平均主义
公正
社会主导取向
社会心理学
精英主义
意识形态
心理学
种族主义
心理信息
精英
社会学
法学
性别研究
政治
政治学
威权主义
民主
梅德林
作者
Tania Reynolds,Luke Zhu,Karl Aquino,Brendan Strejcek
摘要
Despite organizations' professed commitment to fairness, thousands of employees file race-based discrimination claims every year. The current article examines how people deviate from impartiality when evaluating candidates in hiring decisions. Researchers have argued the ideological endorsement of elitism (i.e., scoring high in social dominance orientation) can lead to discrimination against racial minorities. We examined whether an opposing ideological commitment-egalitarianism-can also produce partiality, but in favor of minority applicants. Inspired by dual processing models and Nietzsche's philosophical theorizing, we also forwarded and tested a novel, affective predictor of racial biases in evaluation: ressentiment toward the socially powerful. Across 4 studies, we found evaluators' ideologies and ressentiment independently shaped evaluations of equally qualified candidates in hiring contexts. Participants who endorsed elitism showed a preference for White candidates, whereas those who endorsed egalitarianism evaluated Black candidates more favorably. Individuals who experienced stronger ressentiment toward the social elite also preferred Black over White applicants. Studies 3 and 4 tested and supported a novel intervention-inducing a calculative mindset-as a method for attenuating evaluators' ideological and ressentiment driven impartiality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI