國立虎尾科技大學 |

The Oppression Lens : = Should a History of Oppression and Power Dynamics Between Groups Matter When Making Current-Day Social Judgments?

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	The Oppression Lens :/
其他題名:	Should a History of Oppression and Power Dynamics Between Groups Matter When Making Current-Day Social Judgments?
作者:	Mogami, Mao.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (235 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-01, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International85-01A.
標題:	Social psychology. -
電子資源:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798379776299

The Oppression Lens : = Should a History of Oppression and Power Dynamics Between Groups Matter When Making Current-Day Social Judgments?
Mogami, Mao.

The Oppression Lens :Should a History of Oppression and Power Dynamics Between Groups Matter When Making Current-Day Social Judgments? - 1 online resource (235 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-01, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--New York University, 2023.

Includes bibliographical references

How do we judge whether individuals are allowed to engage in intergroup discrimination in their choice of housemates, friends, or organizations? Why do some people fervently support affirmative action whereas others oppose it? I propose that one way in which we can understand these disagreements is through the prism of the Oppression Lens. I define the Oppression Lens as the extent to which people consider histories of oppression and power dynamics between social groups (e.g., nationalities, genders, races, sexual orientations) when making current-day social judgments. Simply put, the Oppression Lens perspective is an analytical perspective that interprets present-day contentious intergroup relations issues as arising from different levels of consideration given to historical contexts. Those high on the Oppression Lens see the world as made and remade through the history of social and political power dynamics. For them, it is important to apply flexible standards based on the understanding that different groups (e.g., straight vs. queer individuals) along a social dimension (e.g., sexual orientation) possess different historical experiences. On the other hand, those low on the Oppression Lens do not appreciate that social groups are characterized by differential power rooted in history; rather, they see social groups as existing in the present apart from history. In this dissertation, I develop the Oppression Lens perspective drawing on intergroup relations literatures in social psychology (colorblindness, historical perspectives), and critical race theory in legal studies (Chapter 1). I highlight that the Oppression Lens perspective can complement scholarship on traditional forms of prejudice and discrimination. Then, I construct a self-report measure-the Endorsement of the Oppression Lens (EOL) scale-to capture individual differences in the Oppression Lens construct (Chapter 2). I then show that the Oppression Lens measured by EOL can predict people's judgments about the permissibility of criticism, differential judgments of the same actions carried out by actors belonging to powerful vs. marginalized groups, and differential prejudices toward social groups of different perceived power and historical victimization (Chapter 3). I seek to understand the extreme ends of the Oppression Lens by interviewing those extremely low and high on the Oppression Lens (Chapter 4). Lastly, I show that a short, one-time intervention is not successful in increasing people's endorsement of the Oppression Lens (Chapter 5). To conclude, I discuss the strengths, limitations, and implications of the Oppression Lens perspective learned through the studies and discuss future directions of the research program (Chapter 6).

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2024

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798379776299Subjects--Topical Terms:

554804
Social psychology.
Subjects--Index Terms:

CRTIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

The Oppression Lens : = Should a History of Oppression and Power Dynamics Between Groups Matter When Making Current-Day Social Judgments?
LDR:04156ntm a22003977 4500 001 1152708
005 20241213095537.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 250605s2023 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798379776299
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30311655
035 $a AAI30311655
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Mogami, Mao. $3 1479781
245 1 4 $a The Oppression Lens : $b Should a History of Oppression and Power Dynamics Between Groups Matter When Making Current-Day Social Judgments?
264 0 $c 2023
300 $a 1 online resource (235 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-01, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Knowles, Eric D.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--New York University, 2023.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a How do we judge whether individuals are allowed to engage in intergroup discrimination in their choice of housemates, friends, or organizations? Why do some people fervently support affirmative action whereas others oppose it? I propose that one way in which we can understand these disagreements is through the prism of the Oppression Lens. I define the Oppression Lens as the extent to which people consider histories of oppression and power dynamics between social groups (e.g., nationalities, genders, races, sexual orientations) when making current-day social judgments. Simply put, the Oppression Lens perspective is an analytical perspective that interprets present-day contentious intergroup relations issues as arising from different levels of consideration given to historical contexts. Those high on the Oppression Lens see the world as made and remade through the history of social and political power dynamics. For them, it is important to apply flexible standards based on the understanding that different groups (e.g., straight vs. queer individuals) along a social dimension (e.g., sexual orientation) possess different historical experiences. On the other hand, those low on the Oppression Lens do not appreciate that social groups are characterized by differential power rooted in history; rather, they see social groups as existing in the present apart from history. In this dissertation, I develop the Oppression Lens perspective drawing on intergroup relations literatures in social psychology (colorblindness, historical perspectives), and critical race theory in legal studies (Chapter 1). I highlight that the Oppression Lens perspective can complement scholarship on traditional forms of prejudice and discrimination. Then, I construct a self-report measure-the Endorsement of the Oppression Lens (EOL) scale-to capture individual differences in the Oppression Lens construct (Chapter 2). I then show that the Oppression Lens measured by EOL can predict people's judgments about the permissibility of criticism, differential judgments of the same actions carried out by actors belonging to powerful vs. marginalized groups, and differential prejudices toward social groups of different perceived power and historical victimization (Chapter 3). I seek to understand the extreme ends of the Oppression Lens by interviewing those extremely low and high on the Oppression Lens (Chapter 4). Lastly, I show that a short, one-time intervention is not successful in increasing people's endorsement of the Oppression Lens (Chapter 5). To conclude, I discuss the strengths, limitations, and implications of the Oppression Lens perspective learned through the studies and discuss future directions of the research program (Chapter 6).
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2024
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Social psychology. $3 554804
650 4 $a History. $3 669538
650 4 $a Social research. $3 1179269
653 $a CRT
653 $a Intergroup relations
653 $a Oppression Lens
653 $a EOL
653 $a Social groups
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0451
690 $a 0344
690 $a 0578
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a New York University. $b Psychology. $3 1183858
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-01A.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30311655 $z click for full text (PQDT)