↓ Skip to main content

Equality hypocrisy, inconsistency, and prejudice: The unequal application of the universal human right to equality.

Overview of attention for article published in Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 195)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Equality hypocrisy, inconsistency, and prejudice: The unequal application of the universal human right to equality.
Published in
Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, February 2015
DOI 10.1037/pac0000084
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dominic Abrams, Diane M. Houston, Julie Van de Vyver, Milica Vasiljevic

Abstract

In Western culture, there appears to be widespread endorsement of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (which stresses equality and freedom). But do people really apply their equality values equally, or are their principles and application systematically discrepant, resulting in equality hypocrisy? The present study, conducted with a representative national sample of adults in the United Kingdom (N = 2,895), provides the first societal test of whether people apply their value of "equality for all" similarly across multiple types of status minority (women, disabled people, people aged over 70, Blacks, Muslims, and gay people). Drawing on theories of intergroup relations and stereotyping we examined, relation to each of these groups, respondents' judgments of how important it is to satisfy their particular wishes, whether there should be greater or reduced equality of employment opportunities, and feelings of social distance. The data revealed a clear gap between general equality values and responses to these specific measures. Respondents prioritized equality more for "paternalized" groups (targets of benevolent prejudice: women, disabled, over 70) than others (Black people, Muslims, and homosexual people), demonstrating significant inconsistency. Respondents who valued equality more, or who expressed higher internal or external motivation to control prejudice, showed greater consistency in applying equality. However, even respondents who valued equality highly showed significant divergence in their responses to paternalized versus nonpaternalized groups, revealing a degree of hypocrisy. Implications for strategies to promote equality and challenge prejudice are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 54 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Student > Master 7 13%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Other 17 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 54%
Unspecified 9 16%
Social Sciences 6 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 6 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2019.
All research outputs
#2,117,481
of 13,773,008 outputs
Outputs from Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology
#23
of 195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,835
of 215,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,773,008 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 215,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.