Justification-suppression Model Research Articles

An examination of responses to ageist jokes

Abstract Ageist humor is an everyday way that negative social attitudes (i.e., ageism) are circulated. Advances in the study of disparagement humor (prejudiced norm theory, the justification-suppression model) were utilized to examine responses to ageist humor in two studies. Study 1, comparing ageist and sexist comments, found no differences in perceived funniness between statements and jokes, though jokes were seen as less offensive and more confrontation-worthy. Participants believed they would be more offended by the statements than others. To the extent they found statements funny, participants believed the messages conveyed less offense to self and others, and that the statements were not worthy of confrontation, but thought others would believe they were. Older individuals found statements less funny and believed others would have negative reactions. Study 2 found no differences in funniness ratings for jokes targeting older and younger age groups. Two responses to the joke-teller emerged: challenge (including direct and indirect responses) and support (laughing or verbally expressing joke funniness). Funniness and joke-teller identification positively predicted both challenge and support, while experiencing negative emotion predicted more challenge and less support. Once again, age was associated with less funniness, as well as less identification, support, and challenge, but more negative emotion.

Under the veil of tolerance: A justification-suppression approach to anti-Islamic implicit bias in reaction to terrorist attacks.

Twenty years after 9/11, the impact of terrorism on social and political attitudes remains unclear. Several large-scale surveys suggest that terrorism has no discernible effects on direct, self-report measures of prejudice toward Arab-Muslims. However, direct measures may lack the sensitivity to detect subtle underlying attitudes that are considered socially unacceptable to openly express. To tap these subtle reactions, we assessed more sensitive and implicit measures of the cognitive-affective aspects of prejudice. Building on the justification-suppression model of prejudice, we hypothesized that terrorist attacks increase implicit bias toward Arab-Muslims, especially among individuals who are unable to regulate automatic hostile reactions due to personality or situational variables. Study 1, using data from Project Implicit (N = 276,311), showed that terrorist attacks increased implicit bias but not expressed prejudice toward Arab-Muslims. Study 2, using data from Google Trends, showed that terrorist attacks increased anti-Islamic searches on the internet. Four studies that collected original data (total N = 851) showed that the effects of reminders of terrorism on anti-Islamic implicit bias are moderated by individual differences in prejudice and automaticity (Studies 3-4), by the strength of implicit Muslim-terrorist associations (Study 5), and by momentary self-control depletion (Study 6). Overall, the present research indicates that despite little evidence for elevated overt expression of prejudice against Arab-Muslims following terrorist attacks, terrorist attacks increase anti-Islamic implicit bias whenever individuals are unlikely to control automatic hostile reactions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Visible Tattoos as a Source of Employment Discrimination Among Female Applicants for a Supervisory Position

Although tattoos have increased in popularity, they may put individuals at a disadvantage when seeking employment. Drawing on the justification-suppression model and the stereotype content model, we propose that job applicants with visible tattoos experience prejudice in hiring and starting salary recommendations because they are stereotyped as less competent and warm than those without visible tattoos. In Study 1, we compared equally qualified Caucasian female applicants in their mid to late 20s with no visible tattoos, a mild visible tattoo, and extreme visible tattoos for the position of a sales manager. Tattooed applicants were less likely to be hired, especially if they had extreme visible tattoos, and were offered lower salaries and rated lower on competence (but not warmth) than applicants without visible tattoos. Furthermore, competence mediated the relationship between visible tattoos and hiring and salary recommendations. In Study 2, we examined if young Caucasian female applicants with visible tattoos can overcome prejudice through their job qualifications and found they were able to mitigate salary discrimination, but not hiring discrimination by being highly qualified. In Study 3, we proposed that young Caucasian female applicants with visible tattoos can neutralize discrimination by being highly qualified and having volunteer experience. However, volunteering did not mitigate prejudice related to visible tattoos. Our findings suggest that it is difficult for applicants with visible tattoos to overcome discrimination.

From Diversity Ideologies to the Expression of Stereotypes: Insights Into the Cognitive Regulation of Prejudice Within the Cultural-Ecological Context of French Laïcité.

