P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG

Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Sex Roles, Vol. 45, Nos. 11/12, December 2001 (

C 2002)

Social Identity, Modern Sexism, and Perceptions

of Personal and Group Discrimination
by Women and Men
James E. Cameron1
University of Queensland

Perceptions of gender-related discrimination against the self and group were

examined in women and men, with a focus on the predictive utility of mod-
ern sexism and 3 dimensions of social identification (ingroup ties, centrality,
and ingroup affect). Questionnaires were completed by 321 undergraduates
(206 women and 115 men), of whom 78% self-identified as White and 10%
as Asian. Higher levels of personal and group discrimination tended to be
perceived by high-neosexism men and low-neosexism women. The centrality
of gender identification was positively related to mens personal-level per-
ceptions of discrimination, whereas effects of the emotional facets of social
identityingroup ties and ingroup affectoccurred jointly with both gender
and modern sexism. The results are discussed with reference to social identity
theory and the personal/group discrimination discrepancy.
KEY WORDS: social identity; gender; modern sexism; discrimination.

Perceptions of discrimination and disadvantage play a key role in the poli-

tics of identity underlying feminism and other social movements. Such be-
liefs can operate in a number of ways. At an ideological level, a critique
of asymmetrical relations of status and power between women and men
provides a foundation for efforts directed at social change. At an individ-
ual level, perceptions of discrimination are potentially important predictors
of social movement participation for women and members of other dis-
advantaged groups (Kawakami & Dion, 1995; Kelly & Breinlinger, 1995).
Recent research suggests, however, that men, as members of a relatively
1 To
whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, Saint Marys
University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 3C3; e-mail: jim.cameron@stmarys.ca.

743
0360-0025/01/1200-0743/0
C 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

744 Cameron

advantaged social category, might also be motivated to perceive discrimina-

tion, given that the acknowledgment of privilege undermines the legitimacy
of their dominant position (Branscombe, 1998; Kobrynowicz & Branscombe,
1997). To some extent, then, the identity politics of contemporary gender
relationsas reflected in the contention surrounding such issues as affir-
mative actionfeature competing claims of disadvantage, of discrimination
and reverse discrimination. This suggests that a socialpsychological anal-
ysis of such claims would benefit from an intergroup framework that takes
into account both the status of the groups involved and the extent to which
peoples identities are shaped by their gender-category memberships.
In this paper, perceptions of discrimination are examined with a fo-
cus on two aspects of what Deaux and LaFrance (1998) have referred to as
the gender-related belief system: (a) social identification as women or men;
that is, the strength and quality of psychological investment in the group;
and (b) modern sexism; that is, beliefs regarding women in contemporary
Western society. The central issue of interest is the extent to which percep-
tions of personal and group discrimination are predicted by the joint effects
of social identity and modern sexism.

PERCEPTIONS OF DISCRIMINATION IN CONTEMPORARY

GENDER RELATIONS

For members of disadvantaged groups, perceptions of collective dis-

crimination play a potentially pivotal role in social change. From the per-
spective of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), such perceptions
reflect the belief that current intergroup status relations are illegitimate,
which may lead to strategies directed at improving the position of the group.
This is consistent with the robust association between womens percep-
tions of discrimination and their feminist orientation (Cowan, Mestlin, &
Masek, 1992; Henderson-King & Stewart, 1994; Myaskovsky & Wittig, 1997;
Renzetti, 1987). On the other hand, the denial that women are discriminated
against presumably reflects the view that malefemale relations are legiti-
mately structured. Indeed, a distinguishing feature of modern expressions
of sexism is the belief that discrimination against women is a thing of the
past (cf. McConahay, 1986; see Swim, Aiken, Hall, & Hunter, 1995). Thus,
even as old-fashioned sex roles and stereotypes are increasingly eschewed
by individuals of both sexes (Spence & Hahn, 1997), the subordination of
women can be tacitly endorsed via the assertion that they have no reason
for discontent.
Another feature of contemporary Western discourse on intergroup re-
lations is the notion of reverse discrimination; this reflects the belief that
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Perceptions of Discrimination 745

