities) tend to disagree with ideologies that perpetuate inequality among social groups, because having these ideologies would be a form of self-oppression (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). \u00a0Seeing as minorities already encounter sundry adversities in the fields of education<\/a>, physical and psychological health, and socioeconomic status (APA, n.d.), agreeing with ideologies that perpetuate inequality means that minority groups would have to continue to encounter said adversities.\u00a0 Social Dominance Orientation measures individual differences in proclivity for group-based inequality, with higher scores signifying a preference for hierarchy-enhancing ideologies, and lower scores signifying a preference for hierarchy-attenuating ideologies. \u00a0Hierarchy-enhancing ideologies aim to elevate amount of social inequality, while hierarchy-attenuating ideologies work to increase social equality. \u00a0Hierarchy-enhancing ideologies can include racism and sexism, while hierarchy-attenuating ideologies typically includes egalitarianist ideas like feminism.\u00a0 White men have a tendency toward higher Social Dominance Orientation scores, suggesting a negative relationship between experiencing discrimination, which happens with less frequency as a member of the majority group, and agreeing with hierarchy-enhancing ideologies. <\/p>\n

Two subdimensions of
\nhierarchy-enhancing ideologies have been identified: intergroup dominance,
\nknown as SDO-D, and intergroup antiegalitarianism, known as SDO-E (Ho et al.,
\n2015). \u00a0Individuals with higher SDO-D
\nscores support oppression and tend to engage in more aggressive behaviors
\ndesigned to actively maintain power over other groups.\u00a0 An individual with a high SDO-D score may be
\nmore inclined to agree with police brutality than an individual with a low
\nSDO-D score. \u00a0SDO-E is subtler and more
\npassive in nature, and typically involves negative attitudes toward migrants
\nand denigrated groups (Ho et al., 2015). \u00a0An individual with a high SDO-E score is more
\nlikely to support the \u201cgreat wall\u201d President Donald Trump plans to build in the
\nnext few years than an individual with a low SDO-E score.\u00a0 Social Dominance Orientation is associated
\nwith various ideologies, which include conservativism, just world belief,
\nnationalism, patriotism, militarism, cultural elitism, anti-Black racism,
\nchauvinism, sexism, and rape culture, among others (Pratto et al., 1994).\u00a0 A member of the Westboro Baptist Church would
\nmost likely have a high SDO score, as members of the hateful group tend to
\nsupport conservative ideologies, which have been associated with high Social
\nDominance Orientation scores. <\/p>\n

Social
\ndominance orientation is a significant predictor of social and political
\nattitudes, and has been associated with various scales measuring both
\nindividual and societal attitudes (Fisher, Hanke, & Sibley, 2012; Ho et
\nal., 2015; Oldmeadow & Fiske, 2007; Poteat & Spanierman, 2012; Pratto
\net al.,1994). \u00a0High SDO-D scores are
\nrelated to aggressive behaviors, including support for the death penalty,
\npunitiveness, and torture. \u00a0High SDO-E
\nscores are associated with opposition to Affirmative Action, welfare support,
\nand policies for racial equality. \u00a0Both
\nthe desire to aggressively and actively seek dominance over other groups
\n(SDO-D) and the passive support for policies that support inequality between
\ngroups (SDO-E) are negatively correlated to empathic concern.\u00a0 Previous research suggests that Social
\nDominance Orientation predicts lack of empathy, which has been associated with
\ngeneralized prejudice, because empathy grants an individual the ability to
\nunderstand and share the feelings of another (B\u00e4ckstr\u00f6m & Bj\u00f6rklund, 2007; Sidanius
\net al., 2013).\u00a0 Individuals with a high
\nSDO score, particularly a high SDO-D score, tend to score lower on Davis\u2019
\n(1983) empathic concern scale (Ho et al., 2015). \u00a0High SDO scores were also negatively related
\nto altruism, communality, inclusivism, egalitarianism, and tolerance (Pratto et
\nal., 1994).\u00a0 Because individuals with
\nhigh SDO scores are less concerned for others and less empathic than low SDO
\nscoring individuals, altruistic and collectivist ideas and actions are rare in
\nsaid individuals. <\/p>\n