This theoretical paper examines the context-sensitivity of the impact of cultural norms on prejudice regulation. Granting the importance of understanding intergroup dynamics in cultural-ecological contexts, we focus on the peculiarities of the French diversity approach. Indeed, the major cultural norm, the Laïcité (i.e., French secularism) is declined today in two main variants: The Historic Laïcité, a longstanding egalitarian norm coexisting with its amended form: The New Laïcité, an assimilationist norm. In fact, these co-encapsulated Laïcité variants constitute a fruitful ground to cast light on the processes underlying prejudice regulation. Indeed, it is documented that the assimilationist New Laïcité is linked to higher levels of prejudice as compared to the egalitarian Historic Laïcité. To this day, research mainly explored interindividual determinants of Laïcité endorsements and specified how these endorsements shape prejudice. Crucially, this “indirect-endorsement path” does not account for the more straightforward causal relationship between Laïcité and prejudice. Moreover, recent experimental evidence suggests that the normative salience of both Laïcité norms shape intergroup attitudes beyond personal endorsement. Therefore, in this contribution, we complement previous work by investigating the possible socio-cognitive processes driving this “direct-contextual path.” In doing so, we seek to bridge the gap of causality by investigating how the Laïcité norms can set the stage for specific regulatory strategies. Our reasoning derives from an application of the Justification-Suppression Model bolstered by classical work on mental control, modern racism and diversity ideology. From this, we sketch out the operative functioning of two distinct regulation processes: (a) one that prevents prejudicial attitudes but which can have unexpected consequences on stereotyping within the Historic Laïcité context (i.e., suppression) and (b) one that helps realize prejudice within the New Laïcité context (i.e., justification). From this analysis, we discuss the consequences for intergroup relations within and beyond the French context. In particular, we outline the importance of an adequate framing of egalitarian ideologies so that they achieve their goal to foster harmonious intergroup relations.

Unintentional Trolling: How Subjects Express Their Prejudices Through Made-up Stories

It is often assumed that trolling is an intentional action. The aim of the paper is to argue for a form of unintentional trolling. Firstly, we outline minimal conditions for intentional actions. Secondly, an unintentional trolling example is introduced. Thirdly, we will show that in some cases, an utterance can be expressive, while it is perceived as descriptive. On the basis of the justification-suppression model, we argue that the introduced trolling example is such a case. In order to bypass social sanctions for expressing prejudices, agents unintentionally express their prejudices through stories that appear to be descriptive. Thereby, the characterized behavior does not fulfill the minimal conditions for intentional action. Fourthly, we give criteria that can be used to identify unintentional trolls. Finally, after unintentional trolling is analyzed, the trolls’ behavioral goals are considered. In conclusion, an analysis of unintentional trolling is given, which has explanatory benefits in contrast to the classic intentional trolling concepts.

When and why is religious attendance associated with antigay bias and gay rights opposition? A justification-suppression model approach.

Even in relatively tolerant countries, antigay bias remains socially divisive, despite being widely viewed as violating social norms of tolerance. From a Justification-Suppression Model (JSM) framework, social norms may generally suppress antigay bias in tolerant countries, yet be "released" by religious justifications among those who resist gay rights progress. Across large, nationally representative US samples (Study 1) and international samples (Study 2, representing a total of 97 different countries), over 215,000 participants, and various indicators of antigay bias (e.g., dislike, moral condemnation, opposing gay rights), individual differences in religious attendance was uniquely associated with greater antigay bias, over and above religious fundamentalism, political ideology, and religious denomination. Moreover, in 4 of 6 multilevel models, religious attendance was associated with antigay bias in countries with greater gay rights recognition, but was unrelated to antigay bias in countries with lower gay rights recognition (Study 2). In Study 3, Google searches for a religious justification ("love the sinner hate the sin") coincided temporally with gay-rights relevant searches. In U.S. (Study 4) and Canadian (Study 5) samples, much of the association between religious attendance and antigay bias was explained by "sinner-sin" religious justification, with religious attendance not associated with antigay bias when respondents reported relatively low familiarity with this justification (Study 5). These findings suggest that social divisions on homosexuality in relatively tolerant social contexts may be in large part due to religious justifications for antigay bias (consistent with the JSM), with important implications for decreasing bias. (PsycINFO Database Record

Justification-Suppression and Normative Window of Prejudice as Determinants of Bias Toward Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexual Adoption Applicants

ABSTRACTDespite gains in equality for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals (LGB), these couples still face discrimination in adoption scenarios. Guided by the normative window of prejudice and the justification-suppression model, participants read about a suitable or unsuitable couple applying to adopt a child. Participants indicated whether the couple should be allowed to adopt the child and how committed the couple is to being parents. Heterosexuals were perceived as less committed parents compared to LGB parents; sexual orientation was not related to adoption decisions. There was a significant interaction between sexual orientation and suitability for perceptions of commitment to parenting: in the suitable condition, heterosexuals were perceived as less committed parents compared to gays; in the unsuitable condition, heterosexuals were perceived as less committed parents compared to bisexuals. This interaction was nonsignificant for adoption decisions. Future research should determine if these findings relate to other sexual orientations or gender identities.

Freedom of racist speech: Ego and expressive threats.

