Publications

What leads people to espouse zero-sum beliefs (ZSBs) – the perspective that gains for one social group come at the cost of another group – and what are the consequences of those beliefs? We hypothesized that high-status groups (Whites and men) would be more likely than low-status groups (Blacks and women) to endorse ZSBs, particularly in response to increasing perceptions of discrimination against their own groups. We found that high-status groups endorsed ZSBs more when they contemplated increasing bias against their group than when they contemplated decreasing bias against their low-status counterparts. Furthermore, we demonstrated that greater ZSB endorsement corresponded with efforts to decrease outgroups' ability to compete in society and efforts to increase the ingroup's ability to compete. We discuss how this pattern may perpetuate social inequality.

In the current work, we examine the extent to which prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women may be driven in part by traditional gender norms and the violation of these norms that same-sex couples represent. Although these relationships have long been theorized, strong empirical evidence is lacking. Across two studies, men who strongly endorsed (Study 1) or were primed with (Study 2) traditional gender norms perceived relationship violence directed toward gay men as less severe, less in need of intervention, and more likely caused by the victim than participants low in gender norm endorsement or primed with neutral content. In contrast, traditional gender norms were less predictive of heterosexual men’s prejudice toward lesbian victims of relationship violence, and not predictive of heterosexual women’s prejudice toward gay and lesbian victims. Thus, the relationship between traditional gender norms and sexual prejudice appears to be strongest for heterosexual men’s prejudice toward gay men. 

Consensually held ideologies may serve as the cultural “glue” that justifies hierarchical status differences in society . Yet to be effective, these beliefs need to be embraced by low status groups. Why would members of low status groups endorse beliefs that justify their relative disadvantage? We propose that members of low status groups in the USA may benefit from some system-justifying beliefs (such as the belief in meritocracy) to the extent that these beliefs emphasize the perception of control over future outcomes. In two studies, among women, lower socioeconomic status women, and women of color, we found a positive relationship between the belief in meritocracy and well-being (self-esteem and physical health) that was mediated by perceived control. Members of low status groups may benefit from some system-justifying beliefs to the extent that these beliefs, such as the belief in meritocracy, emphasize the perception of control over future outcomes.

Although Whites are increasingly likely to perceive themselves as victims of racial bias, research provides little insight into how anti-White bias claimants are perceived. Two studies examined whether Whites' endorsement of status legitimizing beliefs (SLBs) moderates their reactions toward White discrimination claimants. In Study 1, Whites who rejected SLBs reacted less favorably to an anti-White bias claimant relative to one who made a nondiscriminatory external claim, whereas Whites who endorsed SLBs expressed equally positive attitudes toward an anti-White bias claimant and a non-claimant. In Study 2, Whites who were not primed with status legitimizing beliefs displayed negative reactions toward an anti-White bias claimant compared to a non-claimant, whereas those primed with SLBs expressed more positive attitudes and a desire to help the anti-White bias claimant. Implications for affirmative action litigation are discussed.