SDO
\ncould be related to several ideologies, and in previous studies, Social
\nDominance Orientation has been associated with Color-blind Racial Attitudes
\n(Liao, Hong, & Rounds, 2016; Poteat & Spanierman, 2012), which can be
\nmeasured using CoBRAS, the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale. \u00a0The CoBRAS indicates a predilection toward
\nracial prejudice and just world belief, and assesses awareness of privilege, as
\nwell as institutional discrimination and racial issues (Neville, Lilly, Duran,
\nLee, & Browne, 2000). \u00a0Individuals
\nwith higher scores on the CoBRAS tend to believe in meritocracy, which is the
\nbelief that all resources are already equally distributed and bestowed
\ndepending on how worthy individuals are, and are under the false impression
\nthat racial color-blindness is a positive attitude to have, disregarding that
\nsaid attitudes may have negative implications for ethnic minority groups
\n(Poteat & Spanierman, 2012). \u00a0People
\nof color have historically been afforded less resources and opportunities than
\nCaucasian individuals, and discrimination is often a barrier that individuals
\nof color must overcome in order to advance (Woodson, 1990; Corcoran &
\nNichols-Casebolt, 2004; APA, n.d.).<\/p>\n

Individuals
\nwith color-blind racial attitudes (CBRA) are more inclined to racist ideologies
\nand increased approval of prejudice, although CBRA are not related to belief in
\nsuperiority, solely to unawareness of racism (Neville et al., 2000).\u00a0 An individual who says, \u201cI don\u2019t see color,\u201d
\nis willingly ignoring the fact that minority individuals in the United States
\nhave been oppressed and have faced adversity in the past, and continue to face
\nadversity, even today. \u00a0\u00a0Women and ethnic minorities like Black and
\nLatino individuals, on average, have lower scores than majority individuals,
\nlike white men, in the CoBRAS, much like with SDO (Neville et al., 2000). <\/p>\n

The current study explores the relationship between perceived discrimination and attitudes about inequality among social groups, whether an aggressive form of oppression like the SDO-D, a passive preference for hierarchy-enhancing ideologies like SDO-E, or the complete denial that racial and ethnic inequality is an issue at all, measured by the CoBRAS. \u00a0Because white men are less likely to be discriminated against, and likely to have score higher on both the SDO scale (Pratto et al., 1994) and the CoBRAS (Poteat & Spanierman, 2012), perceived discrimination is expected to be negatively related to SDO and CoBRAS scores. \u00a0The more often a person is discriminated against for being part of a minority group, the lower expected score on SDO and CoBRAS. \u00a0In addition, although the relationship between Social Dominance Orientation and Color-blind Racial Attitudes has been explored using the original SDO scale (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), no research was found regarding the relationship between CoBRAS and the updated SDO7<\/sub> scale. \u00a0The current study explores the relationship between CoBRAS and SDO7<\/sub>, ensuring that the scales are still related. <\/p>\n

Method<\/h2>\n

Participants <\/h3>\n

Seventy-one
\nparticipants, (46 women, 23 men, 1 non-binary) between the ages of 18 and 25 (m<\/em>= 19.72, SD<\/em>=1.48) were recruited from a private, Catholic Hispanic-serving
\ninstitution. \u00a0Out of the sample, 27 (38%)
\nwere freshmen, 21 (29.6%) were sophomores, 15 (21.1%) were juniors, 6 (8.4%)
\nwere seniors, and 2 (2.8%) classified as other. \u00a0The majority (n<\/em>=47, 66.2%) self-identified as Hispanic\/Latino\/a, 19.7% (n<\/em>=14) self-identified as Caucasian, 7% (n<\/em>=5) self-identified as more than one
\nethnicity, 4.2% (n<\/em>=3) self-identified
\nas African-American, 1.4% (n<\/em>=1) self-identified
\nas American Indian\/Native American, and 1.4% (n<\/em>=1) did not wish to respond. <\/p>\n

Measures<\/h3>\n

Color-Blind
\nRacial Attitudes Scale<\/strong>.<\/em> \u00a0The 20-item Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale
\n(CoBRAS; Neville, Lilly, Duran, Lee, & Browne, 2000) measures the denial of
\nracial issues with items like \u201cEveryone who works hard, no matter what race
\nthey are, has an equal chance to become rich\u201d, \u201cRacism may have been a problem
\nin the past, but it is not an important problem today\u201d, and \u201cWhite people in
\nthe U.S. are discriminated against because of the color of their skin.\u201d.\u00a0 CoBRAS utilizes a 6-point Likert-type scale
\nwhere 1=strongly disagree <\/em>and 6=strongly agree<\/em>; half the items are
\nreverse scored and scores are summed up, with higher scores being associated
\nwith more denial of racial issues. \u00a0Summed
\nscores of the CoBRAS are associated with racial prejudice, just-world belief
\nand social dominance orientation (Neville et al., 2000; Poteat & Spanierman,
\n2012). \u00a0Cronbach\u2019s alpha for the CoBRAS was
\n.87 across 3 samples (Neville et al., 2000)<\/p>\n

Social
\nDominance Orientation7(S)<\/sub>.<\/strong> \u00a0The 8-item short Social Dominance Orientation
\nscale (SDO7(S)<\/sub>;Ho et al., 2015) is a revised version of
\nthe original 16-item SDO scale (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle,
\n1994), that measures intergroup dominance (SDO-D) and antiegalitarian (SDO-E)
\nbeliefs. \u00a0Items include: \u201cNo one group
\nshould dominate in society\u201d, \u201cIts unjust to try to make groups equal\u201d, and \u201cWe
\nshould work to give all groups an equal chance to succeed.\u201d Participants respond
\nto each item on a 7-point Likert scale, where 1=strongly oppose<\/em> and 7=strongly
\nfavor<\/em>; half the items are reverse scored and scores are summed up, with higher
\nscores indicating higher dominance or antiegalitarianism. \u00a0Scores for SDO-D and SDO-E, are independent. \u00a0SDO-D is associated with support for the death
\npenalty, nationalism, punitiveness, militarism, support for war and torture,
\nand SDO-E is associated with redistribution of wealth, as well as opposition to
\naffirmative action, welfare policies and policies for racial equality. \u00a0Both are related to low empathic concern (Ho
\net al., 2015). \u00a0The short scale used in
\nthe current study, had a Cronbach\u2019s alpha of .85 across 6 samples (Ho et al, 2015).<\/p>\n

Everyday
\nDiscrimination Scale.<\/strong>
\n\u00a0The 9-item Everyday Discrimination Scale
\n(EDS; Williams, Yu, Jackson, & Anderson, 1997) measures the frequency of
\nminor, chronic experiences of discrimination, rather than major instances of
\ndiscrimination. \u00a0The items include: \u201cYou
\nare treated with less courtesy than other people are\u201d, \u201cYou are treated with
\nless respect than other people are\u201d, and \u201cYou are called names or insulted.\u201d
\nFor each item, participants respond with almost
\nevery day, at least once a week, a few times a month, a few times a year, less
\nthan once a year,<\/em> or never.<\/em> \u00a0If an item is answered a few times a year<\/em> or more frequently, a follow-up question asks
\nwhat the individual believes is the main reason for said experiences. \u00a0Item scores were summed up, with higher scores
\nindicating higher frequency of discrimination. Data from the follow-up question
\nwas also used to find frequency of different forms of discrimination. Cronbach\u2019s
\nalpha for the EDS was .87 (Clark, Coleman, & Novak, 2004).<\/p>\n

Procedure<\/h3>\n

Upon enrollment into a psychology
\ncourse, students were granted access to the Psychology Participant Pool on
\nBlackboard. \u00a0The study was listed in the
\nPsychology Participant Pool under Online Opportunities as The Attitude Study. \u00a0A sharable link to the survey was provided. \u00a0If consent was given, the participant was
\ndirected to the survey, where the CoBRAS, SDO7(S)<\/sub> and EDS scale were
\nanswered. \u00a0Demographic information was
\nalso gathered. \u00a0Participants were given
\nthe option to exit the survey at any time, and to decline participation
\naltogether. \u00a0Students earned extra or
\nrequired credit (for General Psychology), by participating or recruiting
\nsomeone to participate.<\/p>\n

