How Communicating about Discrimination Influences Attributions of Blame and Condemnation

Across two randomized experiments, we examine how communication about discriminatory acts can influence judgments of blame and condemnation. Specifically, we consider whether attributing discrimination to implicit or explicit bias affects how people evaluate online reports of discrimination. In Study 1 (N = 947), we explore this question in the context of an online news environment, and in Study 2 (N = 121) we replicate our results on a social media site (i.e., Twitter). Across both studies, we document how viewers respond differently to reports of discrimination due to variation in agent motives, the type of bias that purportedly caused the discriminatory behavior, and the extent to which agents are reported to have completed implicit bias training. We discuss our theoretical contribution to perspectives of blame attribution and the communication of bias as well as the practical implications of our findings.

Injustice Without Evidence: The Unique Role of Conspiracy Theories in Social Justice Research

Conspiracy theories are widespread and have a profound impact on society. The present contribution proposes that conspiracy theories are explanatory narratives that necessarily contain justice judgments, as they include attributions of blame and accusations of unethical or criminal conduct. Conspiratorial narratives also are mental simulations, however, and may elicit genuine feelings of injustice also without evidence of actual malpractice. Indeed, conspiracy theories sometimes describe unfair events that are unlikely to have occurred, unethical authorities that might not actually exist, and so on. Here I propose two complementary processes that stimulate belief in evidence-free conspiracy theories: (1) Existential threats instigate biased mental processing and motivated reasoning, that jointly promote an alternative perception of reality; and (2) group allegiances shape how people perceive, interpret, and remember facts to highlight the immoral qualities of competing outgroups. Due to these processes, conspiracy theories elicit a set of distinct reactions such as poor health choices and rejection of science. Moreover, evidence-free conspiracy theories require interventions beyond traditional approaches to install justice principles, such as debunking falsehoods and reducing polarized intergroup distinctions. I conclude that the scientific study of conspiracy theories is part of, and has a unique place in, social justice research.

Gendered Attributions of Blame and Failure to Protect in Child Welfare Responses to Sexual Abuse: A Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis

Gender-based relations of power and attributions of blame for child sexual abuse have been longstanding in child welfare policy and practice. Nonoffending mothers continue to be ascribed responsibility through the ideologically and institutionally entrenched doctrine of failure to protect. Feminist critical discourse analysis was used to (a) expose and disrupt dominant discourses of gender, motherhood, and risk that operate to construct and reinforce notions of blame and failure to protect, as enacted by way of child welfare text in context; and (b) build a credible case for social and organizational change grounded in an alternative discourse with greater explanatory power. Progressive avenues for resistance, negotiation, and transformation are proposed.

Revisiting Attribution Theory: Toward a Critical Feminist Approach for Understanding Attributions of Blame

Heeding the necessary call for interpersonal communication research to be theorized and conducted from a more critical perspective, we employ feminist standpoint theory as a critical tool for reading attribution theory. Specifically, we examine social positionality as an essential aspect of the attribution process and identify how oppressive power structures (macro-level) and a critical consciousness of one’s social positionality (micro-level) impact interpersonal interactions (meso-level). Key components of our approach are visualized and applied to the context of sexual violence, and suggestions for additional interpersonal contexts to consider and ways to further the discussion are addressed. Overall, we maintain that taking a non-neutral, critical feminist approach to attribution theory enables us to consider how perspectives of marginalized groups are valuable sources of knowledge, interrogate how social positionality for those in power may impact attributions of blame, and recognize how groups in the margins have the agency to enact social change.

No (sociological) excuses for not going green: How do environmental activists make sense of social inequalities and relate to the working class?

Some environmental activists occasionally use the argument that poverty is ‘no excuse’ for not going green and denounce discourses putting forward social conditions as unduly exculpatory. Employing participant observation among middle-class activists mobilising to diffuse environmental lifestyles in socially diverse suburbs near Paris (France), the article explores their relation to the working class and examines the consequences of their endeavours on local class relations. It describes the tension between their goal of mainstreaming environmental reflexivity and the stubborn existence of material inequalities and constraints. While their efforts are configured by a moral economy of environmental responsibility which assigns an undifferentiated moral obligation to consume sustainably to all individuals, they make sense of social differences by drawing on culturalist representations of poverty and folk social theories. These sense-making practices enhance rather than alleviate attributions of blame against working-class people and contribute to reinforcing the activists’ dominant symbolic position.

Blurring Lines of Responsibility: How Institutional Context Affects Citizen Biases Regarding Policy Problems

Existing research suggests that individuals assign responsibility for policy problems based on prior biases like partisanship. However, what remains speculation is whether institutions that blur lines of responsibility elicit more biased responsibility-assignment when compared to institutions with clearer lines of responsibility. European Union enlargement provides an opportunity to examine responsibility-assignment for policy problems within multiple countries, where the EU triggers biases (pro- and anti-EU membership) when it works to export the policies required for membership. In surveys of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo, we examine responsibility-assignment to governments for inequality in pay between women and men, which the EU asks prospective members to address. We find that biased attributions of blame for pay inequality are strongest in the Bosnian regions where multilevel governance is the most pronounced, while the unitary governments of Albania, Bosnia’s Republika Srpska, and Kosovo do not yield biased responsibility-assignment. Our results are consequential for multilevel governance.

Support for Border Security During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence on Levels and Predictors from Eight Western Democracies

One of the unprecedented measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic was to close borders across the world. In Europe the closing of national borders were perceived as particular controversial because of the emphasis of the free movement across borders of labor and citizens within the European Union. Here we examine the level of support for border closings among citizens from eight Western democracies, how support developed over time and how particular COVID-19-related concerns and considerations predict individual differences in support. Specifically, we collected data on support for tightened border security from April 10 and onwards in weekly quota-sampled online surveys in Denmark, Sweden, United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Hungary, eight Western democracies that differ in their response to and the impact of COVID-19 (N= 54,696). The data show moderate to high levels of support for tightened border security across all observed countries, with substantial individual-level variation. Furthermore, analyses show that support for border security relates to both usual predictors of anti-immigration views and corona-specific considerations, in particular, personal concerns about the adverse effects of COVID-19 and attributions of blame to international actors such as China and WHO.