Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Iyer, A.; Jetten, J.; Branscombe, N.R.; Jackson, S.; Youngberg, C. (2014)
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Languages: English
Types: Article
Research on perceptions of discrimination has focused on group-based differential treatment that is widely accepted as being illegitimate (e.g., based on race or gender). The present research investigates how individuals interpret less obvious forms of group-based exclusion based on age (Study 1) and vision correction status (Study 2). We propose that individuals will not question the legitimacy of such treatment, unless they are provided with explicit cues to do so. Participants who merely encountered exclusion (baseline control) did not differ from those who were directed to consider the legitimate reasons for this treatment, with respect to perceived legitimacy, felt anger, and collective action intentions. In contrast, individuals who were directed to consider the illegitimate reasons for the exclusion perceived it to be less legitimate, felt more anger, and reported higher collective action intentions. Participants’ own status as potential victims or mere observers of the exclusion criterion did not influence their legitimacy perceptions or felt anger. Results suggest that when confronted with forms of group-based exclusion that are not commonly defined as discrimination, people do not perceive an injustice unless explicitly directed to seek it out.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Social Issues and Policy Review, 4, 1-30.
    • Becker, J. C., & Swim, J. K. (2011). Seeing the unseen: Attention to daily encounters with sexism as way to reduce sexist beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 35, 227-242.
    • suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359-378.
    • Cronin, T., Reysen, S., & Branscombe, N. R. (2012). WalPerceived illegitimacy, moral anger, and retaliatory consumer behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 322-335.
    • Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R. A. (2003). Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policy debates. American Psychologist, 58, 98-115.
    • Dixon, J., Tropp, L. R., Durr reduction strategies and attitudes of historically disadvantaged groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 76-80.
    • Ellemers, N., Wilke, H., & van Knippenberg, A. (1993). Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 766-778.
    • Eidelman, S., Crandall, C. S., & Pattershall, J. (2009). The existence bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 765-775.
    • Eidelman, S., Pattershall, J., & Crandall, C. S. (2010). Longer is better. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 993-998.
    • Gurin, P. (1985). Wom Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 143- 163.
    • Hansen, N., & Sassenberg, K. (2011). Exploring the self-directed anger of the stigmatized. The interplay between legitimacy and social identification. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14, 807-818.
    • Hornsey, M. J., Spears, R., Cremers, I., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). Relations between high and low power groups: The importance of legitimacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 216-227.
    • Inman, M. L. (2001).
    • Social Cognition, 19, 521-546.
    • Inman, M. L., & Baron, R. S. (1996). Influence of prototypes on perceptions of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 727-739.
    • Iyer, A., & Ryan, M. K. (2009). Why do men and women challenge gender discrimination in the workplace? The role of group status and in-group identification in predicting pathways to collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 791-814.
    • Iyer, A., Schmader, T., & Lickel, B. (2007). Why individuals protest the perceived transgressions of their country: The role of anger, shame, and guilt. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 572-587.
    • Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Iyer, A., & Asai, N. (2013). Appraising gender discrimination as legitimate or illegitimate: Antecedents and consequences. In M. K. Ryan & N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), Handbook of gender and psychology (pp. 306-322). London: Sage.
    • Jetten, J., Schmitt, M. T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2013). Rebels without a cause: When legitimate discrimination from the mainstream harms group commitment. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 159-172.
    • Jetten, J., Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Garza, A. A., & Mewse, A. J. (2011). Group commitment in the face of discrimination: The role of legitimacy appraisals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 116-126.
    • Kay, A. C., & Friesen, J. (2011). On social stability and social change: Understanding when system justification does and does not occur. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 360-364.
    • Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
    • Leach, C. W., Iyer, A., & Pedersen, A. (2006). Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1232- 1245.
    • Lerner, M. J. (2003). The justice motive: Where social psychologists found it, how they lost it, and why they may not find it again. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 388- 399.
    • Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & McCoy, S. K. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 34 (pp. 251-330). Waltham, MA: Elsevier. Psychology, 56, 393-421.
    • Nier, J. A., & Gaertner, S. L. (2012). The challenge of detecting contemporary forms of discrimination. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 207-220.
    • North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). An inconvenienced youth? Ageism and its potential intergenerational roots. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 982-997.
    • Paludi, M. A., Paludi, C. A. Jr., & DeSouza, E. R. (Eds.) (2011). Prager handbook on understanding and preventing workplace discrimination (Vol. 1). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
    • Powers, R. (2012). U.S. Military enlistment standards. Retrieved from http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/enlweight.htm.
    • Rampell, C. (2011, July 25). The help-wanted sign comes with a frustrating asterisk. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/business/help-wanted-adsexclude-the-long-term-jobless.html?scp=1&sq=the%20help%20wanted%20sign %20comes%20with%20a%20frustrating%20asterisk&st=cse
    • Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319-331.
    • Spears, R., Jetten, J., & Doosje, B. (2001). The (il)legitimacy of ingroup bias: From social reality to social resistance. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 332-362). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Stroebe, K., Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2010). Experiencing discrimination: How members of disadvantaged groups can be helped to cope with discrimination. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4, 181-213.
    • Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31-53.
    • van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 549-664.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Funded by projects

  • ARC | When groups perceive the di...

Cite this article