Results<\/h2>\n

Discrimination <\/h3>\n

Experiences of discrimination
\nwere measured using the Everyday Discrimination Scale (Neville et al., 2000). \u00a0The most common type of reported
\ndiscrimination was discrimination due race or ethnicity (n<\/em>=51, 71.8%), followed by gender (n<\/em>=36, 50.7%), age (n<\/em>=29,
\n40.8%), and social class (n<\/em>=27, 38%).
\n\u00a0Only 7 individuals (9.9%) reported to
\nnot have experienced any form of discrimination (see Figure 1). <\/p>\n

Based on modified population marginal means, individuals self-identifying as African-Americans had the highest average amount of reported discrimination (m<\/em>=39), followed by individuals self-identifying as more than one ethnicity (m<\/em>=30.88), individuals who did not wish to respond (m<\/em>=29), individuals self-identifying as Caucasian (m<\/em>=23.63), individuals self-identifying as Hispanic\/Latino\/a (m<\/em>=22.35), and individuals self-identifying as American Indian\/Native American (m<\/em>=16) (see Figure 2). \u00a0There was a significant pairwise difference between African-Americans and Caucasians (MD<\/em>=16.97, p<\/em>=.003), African-Americans and Hispanic\/Latino\/as (MD<\/em>=17.28, p<\/em>=.002), African-Americans and American Indian\/Native Americans (MD<\/em>=23, p<\/em>=.02), and Hispanic\/Latino\/as and individuals identifying as more than one ethnicity (MD<\/em>=5.724, p<\/em>=.03).<\/p>\n

Individuals self-identifying as male had the highest average amount of reported discrimination (m<\/em>=25.77), although there was not a significant pairwise mean difference (MD<\/em>=3.56, p<\/em>=.118) from self-identifying females (m<\/em>=22.21), based on modified population marginal means. Individuals identifying as non-binary (m<\/em>=24) also did not have a significant pairwise mean difference from males (MD<\/em>=-1.77, p<\/em>=.829) and females (MD<\/em>=1.79, p<\/em>=.826) (see Figure 3). <\/p>\n

Based on modified population marginal means, individuals self-identifying as lower-middle class had the highest average amount of reported discrimination (m<\/em>=30.64), followed by individuals self-identifying as middle class (m<\/em>=22.53), upper-middle class (m<\/em>=21.28), working class (m<\/em>=21.06), and upper class (m<\/em>=16) (see Figure 4). \u00a0There was a significant pairwise mean difference between lower-middle class and middle class (MD<\/em>=8.103, p<\/em>=.01), lower-middle class and upper-middle class (MD<\/em>=9.355, p<\/em>=.005), and lower-middle class and working class (MD<\/em>=9.581, p<\/em>=.017). <\/p>\n

Discrimination and SDO<\/h3>\n

A linear regression was
\nconducted to determine if experiencing discrimination affected social dominance
\norientation. \u00a0Results suggest individuals
\nscoring higher on the Everyday Discrimination Scale also had higher scores on
\nthe Social Dominance Orientation scale, b<\/em>=.289,
\nt<\/em>(70)=2.510, p<\/em>=.014. \u00a0EDS scores also
\nexplained a significant amount of variance in SDO scores, R2<\/sup><\/em>=.084, F<\/em>(1,70)=6.298,
\np<\/em>=.014 (Table 1). \u00a0Individuals who are discriminated against tend
\nto have more hierarchy-enhancing ideologies than individuals who experience
\nless discrimination. <\/p>\n

Discrimination and CoBRAS<\/h3>\n

A linear regression was
\nconducted to determine if experiencing discrimination affected color-blind
\nracial ideologies. \u00a0No significant
\nrelation was found between scores on the Everyday Discrimination Scale and
\nscores on the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale, b<\/em>=-.065, t<\/em>(70)=.539, p<\/em>=.591. \u00a0EDS scores had no effect on variance in CoBRAS
\nscores, R2<\/sup><\/em>=.004, F<\/em>(1,70)=.291, p<\/em>=.591 (Table 1). \u00a0Experiencing
\ndiscrimination does not necessarily affect color-blind racial ideologies.<\/p>\n

