Religious and Ethnic Discrimination: Differential Implications for Social Support Engagement, Civic Involvement, and Political Consciousness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social identity threats, depending on the content of the identity targeted, may evoke varying socio-political responses. In this regard, religious discrimination may be especially threatening, challenging both the social group and its belief system, thereby promoting more active collective responses. This research examined how religious and ethnic identification differentially evoked engagement with support resources (ingroup and spiritual), civic involvement (including individual and collective action-taking), and political participation (voting or political consciousness) following group-based threats. Study 1 drew from the Canadian<italic>Ethnic Diversity Survey</italic>(<italic>N</italic>= 1806). Participants who reported religious discrimination demonstrated greater religious identification, ingroup social engagement, and civic involvement—comparable associations were absent for ethnic discrimination. Study 2 (<italic>N</italic>= 287) experimentally primed participants to make salient a specific incident of religious or ethnic discrimination. Although ethnic discrimination elicited greater ingroup support-seeking and political consciousness, religious discrimination was perceived as especially harmful and evoked more individual and collective action-taking. Further to this, religious high-identifiers’ responses were mediated by engagement with ingroup or spiritual support in both studies, whereas no mediated relations were evident for ethnic identification. Findings are discussed in terms of distinct socio-political responses to threats targeting identities that are grounded in religious belief systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".