Equality hypocrisy, inconsistency, and prejudice: The unequal application of the universal human right to equality.Reportar como inadecuado


Equality hypocrisy, inconsistency, and prejudice: The unequal application of the universal human right to equality.


Equality hypocrisy, inconsistency, and prejudice: The unequal application of the universal human right to equality. - Descarga este documento en PDF. Documentación en PDF para descargar gratis. Disponible también para leer online.

Publication Date: 2015-02

Journal Title: Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

Publisher: American Psychological Association

Volume: 21

Issue: 1

Pages: 28-46

Language: English

Type: Article

Metadata: Show full item record

Citation: Abrams, D., Houston, D. M., Van de Vyver, J., & Vasiljevic, M. (2015). Equality hypocrisy, inconsistency, and prejudice: The unequal application of the universal human right to equality

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 21 (1), 28-46.

Description: This is the final version of the article. It was first available from the American Psychological Association via http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pac0000084

Abstract: In Western culture, there appears to be widespread endorsement of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which stresses equality and freedom). But do people really apply their equality values equally, or are their principles and application systematically discrepant, resulting in equality hypocrisy? The present study, conducted with a representative national sample of adults in the United Kingdom (N = 2,895), provides the first societal test of whether people apply their value of “equality for all” similarly across multiple types of status minority (women, disabled people, people aged over 70, Blacks, Muslims, and gay people). Drawing on theories of intergroup relations and stereotyping we examined, relation to each of these groups, respondents’ judgments of how important it is to satisfy their particular wishes, whether there should be greater or reduced equality of employment opportunities, and feelings of social distance. The data revealed a clear gap between general equality values and responses to these specific measures. Respondents prioritized equality more for “paternalized” groups (targets of benevolent prejudice: women, disabled, over 70) than others (Black people, Muslims, and homosexual people), demonstrating significant inconsistency. Respondents who valued equality more, or who expressed higher internal or external motivation to control prejudice, showed greater consistency in applying equality. However, even respondents who valued equality highly showed significant divergence in their responses to paternalized versus nonpaternalized groups, revealing a degree of hypocrisy. Implications for strategies to promote equality and challenge prejudice are discussed.

Identifiers:

This record's URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pac0000084https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/253151

Rights: Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales

Licence URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/uk/





Autor: Abrams, DominicHouston, Diane M.Van de Vyver, JulieVasiljevic, Milica

Fuente: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/253151



DESCARGAR PDF




Documentos relacionados