Udies asked participants to rank a variety of values, among which
Udies asked participants to rank a number of values, among which were equality and freedom. Freedom was normally ranked higher, and equality rather low, which served because the principal point given in the feedback, whereby Rokeach drew people’s interest to the wide discrepancy in valuation of freedom and equality. Rokeach surmised that participants would be dissatisfied with this discrepancy, which would lead them to alter their values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. The value selfconfrontation strategy has been extensively tested and results have already been promising, specially contemplating the longitudinal effects of this method (Altemeyer, 994; BallRokeach, Rokeach, Grube, 984; Rokeach, 973). It could be interesting and promising to apply this selfconfrontation approach to equality inconsistency. Based on intergroup relations theories, we proposed that equality hypocrisy and equality inconsistency could arise for many motives. Equality hypocrisy (the common failure to apply espoused equality values) may perhaps reflect ingroup biases because of ingroup commitment, intergroup competition, or social identity distinctiveness and esteem motivations (Abrams, 205; Abrams Hogg, 988; Ellemers, Spears, Doosje, 2002). An essential Applied Issue: Relevance to Policy Our analysis shows how attitudes to human rights are expressed in methods that appear inconsistent with people’s core values. We tested these queries inside a social and political policyThis document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or among its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28935850 personal use in the individual user and is just not to be disseminated broadly.EQUALITY HYPOCRISY AND PREJUDICEcontext that was actively promoting equality, and that was engaged with all the purpose of guarding and advocating human rights. Right after the 20072008 planet banking crisis, the Labour Government was succeeded by a ConservativeLiberalDemocrat coalition. On the list of coalition’s earliest acts was to reduce the budget and size from the Equality and Human Rights Commission significantly. The coalition government launched sustained criticism from the judgments from the European Court of Human Rights, and bemoaned the imposition of undue “political correctness” from outside the United glucagon receptor antagonists-4 price kingdom. In this rhetoric a sustained theme has been that of undeserving groups (these espousing different values, foreigners stealing British jobs, welfare scroungers, feckless youth, and so on). Politicians have argued that equal rights should only be granted to these groups if they assume equal “responsibilities” (an economic and structural impossibility). We think about that the achievement of these rhetorical techniques lies in their capacity to activate intergroup motives and to drive a wedge between the rights of minority status groups which might be paternalized versus nonpaternalized. Narratives that contrast the deserving and undeserving groups or subgroups (amongst the poor, immigrants, and so on.) are particularly insidious as they’re most likely to combine paternalistic prejudices (e.g benevolent sexism) with nonpaternalistic prejudices to sustain the status quo. Paternalistic prejudice can ostensibly demonstrate tolerance and consideration of human rights, while nonpaternalistic prejudices demonstrate defense of ingroup values and freedoms. However, within this kind of rhetoric, support for minorities is conditional on their posing no threat and remaining dependent, while denial of rights to nonpaternalized minorities is justified.