Do claims of "free speech" provide cover for prejudice? We investigate whether this defense of racist or hate speech serves as a justification for prejudice. In a series of 8 studies (N = 1,624), we found that explicit racial prejudice is a reliable predictor of the "free speech defense" of racist expression. Participants endorsed free speech values for singing racists songs or posting racist comments on social media; people high in prejudice endorsed free speech more than people low in prejudice (meta-analytic r = .43). This endorsement was not principled-high levels of prejudice did not predict endorsement of free speech values when identical speech was directed at coworkers or the police. Participants low in explicit racial prejudice actively avoided endorsing free speech values in racialized conditions compared to nonracial conditions, but participants high in racial prejudice increased their endorsement of free speech values in racialized conditions. Three experiments failed to find evidence that defense of racist speech by the highly prejudiced was based in self-relevant or self-protective motives. Two experiments found evidence that the free speech argument protected participants' own freedom to express their attitudes; the defense of other's racist speech seems motivated more by threats to autonomy than threats to self-regard. These studies serve as an elaboration of the Justification-Suppression Model (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003) of prejudice expression. The justification of racist speech by endorsing fundamental political values can serve to buffer racial and hate speech from normative disapproval. (PsycINFO Database Record

Express Yourself…or Suppress Yourself: An Extension of the Justification-Suppression Model

Crandall and Eshleman’s justification-suppression model proposes that genuine prejudices differ from actual expressed prejudice because of factors that suppress them and other factors that aid in t...

The Gay Panic Defense: Legal Defense Strategy or Reinforcement of Homophobia in Court?

Gay panic refers to a heterosexual man violently responding to unwanted sexual advances from a gay man. In court, the defendant may argue he was provoked or temporarily insane. This study utilized 352 jury-eligible citizens to assess differences across mediums of gay panic. Participants were asked to read vignettes depicting a control, gay panic as provocation, or gay panic as insanity condition and provide verdicts and ratings of blame and responsibility. Participants also completed measures assessing political orientation and homonegativity. Data were analyzed via a MANCOVA, a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, and general linear modeling. Verdicts, victim blame, and ratings of responsibility differed across vignette conditions, with an observed leniency effect when gay panic was claimed in either context. Homonegativity also exacerbated patterns of prodefendant views, as participants higher in homonegativity assigned higher victim blame, lower defendant responsibility, and more lenient verdicts in the gay panic conditions. The effect of political orientation was nuanced, as only republicans in the provocation condition followed the anticipated pattern in rendering more lenient verdicts. Results provide additional support for the notion gay panic defenses may be, in part, fueled by political beliefs and prejudicial beliefs against persons of sexual minority status. Drawing from a justification-suppression model, it may be that in cases of gay panic, a context is created in which prejudiced ideologies can be openly expressed via leniency on the defendant. Implications may be relevant to future criminal law policies and practices, particularly advocacy and policy efforts, judicial training, and trial consultation to attorneys for juror selection and development of trial strategy.

The Perceived Threats from Migrants and their Effects on Government Service Equality

ABSTRACTGovernments market policies like “products,” hoping that they will receive public support. With the increasing opposition to migrants in many countries, governments face more pressure to enact laws that favor citizens over migrants, assuming that citizens desire preferential treatment. We challenge that assumption by investigating antecedents of Government Service Equality (GSE), which captures the extent to which citizens believe that migrants are entitled to the same level of quality when using government services. Utilizing the justification-suppression model of prejudice and acculturation theory as theoretical underpinning, the article highlights the role of perceived threat in legitimizing discrimination against migrants. The conceptual model distinguishes between two types of threats: symbolic and realistic. Furthermore, the article investigates the role of cosmopolitanism and tradition in driving both types of threats. Results obtained through SEM using 428 surveys collected from host country citizens indicate that both realistic threat (e.g., economy) and symbolic threat (e.g., culture) influence equality perceptions negatively. However, our results reveal that citizens could be divided into two segments: cosmopolitans and traditionalists. Traditionalists, unlike cosmopolitans, do perceive migrants as threatening. In addition, cosmopolitanism has a direct positive influence on GSE. We conclude with a discussion and agenda for future research.

I am not prejudiced towards ‘them’. . . I am ambivalent! The moderating roles of attitudinal basis and motivation to respond without prejudice.

According to the Justification-Suppression model of prejudice (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003), people covertly express prejudice through attitudinal ambivalence toward outgroups that is based on beliefs. We predicted that this would only be the case for people who are more externally, but not more internally, motivated to control their prejudice. In line with predictions, across 2 studies, results show that participants (i.e., college students) evaluating the outgroup in a normative context inducing prejudice suppression are (a) more likely to self-report ambivalent beliefs than ambivalent emotions concerning the outgroup compared with participants whose prejudice expression is induced, and (b) they only do so to the extent that they are externally rather than internally motivated to respond without prejudice. This pattern of findings suggests that fear of prejudice-related social sanction rather than dedication to egalitarian individual standards enhances the likelihood to express outgroup ambivalence when prejudice expression is constrained by antiprejudice social norms.