SDO and CoBRAS<\/h3>\n

A linear regression was
\nconducted to determine if social dominance orientation and color-blind racial
\nideologies are related. \u00a0Results suggest
\nindividuals scoring higher on the SDO scale also had higher scores on the
\nCoBRAS, b<\/em>=.493, t<\/em>(70)=4.712, p<\/em><.05.
\nSDO scores also explained a significant amount of variance in CoBRAS scores, R2<\/sup><\/em>=.243, F<\/em>(1,70)=9.076, p<\/em><.05
\n(Table 1). \u00a0Individuals with
\nhierarchy-enhancing ideologies tend to have more color-blind racial ideologies
\nthank individuals without hierarchy-enhancing ideologies.<\/p>\n

CoBRAS & Discrimination as Predictors of SDO<\/h3>\n

A multiple regression
\nwas conducted to determine if discrimination and color-blind racial ideologies
\nwere predictors of social dominance orientation. \u00a0Results suggest individuals scoring higher on
\nthe Everyday Discrimination Scale also had higher scores on the Social
\nDominance Orientation scale, b<\/em>=.258, t<\/em>(70)=2.559, p<\/em>=.013. \u00a0Individuals scoring
\nhigher on the CoBRAS also had higher scores on the SDO scale, b<\/em>=.477, t<\/em>(70)=4.722, p<\/em><.05
\n(Table 1). \u00a0Individuals who are
\ndiscriminated against tend to have more hierarchy-enhancing ideologies than
\nindividuals who experience less discrimination, and individuals with
\ncolor-blind racial ideologies also tend to have more hierarchy-enhancing
\nideologies. <\/p>\n

Discussion <\/h2>\n

The current study examined the relationship between perceived
\ndiscrimination and sociopolitical ideologies. \u00a0Social Dominance Orientation scores were
\nrelatively low compared to previous studies (Ho et al., 2000; Poteat &
\nSpanierman, 2012). \u00a0Color-Blind Racial
\nAttitude Scale scores were more moderate than SDO scores. \u00a0Everyday Discrimination Scale scores were also
\nlow, especially considering the sample was made up almost entirely of minority
\nindividuals, who tend to score higher on the Everyday Discrimination Scale (Kim,
\nSellborn, & Ford, 2014).<\/p>\n

Sample homogeneity may have influenced the pattern of scores observed on
\nthe Social Dominance Orientation scale, Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale and
\nEveryday Discrimination Scale. \u00a0Participants
\nwere recruited from a Hispanic-serving institution, and most participants self-identified
\nas Hispanic or Latino (n<\/em>=47, 66.2%). \u00a0Previous research has examined the differences
\nbetween individuals of Caucasian decent and individuals classified as
\nminorities (Pratto et al., 1994; Neville et al., 2000; Ho et al., 2015),
\nfinding that minority groups score lower on both the SDO and CoBRAS scales. \u00a0Because the sample is mainly Hispanic, and
\ndrawn from a population that is largely Hispanic, the individuals in the sample
\nmay not experience discrimination to the extent as a more diverse sample. \u00a0In other words, Hispanics living around a
\nlargely Hispanic population have less interaction with other groups, leading to
\nlower levels of discrimination. \u00a0Additionally,
\nthe sample size acquired was small, leaving a large standard error and low
\neffect size. Future research should have an increased sample size that is not
\nas homogenous as the sample analyzed in the current study. <\/p>\n

The current study suggests individuals that experience discrimination
\nhave a higher tendency to agree with hierarchy-enhancing ideologies, implying
\nthat members of denigrated groups not only want to lessen discrimination, but may
\nwant to oppress the previously oppressing group, potentially creating a cycle
\nof oppression between groups.\u00a0 If people
\nof color acquire power, it is likely that individuals of Caucasian descent will
\nbe oppressed. \u00a0The sample was homogenous,
\nhowever, and does not reflect the general population. \u00a0Future research should examine different regions
\nof the United States, as well as more diverse population samples more similar
\nto the general population of the United States. \u00a0Being that the current political climate is
\nshifting and ethnic minorities are now beginning to outnumber the Caucasian
\npopulation, the implications of the current study should be taken into
\nconsideration, particularly in areas that already have large minority
\npopulations and large influxes of immigrants and minority groups that will
\ncontinue to flourish and grow. <\/p>\n

The current study also suggests that hierarchy-enhancing ideologies are
\nrelated to color-blind racial ideologies. \u00a0Individuals may be supportive of policies that
\ncontribute to the continued oppression of groups (particularly minority
\ngroups), even if the individual is part of the minority group.\u00a0 A cycle of oppression could be created within
\ngroups because of denial that oppression is taking place.\u00a0 This could be related to just-world belief,
\nwhich would be something interesting to look at in future research.\u00a0 An individual from a minority group, like a
\nheterosexual Latino man, may not believe that there is any difference between
\nthe opportunities the individual is receiving, and the opportunities afforded
\nto a heterosexual Caucasian man.\u00a0
\nIndividuals that identify with multiple minority groups may be more
\npredisposed to not have color-blind racial attitudes than individuals that only
\nidentify with one minority group.\u00a0
\nNonetheless, future research should examine the relationship between
\nawareness of oppression and identification with denigrated groups. <\/p>\n

References<\/h2>\n

American Psychological Association
\n(n.d.). Ethnic and racial minorities & socioeconomic status. Retrieved from http:\/\/www.apa.org\/pi\/ses\/resources\/publications\/factsheet-erm.pdf<\/p>\n

B\u00e4ckstr\u00f6m, M., Bj\u00f6rklund, F. (2007). Structural
\nmodeling of generalized prejudice: The role of social dominance,
\nauthoritarianism, and empathy. Journal of
\nIndividual Differences, 28<\/em>, 10-17. doi: 10.1027\/1614-0001.28.1.10<\/a><\/p>\n

Clark, R., Coleman, A.
\nP., & Novak, J. D. (2004). Initial psychometric properties of the Everyday
\nDiscrimination Scale in Black adolescents. Journal
\nof Adolescence, 27<\/em>, 363\u2013368. doi: 10.1016\/j.adolescence.2003.09.004<\/p>\n

Corcoran, J., & Nichols-Casebolt, A.
\n(2004). Racial\/ethnic disparities in the use of ecological framework
\nfor assessment and goal formulation.\u00a0Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21<\/em>, 211-235.<\/p>\n

Davis, M. H. (1983).
\nMeasuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal
\nof Personality and Social Psychology, 44<\/em>(1), 113-126. doi:
\n10.1037\/0022-3514.44.1.113<\/p>\n

Fischer, R., Hanke, K., & Sibley, C.G. (2012). Cultural and institutional determinants of social dominance orientation: A cross-cultural meta-analysis of 27 societies. Political\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Psychology, 33<\/em>(4), 437-467. doi: 10.1111\/j.1467-9221.2012.00884.x<\/p>\n

Hanks, K. H. (2014). \u201cPerceived\u201d discrimination as an example of color-bling racial ideology\u2019s influence on psychology. American
\nPsychologist, 69<\/em>(3), 311-313. doi: 10.1037\/a0035734<\/p>\n

Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., \u2026 Stewart, A.L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup
\ninequality using the new SDO7<\/sub> scale. Journal of Personality<\/em>and Social Psychology, 109<\/em>(6), 1003-1028. doi: 10.1037\/pspi0000033<\/p>\n

Kim, G.,
\nSellbom, M., Ford, K. (2014). Race\/ethnicity and measurement equivalence of the Everyday Discrimination Scale. Psychological Assessment, 26<\/em>(3),
\n892-900. doi: 10.1037\/a0036431<\/p>\n

Koppel, T. (2008). The Last
\nLynching<\/em> [Documentary]. United States: Discovery Channel.<\/p>\n