members of traditionally disadvantaged groups now receive preferential

treatment in a number of social domains (e.g., employment, education), and
that the efforts of members of other groups (typified by White males) are
consequently impeded. In the case of gender, such beliefs have been ascribed
to a backlash against feminism (e.g., Faludi, 1991) and resonate with recent
media attention to the putative decline of men (e.g., Tomorrows second
sex, 1996; Who needs men?, 1999), and with structural changes that reflect
a sensitivity to male disadvantage (e.g., Murphy, 1999; Radcliffe Colleges
Bunting Institute, 1999). Moreover, claims of reverse discrimination likely
coexist with denials of womens disadvantage that are characteristic of mod-
ern sexist beliefs (Swim et al., 1995; Tougas, Brown, Beaton, & Joly, 1995).
In light of this climate, it is relevant to address the psychological variables
that give rise to perceptions of discrimination by men, as well as women, an
issue that has of yet been the focus of few socialpsychological analyses.
One important consideration in the analysis of perceptions of discrimi-
nation in an intergroup context is that perceptions of discrimination assume
different socialpsychological meanings for members of disadvantaged and
advantaged social groups. For example, Branscombe (1998) found that think-
ing about gender-related disadvantage resulted in higher levels of personal
well-being for men compared to women. In contrast, the acknowledgment
of privilege by dominant-group members can highlight the illegitimacy of
the intergroup hierarchy and undermine internal attributions for success
(Branscombe, 1998). This suggests that perceptions of discrimination can
have self-protective consequences (Crocker & Major, 1989), but particu-
larly for members of advantaged social groups. Thus, while the perception
of personal discrimination can have pernicious psychological consequences
for women (Branscombe, 1998; Ruggiero & Taylor, 1997), low self-esteem
among men might actually motivate claims of discrimination (Kobrynowicz
& Branscombe, 1997). This pattern clearly demonstrates that perceptions of
discrimination, along with their precursors and consequences, must be con-
sidered within a specific intergroup context contoured by relations of status
and power. Given this context, it is necessary to examine in some detail the
nature and importance of gender-derived social identification.

PREDICTING PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER DISCRIMINATION:

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL IDENTITY

Social identity has emerged as an important variable in research on in-

tergroup relations, in part because it provides a conceptual bridge between
the personal and group levels of analysis; it is, in other words, a representa-
tion of the group in the individual (Hogg & Abrams, 1988, p. 17). Social
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

746 Cameron

identification is typically operationalized in unidimensional terms, but in

theory, group membership makes multiple contributions to the self-concept
(Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, & Williams, 1986; Deaux, 1996; Ellemers,
Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999; Hinkle, Taylor, Fox-Cardamone, & Crook,
1989; Jackson & Smith, 1999). For example, cognitive and affective facets can
be distinguished in Tajfels definition of social identity as that part of an in-
dividuals self-concept which derives from . . . knowledge of . . . membership
of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional signifi-
cance attached to that membership (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63). One recent model
of social identity (Cameron, 2000; Cameron & Lalonde, 2001) specifies three
factors: ingroup ties (the perceived belonging and bond with other ingroup
members), centrality (the enduring cognitive salience of group membership),
and ingroup affect (the positivity of feelings derived from group member-
ship). Although these dimensions are conceptually similar to those in other
models and measures of social identity (e.g., Ellemers et al., 1999), the three-
factor model is apparently alone in being systematically validated across a
number of social groups, including gender. As emotional aspects of social
identity, ingroup ties and ingroup affect are most consistently related across
samples (Cameron, 2000), with the latter closely related to private collective
self-esteem (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992), whereas centrality reflects the cog-
nitive prominence of the group (i.e., the extent to which the group comes to
mind). Multiple dimensions of social identity are potentially illuminating
in the present context because distinctions between cognitive and affective
components of group membership might map onto corresponding distinc-
tions in the processes underlying the perception of discrimination (e.g., see
Taylor, Ruggiero, & Louis, 1996). To date, however, there have been few
efforts to explore these links, and fewer still that incorporate the perspective
of both advantaged and disadvantaged social groups.
How is the social identity of women and men related to their percep-
tions of discrimination? According to social identity theory, the psychologi-
cal meaning and consequences of social identity must be viewed within the
context of group status and evaluation (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In particular,
it is assumed that because people have a fundamental need for a positive
self-evaluation, they will attempt to enhance or maintain the positive distinc-
tiveness of their social group relative to other groups. In the case of gender,
then, a general expectation is that women will be motivated to improve their
position (and, by implication, their self-esteem) whereas men will be moti-
vated to maintain their groups dominant position. Although a number of
subjective features of the intergroup context inform the particular strategies
that group members may take in response to a negative or threatened so-
cial identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), social identification is a variable that
has received recent attention as an indicator of individual differences in the
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Perceptions of Discrimination 747

