Public perceptions of prejudice research: The double-edged sword faced by marginalized group researchers

Not me-search, you-search: Ethical considerations for research involving marginalized outgroups

Background: This study explored experiences of quantitative researchers who work with marginalized populations.Methods/materials: Participants were recruited from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology forum, and asked questions regarding their struggles and best practices while working with marginalized populations in which they are or are not a member.Results: Responses included concerns regarding bidirectional trust, community norms, perceived bias, diversity and participant recruitment and compensation. We explore the benefits of qualitative understandings of bias (i.e. positionality, reflexivity), salient concerns reported by quantitative researchers, and our recommendations for the ethical inclusion of these practices across quantitative work.Conclusions: This paper contributes to understanding of current struggles and best practices while conducting research among marginalized populations. Additionally, we encourage quantitative researchers to engage in reflexive research practices, particularly for the benefit of marginalized group research. We extend the insider-outsider researcher discussion to quantitative researchers.

What are they in it for? Marginalised group members' perceptions of allies differ depending on the costs and rewards associated with their allyship

Advantaged group allies can incur costs or rewards as a result of their allyship. The present work investigates whether such costs and rewards affect how marginalised group members perceive these allies. Across four experiments that collectively examine marginalised group members' perceptions of individual and corporate allies in the context of allyship for women's rights, Black Lives Matter and the LGBTQI+ community, we find that allies are perceived differently as a function of the costs and rewards associated with their allyship. Allies who face costs are perceived more positively in terms of tenacity and genuine motivations, and are generally evaluated more favourably compared to allies who do not face costs and those who, instead, garner rewards for their allyship. These findings demonstrate that marginalised group members are cognisant of the costs and rewards allies may reap, and that this information can shape their judgements of allies' investment in the cause.

Multiculturalism and Colorblindness as Threats to the Self: A Framework for Understanding Dominant and Non-Dominant Group Members' Responses to Interethnic Ideologies

Both multiculturalism (which involves recognizing and appreciating differences) and racial/ethnic colorblindness (which can involve emphasizing similarities or individual characteristics) are intended to promote intergroup harmony. Nevertheless, these ideologies can backfire when salient. Although this work has sometimes been interpreted to suggest that dominant group members may perceive salient multiculturalism, and non-dominant group members may perceive salient colorblindness, as threatening, it is unclear what about these interethnic ideologies poses a threat and why. The present article draws upon theories of the self-concept to introduce a framework of Multiculturalism and Colorblindness as Threats to the Self. Specifically, it is proposed that multiculturalism (colorblindness) is potentially threatening to dominant (non-dominant) group members' collective, relational, and personal selves. Dispositional and contextual variables that may moderate perceptions of threat among members of dominant and non-dominant groups, alternative interethnic ideologies to multiculturalism and colorblindness, and potential future research directions are discussed.