Skip to main content

Being a victim of discrimination is not easy. Research shows that targets of discrimination are at higher risk for a range of negative mental and physical health outcomes, including increased symptoms of depression, heightened stress reactivity, increased risk of suffering from a mental health disorder, and greater substance abuse. Findings recently published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin suggest another burden for oppressed minorities:

...we propose that stigmatized group members are expected to be more tolerant toward other disadvantaged groups relative to non-stigmatized group members.
You read that correctly. The majority has higher standards of tolerance toward outgroups for minorities than for other members of the majority group. Why? Details and explanation below the fold.

The research team was led by Saulo Fernandez at the Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (UNED) in Madrid, Spain. His collaborators included Nyla R Branscombe at the University of Kansas in Lawarence, Tamar Saguy at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya in Herzilya, Israel, and Angel Gomez and J. Francisco Moraels, both at UNED. The researchers expected that members of a stigmatized minority group would be expected to have more tolerant attitudes toward members of another stigmatized minority group than members of a non-stigmatized minority group.

What did the researchers do?

The study consisted of four experiments, each of which involved Spanish undergraduates as research participants. In the first experiment eighty-nine participants read a fictitious report about research on attitudes toward immigrants. Half of the participants read an article about attitudes toward immigrants among people with dwarfism (stigmatized group condition), while the other half read an article about attitudes toward immigrants among young people (non-stigmatized group condition). While reading the article, participants learned that the target group's (either people with dwarfism or young people) attitudes were positive or negative.

Subsequently, participants in the negative attitude condition learned that the target group’s attitude toward immigrants was negative (“70% of the [target] group think that illegal immigrants should be expelled out of Spain”). In contrast, participants in the positive attitude condition learned that the target group’s attitude toward immigrants was positive (“70% of the [target] group think that Spain should provide help and facilitate the integration of illegal immigrants in our society”).
So this leaves us with four different conditions and participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions.
 photo ScreenShot2014-03-04at13821PM_zps6194a82e.png

Before reading the story, the participants were asked what they expected their target groups attitude to be, and after reading the story, they were asked (a) if the target groups attitudes confirmed their expectations, (b) about their emotional responses to the groups attitudes, and (c) about the morality of the groups attitudes.

What did the researchers find?

As expected, the participants expected members of the stigmatized group, the people with dwarfism, to have more positive attitudes toward immigrants than members of the non-stigmatized group, young people. And consistent with expectations, negative attitudes toward illegal immigrants was seen as less moral when held by the stigmatized group, than by the non-stigmatized group. They replicated these findings in the third experiment with different groups. Gay people were used in the stigmatized group condition, while civil servants or bank employees were used in the non-stigmatized group condition.


This was the goal of the remaining three experiments in the study. The researchers explain this effect in terms of the just-world hypothesis. The just-world hypothesis was proposed by Melvin Lerner and has been the subject of a great deal of psychological research. The basic premise of the just-world hypothesis is that we have an inherent need to believe that "what goes around, comes around". We need to believe that the life is basically fair, where bad behavior is punished and good behavior is rewarded. If something bad happens to somebody, its because they "had it coming". If something good happens to somebody, its because they deserved it.

This may sound delusional, but some research suggests that this false belief may actually be beneficial. This makes the world a more predictable place and makes the individual feel less vulnerable to tragic events. If I do good things, then good things will happen. If I don't do bad things, bad things won't happen. Indeed, psychologists Shelley Taylor and Jonathan Brown have argued that such false beliefs carry positive mental health consequences:

Evidence from social cognition research suggests that, contrary to much traditional, psychological wisdom, the mentally healthy person may not be fully cognizant of the day-to-day flotsam and jetsam of life. Rather, the mentally healthy person appears to have the enviable capacity to distort reality in a direction that enhances self-esteem, maintains beliefs in personal efficacy, and promotes an optimistic view of the future. These three illusions, as we have called them, appear to foster traditional criteria of mental health, including the ability to care about the self and others, the ability to be happy or contented, and the ability to engage in productive and creative work.


Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, psychodrew. What about floods and hurricanes and cancer? Are you saying people think victims of such disasters "had it coming"?

Not necessarily, and the just-world hypothesis addresses this issue. In fact, this is the where the just-world hypothesis ties into research I described above. We know that bad things will undoubtedly happen to innocent people, so we compensate for that reality by looking for some positive meaning in the injustice or some positive outcome for the victims. Or as the authors of this study put it:

Thus, reinterpreting the victim’s tragic experiences so that benefits are derived can be viewed as a strategy for dealing with the threat to justice that observers experience when confronted with injustice.
Somebody would say that battling breast cancer has made a woman more appreciative of what she has in life. Or at my cousin's funeral some twenty years ago, the priest talked about how the sudden and brief illness that preceded her death gave time to bring my fractured family back together. From a just world perspective, my having been a target of homophobia has made me a stronger person and more sensitive to the needs and suffering of others.

And this latter example gives rise to the higher moral obligations (HMO) hypothesis. From an HMO perspective, members of stigmatized groups should be more sensitive to the suffering of stigmatized outgroups because they themselves were similarly the victims of prejudice and discrimination (see also Warner & Branscombe, 2012). Thus, these higher expectations for members of such outgroups are a coping mechanism when faced with a threat to one's idea that world is basically just place.