Suppression and justification processes to reduce in-group bias in a multiculturalism diversity context

IntroductionThis study investigates the impact of an organisational multiculturalism perspective of diversity on in-group bias towards people of foreign origin. ObjectiveWe hypothesise that organisational multiculturalism constitutes a norm which creates a positive context for intergroup relations. We expect that when workers perceive that their organisation recognises group differences, their own values are influenced, namely egalitarian values and perceived value violation. The value-related mediators are conceptualised in the frame of justification-suppression model (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003) respectively as suppression and justification. MethodData were collected from a sample of 402 workers who completed an anonymous questionnaire. ResultsBased on structural equation modelling, results show that the perception of organisational multiculturalism is negatively and indirectly related to in-group bias through both suppression and justification processes. ConclusionThis study highlights that the perception of the normative context of an organisation is related to workers’ attitudes. The results are discussed consistent with the literature on diversity.

“You Lost Me at Hello”: How and when accent-based biases are expressed and suppressed

This research examines customer biases relating to employee accents in call service encounters. Extant research and practitioners generally assume that customers automatically evaluate call service employees with a nonstandard accent lower than employees with a standard accent. However, using the justification–suppression model as a framework, we argue that customers frequently suppress accent biases toward call service employees. We conduct three empirical studies, and our findings indicate that customers rate employees with an accent receiving a negative bias lower only when a service outcome is unfavorable for customers. In contrast, accents receiving a positive bias only impact customer evaluations when service outcomes are favorable for customers. Additionally, we demonstrate that the suppression and justification of accent biases rely on both cognitive and affective mechanisms. Finally, we show that customers who are informed of the frequency of a favorable vs. unfavorable outcome are more likely to suppress biases.

Individuals' Beliefs about the Etiology of Same-Sex Sexual Orientation

We examined the relationships between beliefs about the etiology of having a same-sex sexual orientation, sexual prejudice, and support for gay-relevant legislation using the justification-suppression model of prejudice as our theoretical foundation. Results indicated that more belief that a same-sex sexual orientation was due to nurture factors predicted less support for gay-relevant legislation, and that this relationship was mediated by levels of sexual prejudice. The opposite pattern was found for belief that a same-sex sexual orientation was due to nature factors. This suggests that beliefs about the etiology of sexual orientation may serve as justification (or suppression) factors in the expression of prejudice toward gay men and lesbians.

Forgive me, Father, for I did not give full justification for my sins: How religious consumers justify the acquisition of material wealth

This research shows how high religiosity consumers justify the purchase of highly materialistic goods. By drawing on the Justification-Suppression Model (JSM), it is shown that high religiosity consumers favour advertisements that suppress the materialistic aspects of goods and offer adequate justification for the purchase. However, these same consumers dislike advertisements that explicitly focus on the materialistic nature of goods. The results from the research offer insight into how high religiosity consumers are able to acquire material wealth despite a strong aversion to such practices within their doctrine. Implications from this research include a greater understanding of how to advertise to high religiosity consumers, but also how the JSM can be used as a means of minimising cognitive dissonance during purchase decisions.

The stigma of obesity in customer service: A mechanism for remediation and bottom-line consequences of interpersonal discrimination.

Using a customer service paradigm, the authors extended the justification-suppression model (JSM) of prejudice (C. S. Crandall & A. Eshleman, 2003) to include contemporary, covert forms of discrimination and to identify a discrimination remediation mechanism. Overall, the results of 3 studies revealed that actual and confederate obese shoppers in high-prejudice justification conditions faced more interpersonal discrimination than average-weight shoppers. Furthermore, Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that adopting strategies that remove perceivers' justifications for discriminating against obese individuals (i.e., the controllability of weight) decreases the incidence of interpersonal discrimination. Additionally, Study 3 demonstrates negative bottom-line consequences of interpersonal discrimination for organizations (e.g., customer loyalty, purchasing behavior). Together, these studies confirm that the JSM applies to covert forms of discrimination, show the importance of examining subtle discrimination, and offer a mechanism for theory-driven strategies for the reduction of covert forms of discrimination.

A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice.

The authors propose a justification-suppression model (JSM), which characterizes the processes that lead to prejudice expression and the experience of one's own prejudice. They suggest that "genuine" prejudices are not directly expressed but are restrained by beliefs, values, and norms that suppress them. Prejudices are expressed when justifications (e.g., attributions, ideologies, stereotypes) release suppressed prejudices. The same process accounts for which prejudices are accepted into the self-concept The JSM is used to organize the prejudice literature, and many empirical findings are recharacterized as factors affecting suppression or justification, rather than directly affecting genuine prejudice. The authors discuss the implications of the JSM for several topics, including prejudice measurement, ambivalence, and the distinction between prejudice and its expression.