tendency to act in group terms; that is, for example, to engage in collective
action (Simon et al., 1998), to express commitment to the group (Ellemers,
Spears, & Doosje, 1997), or to respond to threats to the group (e.g., Spears,
Doosje, & Ellemers, 1997). Given this expectation, and given the ideologi-
cal and psychological importance of perceptions of discrimination, a general
prediction is that the possibility or existence of discrimination will be at-
tended to by women and men who have a strong psychological investment
in the group (i.e., those with relatively high levels of social identification).
There are, however, a number of factors that might qualify the relation-
ship between social identity and perceptions of discrimination. Three such
factors, which inform the hypotheses of this study, will be considered in turn:
(a) the specific contribution of gender-category membership to identity (in-
group ties, centrality, or ingroup affect), (b) the extent to which modern sexist
beliefs are endorsed, and (c) the level at which discrimination is perceived
(personal or group).

Dimensions of Social Identity

Many applications of social identity theory assume a fairly direct and

uncomplicated association between social identification and various types
of group-related perceptions and behaviors (e.g., collective action). There
is, however, reason to consider the possibility that certain facets of social
identity carry differential meaning or importance in certain contexts. For
example, womens cognitive centrality of genderthe amount of time spent
thinking about being a group member (cf. Converse, 1970; see Gurin &
Markus, 1989)appears to be a particularly important predictor of group
consciousness (Gurin & Markus, 1989; Gurin & Townsend, 1986) and the
perception of collective disadvantage (Cameron & Lalonde, 2001), whereas
ingroup ties might reflect commitment to the group (e.g., Ellemers et al.,
1997). An additional consideration is that the direction of social identity
effects might differ across specific facets of group identification. Given the
three-factor model of social identity specified above, for example, a positive
relationship between perceptions of discrimination and the centrality and
ingroup ties components of identification is consistent with the broad notion
that a psychological investment in the group will motivate group-related per-
ception and behaviour. On the other hand, an examination of social identity
theory suggests that the evaluative component of social identity has a distinct
and important motivational role, in that many group-relevant behaviors are
assumed to arise from a negative (or threatened) social identity (Tajfel &
Turner, 1979). This suggests that ingroup affectthe extent to which posi-
tive feelings are derived from group membershipmight relate to certain
criterion variables in a negative fashion (e.g., see Kawakami & Dion, 1995).
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

748 Cameron

This is also consistent with evidence that perceptions of discrimination are

motivationally based, particularly for men (Branscombe, 1998). It was pre-
dicted, then, that perceptions of discrimination would be predicted by the
centrality and ingroup ties aspects of social identity in a positive direction,
but by ingroup affect in a negative direction.

Modern Sexism

A second variable proposed to moderate the relationship between social

identification and perceptions of discrimination is modern sexism. Tajfel and
Turner (1979) posited that a number of subjective beliefs about the structural
features of the intergroup context moderate the likelihood that various types
of behaviour will be engaged in by group members pursuing a positive social
identity. One important perception concerns the legitimacy of the existing
intergroup relations. Low-status group members are likely to engage in col-
lective action if they perceive treatment of their group to be unjust, whereas
(conversely) high-status group members can be expected to strive to main-
tain their dominant position to the extent that they believe it to be legitimate
(Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In this context, claims of discrimination can serve an
important ideological function for both women and men. For women, per-
ceiving and reporting discrimination can highlight the illegitimacy of their
current status, whereas for men, reports of reverse discrimination help to
maintain the status quo by disputing who in fact comprises the disadvan-
taged group. Of course, not all women will attempt to dispute the status quo,
nor will all men strive to maintain it. Presumably, however, modern sexist
beliefs provide some indication of individuals orientations toward gender
relations, such that both men and women who endorse such views also tend
to view contemporary malefemale relations as legitimate (and oppose cor-
rectives such as affirmative action programmes; Tougas et al., 1995). It was
expected, then, that higher levels of discrimination would be perceived by
men who endorse modern sexist beliefs (i.e., those who are presumably mo-
tivated to preserve their dominant status) and by women who reject modern
sexist beliefs (i.e., those who perceive gender-related inequality to be ille-
gitimate). Moreover, it was hypothesized that this joint effect of gender and
modern sexism would be particularly apparent for individuals who are also
inclined by their gender-derived social identification to attend to and report
gender-related discrimination.

