MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6925454737 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/z29nf

Anti-Egalitarianism and Female Privilege Awareness

2022· other· en· W6925454737 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueOpen Science Framework · 2022
Typeother
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueIntestinal Malrotation and Obstruction Disorders
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDenialPrivilege (computing)Social dominance orientationWhite privilegeDominance (genetics)Equity (law)PreferencePossession (linguistics)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Previous studies have suggested that those who benefit from privilege may deny the existence of their privilege for ego-protective reasons (Knowles et al., 2014; Phillips & Lowery, 2015, 2020). As benefitting from privilege suggests that one is less responsible for their achievements and more responsible for their failures, it makes sense that men would deny male privilege, white people would deny white privilege, etc. It also makes sense that men might be motivated to deny the existence of male privilege to preserve it, motivated by self or collective group-interest. Both of these explanations for denial of male privilege suggest that possession of a privileged identity (being a man) should predict denial of male privilege. We previously sought to show that denial of male privilege is not unique to men, and that it is motivated more by a psychological tendency to support inequity by opposing egalitarianism. This was done using the facets of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA, Altemeyer, 1981) and social dominance orientation (SDO, Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), both of which are established predictors of attitudes towards group-based inequality (Duckitt & Sibley, 2009). Both RWA (a preference for traditional values and collective security) and SDO (a preference for hierarchy and inequality) have been found to be multi-faceted (Duckitt et al., 2010; Ho et al., 2015). RWA contains authoritarianism, conservatism, and traditionalism (Duckitt et al., 2010) and SDO contains dominance and anti-egalitarianism (Ho et al., 2015). Anti-egalitarianism is an approach to hierarchy maintenance that avoids overt dominance in favour of more subtle undermining of equality and equity by opposing egalitarian policies. In our previous study, we found that when controlling for the facets of RWA and SDO male gender identity was not a strong predictor of denial of male privilege. Instead, the strongest predictor of male privilege denial, was indeed, the anti-egalitarianism facet of SDO, which accounted for 47% of the explanatory power of the model, which itself, accounted for 59% of the variability in reported male privilege awareness. Our finding shows that although managing a privileged identity and self-interest may influence men’s reported male privilege awareness, anti- egalitarianism has a greater effect. We have identified two competing explanations for the relationship between anti-egalitarianism and denial of male privilege awareness. Those who oppose egalitarianism may deny that (male) privilege exists in order to preserve privilege by claiming that there is no problem to be addressed, or they may oppose egalitarianism because they do not see privilege, male or otherwise. If we find that anti-egalitarianism not only predicts denial of male privilege, but also belief in female privilege, this would support the former, but not the latter hypothesis. In an attempt to rule out the possibility that even non-male participants are denying the existence of male privilege as an attempt to preserve privilege itself (for managing a privileged identity or self-interest reasons) we will, in a separate analysis, control for other identities privileged in Australia, such as cisgender, heterosexual, white, and Christian. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba press. Duckitt, J., Bizumic, B., Krauss, S. W., & Heled, E. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31(5), 685–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00781.x Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual-process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2–3), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400903028540 Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO₇ scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033 Knowles, E. D., Lowery, B. S., Chow, R. M., & Unzueta, M. M. (2014). Deny, distance, or dismantle? How white Americans manage a privileged identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 594–609. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614554658 Phillips, L. T., & Lowery, B. S. (2015). The hard-knock life? Whites claim hardships in response to racial inequity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.06.008 Phillips, L. T., & Lowery, B. S. (2020). I ain’t no fortunate one: On the motivated denial of class privilege. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000240 Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,530
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,961

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0390,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,350
Écart entre enseignants0,322 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOpen Science FrameworkMême sujetIntestinal Malrotation and Obstruction DisordersTravaux en français237 207