Liao, H., Hong, Y.,
\n& Rounds, J. (2016). Perception of subtle racism: The role of group status and legitimizing ideologies. The
\nCounseling Psychologist, 44<\/em>(2), 237-266. doi: 10.1177\/0011000015625329<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n

Neville,
\nH. A., Lilly, R. L., Duran, G., Lee, R. M., & Browne, L. (2000).
\nConstruction and initialvalidation of the color-blind racial
\nattitudes scale (CoBRAS). Journal of
\nCounseling Psychology, 47<\/em>(1), 39-70. doi: 10.1037\/\/0022-0167.47.1.59 <\/p>\n

Oldmeadow, J. & Fiske, S. T. (2007). System-justifying ideologies moderate status=competence stereotypes: Roles for belief in a just world and social dominance orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37<\/em>, 1135-1148. doi: 10.1002\/ejsp.428<\/p>\n

Poteat, V. P. & Spanierman, L. B. (2012). Modern racism attitudes among white students: The\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 role of dominance and authoritarianism and the mediating effects of racial color\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 blindness. Journal of Social Psychology, 152<\/em>(6), 758, 774, doi: 10.1080\/00224545.2012.700966<\/a><\/p>\n

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personaliry variable
\npredicting social and political attitudes. Journal
\nof Personality and Social Psychology, 67<\/em>(4), 741-763. doi: 10.1037\/0022-3514.67.4.741<\/p>\n

Priest, N., Paradies, Y., Trenerry, B., Truong, M., Karlsen, S., & Kelly, Y. (2013). A systematic review of studies
\nexamining the relationship between reported racism and health and wellbeing for
\nchildren and young people. Social Science
\n& Medicine, 95<\/em>, 115\u2013127. http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016\/j.socscimed.2012.11.031<\/p>\n

Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Ho,
\nA. K., Sibley, C., & Duriez, B. (2013). You\u2019re inferior and not
\nworth our concern: The interface between empathy and social dominance orientation. Journal of Personality, 81<\/em>(3), 313-323. doi: 10.1111\/jopy.12008<\/p>\n

Stein,
\nG. L., Supple, A. J., Huq, N., Dunbar, A. S., & Prinstein, M. J. (2016). A
\nlongitudinal\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 examination of
\nperceived discrimination and depressive symptoms in ethnic minority\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 youth: The roles of attributional style,
\npositive ethnic\/racial affect, and emotional\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 reactivity.
\nDevelopmental Psychology, 52<\/em>(2),
\n259-271. doi: 10.1037\/\/a0039902<\/p>\n

Williams, D. R., Yu, Y., Jackson, J. S., & Anderson, N. B.
\n(1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health. Journal of Health Psychology, 2<\/em>(3),
\n335-351. doi: 10.1177\/135910539700200305<\/p>\n

Woodson, C. G. (1990). The
\nmis-education of the Negro<\/em>. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.<\/p>\n

Table 1<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n

Figure
\n2.<\/em>
\nAverage reported discrimination scores for different ethnicities based on
\nmodified population means. <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Figure
\n3.<\/em>
\nReported discrimination scores for different genders based on modified
\npopulation means. <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Figure
\n4.<\/em>
\nReported discrimination scores for self-identified social classes based on
\nmodified population marginal means. <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Pride and Prejudice: How Discrimination Affects Sociopolitical Ideologies Abstract Prior research suggests that members of minority groups are less likely to hold social dominant and color-blind racial ideologies, and tend to experience higher levels of discrimination than members of majority groups (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; Ho et al., 2015; Williams, Yu, Jackson, & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6631,8396,5804],"tags":[5676,5686,5780,5294,5674,5677,5678,6403,4639],"class_list":["post-45767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-do-my-homework-psychology","category-paper-writing-service","category-psychology","tag-1500-words-assessment-task","tag-ace-homework-tutors","tag-assignment-homework-help-answers","tag-bishops-writing-bureau","tag-create-a-2-4-page-resource","tag-create-powerpoint-include-harvard-referencing","tag-i-need-completed-essay-in-300-400-words","tag-write-a-3-5pg-paper","tag-write-a-page-assignment"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45767","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=45767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45767\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}