The goal of this diary was to take some fascinating psychological research on an important topic hidden behind a paywall and written in academic jargon and make it more accessible to this community. I hope that I have done that, and I am happy to answer any questions in the comments.

Originally posted to Erase the Hate on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:00 PM PST.

Also republished by That Group.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (19+ / 0-)

    Tyrion Lannister: "It's not easy being drunk all the time. Everyone would do it if it were easy."

    by psychodrew on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:00:16 PM PST

  •  ah, but we members of stigmatized groups (11+ / 0-)

    know damn well that life is unfair, and that the world is not a just place. And it's pretty fucked up for the non-stigmatized people to have higher expectations of us--that's unfair too--as a matter of fact, fuck them--LOL~

    I shave my legs with Occam's razor~

    by triv33 on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 02:14:24 PM PST

  •  you might be interested in this article... (6+ / 0-)

    by chris hedges, suffering? well you deserve it which explores the just-world theory's applications in economics.  

    i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

    by joe shikspack on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 05:19:04 PM PST

  •  so mentally healthy people really do live... (3+ / 0-)

    in a fantasy world, lol... ;)

    great diary Dr Drew!

    "Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are." ~St Augustine "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." ~Charles Beard

    by poligirl on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 05:29:41 PM PST

  •  I'm a strange creature, I guess. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RockyMtnLib, poligirl, psychodrew

    I'm an optimist (can one be liberal without such a worldview?) but I absolutely believe that karma as a concept is bunk.  It's the equivalent of superstition.

    As for judging oppressed persons more harshly for holding discriminatory views, I definitely do this.  As a black woman, I am flabbergasted by bigoted views held by certain other black Americans.  What's with the apparently long-standing friction between the black & the Jewish communities?  I don't understand this, and perhaps it's best if I don't.  Similarly, it infuriates me to see the homophobia that runs deep in some sectors of the black community (especially amongst black males).  

    I say all of this knowing that there is no one monolithic racial or ethnic subculture.  Nevertheless, it never ceases to boggle me.  Do these folks just not know what empathy is?  I have a higher standard for these people precisely because they should recognize oppression & discrimination when they see it.

    •  Holding other minorities to a higher standard. (0+ / 0-)

      I totally relate to that, as a gay man. As I explained in a story upthread, I was more upset at the minorities on Big Brother who not only failed to stand up to racist bullying, but made an alliance with the bullies to serve their own interests than I was at the actual bullies. The girls who were making the racist comments were obviously ignorant, but the non-Black minorities were not. I was horrified.

      What I find so fascinating about this research is that the MAJORITY not only has the same higher standard for minorities, but they judge them more harshly when their behavior doesn't meet their expectations.

      Thanks for reading!

      Tyrion Lannister: "It's not easy being drunk all the time. Everyone would do it if it were easy."

      by psychodrew on Wed Mar 05, 2014 at 09:08:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can confirm the research to an extent (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psychodrew, gooderservice

    in my own life. My brother is gay but is a staunch conservative. He is fully for LGBT rights, of course, doesn't like the Religious Right, is annoyed with birtherism, and can sense that some of his conservative acquaintances live in a bubble.

    My same brother, OTOH, lives with Mom in an upper-middle class/borderline wealthy neighborhood. On the heels of the George Zimmerman verdict he told me that anyone who sees a black kid in his neighborhood at night wearing a hoodie and doesn't call the cops is a damn fool. He said outright that there's nothing wrong with racial profiling in law enforcement.

    I've told him that he of all people should know what it's like to be "othered" and treated as an inherent problem, and that his inability to extend empathy to a different marginalized group is depressing.

    So - yes - I Am Spartacus.

    liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

    by RockyMtnLib on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:16:42 PM PST

  •  The implications for progressive politics (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    are clear: there is simply no "natural solidarity of the oppressed" that can excuse us from doing the hard work of building coalitions. I've been saying this for years, since it's been known since at least the 1950s that members of groups that are objects of prejudice are no less likely to be prejudiced against other outgroups than are ingroup members (that observation simply follows from the fact that prejudice is an irrational thought process and therefore doesn't follow the rules we expect rational thought processes to follow).

    Yet all too often we simply work on the assumption that every member of an outgroup identifies him/herself with every member of every other outgroup and not at all with any member of an ingroup. And when this assumption fails, we scream "how can they vote against their own interests???" and seldom ask "shouldn't we have done something to convince them that they had common interests?"

    A particular outgroup that both psychodrew and I belong to often takes flack from all sides simply for choosing to fight our own battles rather than everybody else's. And yes I'm going there: I'm partially referring to some complaints from the trans community regarding GLBT organizations (some complaints, I must emphasize. There are legitimate complaints about transphobia in the gay community and I'm not talking about those).

    Specifically, I'm thinking of the apparent expectation that an organization that serves two constituencies, one of which is ten times larger than the other (yes, I'm aware that they overlap) should devote equal time and attention to those issues that affect one or the other but not both (again there are quite a few issues that do affect both; marriage equality is actually one of those, though the more radical trans activists often portray it as a gay-male-only issue).

    Unfortunately when smart and educated people get crazy ideas they can come up with plausibly truthy arguments. -- Andrew F Cockburn

    by ebohlman on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 10:29:59 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site