Levels of Perceived Discrimination: Personal and Group

Considering that gender-related discrimination can be perceived to be

directed at the self and/or the group, a third qualification of the relationship
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Perceptions of Discrimination 749

between social identity and perceptions of discrimination is the level at

which discrimination is perceived. Indeed, this distinction is central to re-
cent research that demonstrates a personal/group discrimination discrepancy
(Taylor, Wright, Moghaddam, & Lalonde, 1990); that is, a general tendency
for group members to perceive less discrimination at the personal level than
at the group level. A number of explanations for the personal/group discrim-
ination discrepancy have been proffered, which can be generally character-
ized as referring to either cognitive or motivational processes (see Taylor,
Wright, & Porter, 1994, for a review). Some explanations focus on the dis-
crepancy itself; for instance, Moghaddam, Stolkin, and Hutcheson (1997)
have suggested that the discrepancy reflects the more general operation of
an availability heuristic (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973), whereby examples
of events are more easily generated when they pertain to groups of people
rather than to an individual. Most explanations, however, clearly emphasize
one or other of the personal/group components; arguably, then, a focus on
the discrepancy per se can obscure more complex relationships with predic-
tor or criterion variables (Dion & Kawakami, 1996). Indeed, Taylor et al.
(1996) have recently argued that two independent processes contribute to
the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. At the personal level, there is
strong evidence that women and minority-group members minimize discrim-
ination (Ruggiero & Taylor, 1995), and that this discounting has beneficial
effects on self-esteem and perceptions of control (Ruggiero & Taylor, 1997).
This is consistent with research suggesting that women deny the discrimina-
tion they face in the workplace (Crosby, 1984), and that womens perceptions
of discrimination are positively associated with depression (Kobrynowicz &
Branscombe, 1997). At the group level, Taylor et al. (1996) suggest, on the
basis of more indirect evidence (e.g., Ruggiero & Taylor, 1995), that peo-
ple invoke an autostereotype when making judgments about discrimination.
In other words, there is some consensus among group members about how
much discrimination they collectively face, which is perhaps sustained by
media representations of that discrimination. A related, and more motiva-
tionally relevant, possibility is that perceptions of group discrimination are
exaggerated by minority group members in order to promote social change
(Taylor et al., 1990, 1994) or by advantaged group members to deflect the
ascription of privilege.
Viewed within the frameworks of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner,
1979) and self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, &
Wetherell, 1987), the distinction between judgments made at the personal
and group levels correspond to a distinction between personal and social
levels of identity. In socialcognitive terms, a personalized self-conception
corresponds to comparisons made between individuals, whereas self-
categorization as a group member corresponds to intergroup comparisons.
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

750 Cameron

Thus, there are theoretical reasons to expect that social identity will be asso-
ciated with intergroup comparisons (including those that highlight group
discrimination) to a greater extent than with interpersonal comparisons
(i.e., those that would be relevant to judgments of personal discrimination;
Postmes, Branscombe, Spears, & Young, 1999). Evidence in support of this
relationship was provided recently by Postmes et al. (1999), who reported
that the gender-derived social identification of women and men was predic-
tive of perceptions of group-level, but not personal, discrimination.
If independent processes underlie judgments of personal and group
discrimination, then the psychological meaning of the personal/group dis-
crepancy itself is rendered somewhat uncertain (Dion & Kawakami, 1996;
Postmes et al., 1999). Moreover, the discrepancy is typically examined with-
out considering other variables that orient the person in the group and
in the wider intergroup context. Thus, although the primary goal of this
study was to investigate the extent to which social identity and modern sex-
ism predict perceived personal and group-level discrimination as indepen-
dent criterion variables, a secondary aim was to provide an insight into the
conceptual and methodological utility of the personal/group discrimination
discrepancy.

THIS STUDY

In summary, the primary aim of this study was to determine the extent to
which womens and mens perceptions of personal and group discrimination
are jointly predicted by facets of gender-derived social identity (ingroup
ties, centrality, ingroup affect) and modern sexism. It was expected that
several factors would qualify the relationship between social identity and
perceptions of discrimination. First, it was hypothesized that perceptions
of discrimination would be positively related to the centrality of gender-
category membership and perceptions of ingroup ties, and, consistent with
the possibility of a motivational basis for claims of discrimination, negatively
related to ingroup-derived affect. Second, a Gender Neosexism effect was
anticipated, with higher levels of personal and group discrimination per-
ceived by men who endorse modern sexist beliefs and by women who reject
those beliefs. A third class of expectations was that this pattern would be
manifest particularly for individuals for whom gender-category membership
entails psychological centrality and strong ingroup ties, but also for individ-
uals who evaluate that category relatively negatively (i.e., three-way inter-
actions involving social identity, neosexism, and gender). By implication,
social identity was expected to predict perceptions of discriminationin a
positive direction for centrality and ingroup ties and in a negative direction
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Perceptions of Discrimination 751

for ingroup affectparticularly for men who endorse modern sexist beliefs,
and, conversely, for women with low levels of modern sexism. Finally, it was
expected that social identification would generally be more robustly related
to perceptions of group, rather than personal, discrimination (Postmes et al.,
1999).
Three additional variables were included in the analyses to control for
individual differences on relevant dimensions: scores on the Attitudes To-
ward Women Scale (Spence & Helmreich, 1978), global self-esteem, and
social desirability. The first of these was included primarily to control for
old-fashioned sex-role beliefs (see Deaux & LaFrance, 1998; Swim et al.,
1995). Global self-esteem is relevant to individual-level motivational ex-
planations for claims of discrimination, particularly for advantaged group
members (Kobrynowicz & Branscombe, 1997), and provides a useful point of
comparison (as well as a relevant control variable) for the positivity of group-
level self-evaluation. Finally, social desirability concerns were accounted for,
given that they might predispose people (particularly women) to downplay
their personal experiences of discrimination (Kobrynowicz & Branscombe,
1997).

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

The sample comprised 321 undergraduates (206 women and 115 men;
mean age = 20.05 years) at the University of Queensland. The majority
(77.9%) identified themselves as White, and 9.7% were Asian. Participants
signed up for a study on socialpsychological attitudes, and received course
credit for completing questionnaires on two occasions separated by 1 week.
Questionnaires were completed in mixed-sex groups of approximately 10
15 people. The items comprising the measures described below were em-
bedded in random order in the first questionnaire. Response options for all
items ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).

Measures

Perceived Personal Discrimination

Three items were used to assess perceptions of personal gender dis-

crimination: I have personally been discriminated against because I am a
(wo)man, I have personally been a victim of sexual discrimination, and
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

752 Cameron

I consider myself a person who has been deprived of opportunities that are
available to others because of my gender. The first of these is similar to the
often single-item measures typically used in research on the personal/group
discrimination discrepancy (e.g., Taylor et al., 1990), whereas the latter two
were taken from Kobrynowicz and Branscombe (1997). Preliminary item and
reliability analyses indicated that deleting the third item improved the inter-
nal consistency (Cronbachs alpha) of the measure from .70 to .83. For this
reason, a composite score was computed as the mean of the first two items.

Perceived Group Discrimination

The perception of discrimination directed at ones gender group was

assessed by the following three items ( = .68): (Wo)men in Australia are,
as a group, discriminated against, (Wo)men in Australia have been sys-
tematically prevented from attaining their full potential (Kobrynowicz &
Branscombe, 1997), and I do not believe that (wo)men today suffer from
the effects of discrimination on the basis of sex (Cameron & Lalonde, 2001).

Social Identification

Gender-derived social identity was operationalized in terms of a three-

factor model (Cameron, 2000) reflecting the following components: (a) in-
group ties (e.g., I have a lot in common with other women; = .80),
(b) centrality (e.g., I often think about the fact that I am a man; = .72),
and (c) ingroup affect (e.g., In general, Im glad to be a woman; = .78).
Each subscale comprised four items, two of which were negatively phrased;
these were recoded so that higher scores indicate greater identification (i.e.,
stronger ties, greater centrality, and more positive affect).

