It’s not your fault: The social costs of claiming discrimination on behalf of someone else

2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dina Eliezer ◽  
Brenda Major

Two experiments examined responses to bystanders who claimed that another person experienced discrimination. Participants read about a woman or man who experienced sexism and whose co-worker (male or female) either expressed sympathy or claimed that the target experienced sexism. Participants then evaluated the co-worker (bystander). Overall, participants evaluated bystanders who claimed that someone else experienced discrimination more negatively than they evaluated bystanders who did not claim discrimination. Furthermore, female bystanders who claimed discrimination on behalf of someone else were derogated more than male bystanders who did the same. Additional analyses indicated that female bystanders who claimed that another person experienced discrimination were derogated more than male bystanders who did so because the former threatened participants’ beliefs about the fairness of status differences to a greater extent than the later.

Author(s):  
David Dooley ◽  
JoAnn Prause
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Sylwia Borowska-Kazimiruk

The author analyses Grzegorz Królikiewicz’s Trees (1994) in two ways: as a metaphor of the Polish post-1989 transition, and as an eco-horror presenting the complexity of relations between human and plant world. This binary interpretation attempts to answer the question about the causes of the failure of Trees as a film project. The film itself may also be interpreted as a story about historical conditions that affect the ability to create visual representations of the social costs of political changes, as well as ecocritical issues.


2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam M. Kleinbaum ◽  
Alexander H. Jordan ◽  
Pino G. Audia

Author(s):  
David T. Llewellyn

The most serious global banking crisis in living memory has given rise to one of the most substantial changes in the regulatory regime of banks. While not all central banks have responsibility for regulation, because they are almost universally responsible for systemic stability, they have an interest in bank regulation. Two core objectives of regulation are discussed: lowering the probability of bank failures and minimizing the social costs of failures that do occur. The underlying culture of banking creates business standards and employee attitudes and behavior. There are limits to what regulation can achieve if the underlying cultures of regulated firms are hazardous. There are limits to what can be achieved through detailed, prescriptive, and complex rules, and when, because of what is termed the endogeneity problem, rules escalation raises issues of proportionality, a case is made for banking culture to become a supervisory issue.


JAMA ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 267 (18) ◽  
pp. 2535
Author(s):  
Philip R. Reilly
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document