Modern Sexism

Modern sexist beliefs were assessed using the neosexism scale designed
by Tougas et al. (1995); they define neosexism as a manifestation of a conflict
between egalitarian values and residual negative feelings toward women
(p. 843). Tougas et al. (1995) have demonstrated the discriminant validity
of the neosexism scale vis-a-vis old-fashioned sexism with respect to the
prediction of attitudes toward affirmative action. The neosexism scale also
compares favourably with alternative measures (Campbell, Schellenberg,
& Senn, 1997). In the present sample, Cronbachs = .80. Higher scores
indicate a relatively greater endorsement of modern-sexist beliefs.
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Perceptions of Discrimination 753

Sex-Role Ideology

The Attitudes Toward Women Scale assesses beliefs regarding the

rights, roles, and privileges women ought to have or be permitted (Spence
& Helmreich, 1978, p. 39); as such, it can be considered one operational-
ization of old-fashioned sexism (Deaux & LaFrance, 1998). Responses
to the 15-item version were averaged such that higher scores reflect more
nontraditional (egalitarian) attitudes ( = .83).

Self-Esteem

The 10-item Rosenberg (1965) Self-Esteem Scale is a frequently used

and well-validated measure of global, personal self-evaluation. Greater
scores indicate more positive self-esteem ( = .85).

Social Desirability

Responses to the 33 items of the MarloweCrowne Social Desirability

Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) were averaged so that greater scores indi-
cate a tendency to respond in a relatively favourable manner ( = .81).

RESULTS

Correlations Between Variables

Correlations and descriptive statistics involving the social identity mea-

sures, the neosexism scale, and perceptions of discrimination are presented
in Table I.2 Consistent with hypotheses, mens centrality of gender was
positively associated with perceptions of discrimination at both the personal

2 Although not the focus of the analyses, gender differences on the measures of social iden-
tity and gender-related ideology are also of interest, and serve as a reminder of the intergroup
background of this investigation. A MANOVA conducted on the social identification subscales
yielded a significant multivariate effect of sex, F(3, 317) = 4.46, p < .01. Univariate tests in-
dicated that the pattern of gender differences on the subscales replicated previous research
(Cameron & Lalonde, 2001); that is, although the affective evaluation of group membership
was equally positive for members of both sexes, F(1, 319) = 1.54, ns, women perceived greater
ingroup ties than did men, F(1, 319) = 4.70, p < .05, and indicated that gender was more cen-
tral to thought and self-definition, F(1, 319) = 5.51, p < .05; see Table I. A second MANOVA,
conducted on the two measures of gender-related beliefs, also yielded a significant multivari-
ate effect of sex, F(2, 317) = 35.92, p < .001. Not surprisingly, compared to men, women had
lower mean levels of neosexism, F(1, 318) = 59.10, p < .001, and more liberal sex-role beliefs,
F(1, 318) = 64.35, p < .001.
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

754 Cameron

Table I. Correlations and Descriptive Statistics Involving Primary Variables

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
Men (n = 115)
1. Ingroup ties 4.26 0.96 .24 .42 .05 .01 .09
2. Centrality 3.64 1.05 .16 .14 .22 .19
3. Ingroup affect 5.31 0.71 .01 .11 .02
4. Neosexism 3.04 0.81 .01 .20
5. PPD 2.63 1.51 .49
6. PGD 3.01 0.89
Women (n = 206)
1. Ingroup ties 4.51 0.97 .18 .28 .25 .10 .05
2. Centrality 3.94 1.08 .13 .13 .08 .06
3. Ingroup affect 5.20 0.78 .29 .02 .06
4. Neosexism 2.42 0.61 .24 .41
5. PPD 3.03 1.57 .39
6. PGD 3.80 1.05
Note. PPD = perceived personal discrimination. PGD = perceived group discrimination.
p< .05. p < .01.

and group levels. Mens ingroup ties and ingroup affect were not signifi-
cantly associated with perceptions of discrimination. No relationships be-
tween womens responses on the social identity scales and perceptions of
discrimination were reliable. For men, higher scores on the neosexism scale
were, as hypothesized, associated with perceptions of greater group discrim-
ination, whereas for women, the endorsement of modern sexist beliefs was
associated with lower levels of perceived discrimination at both the personal
and group levels. Finally, for both men and women, perceptions of discrimi-
nation at the personal level tended to covary with those at the group level.
In summary, with the exception of mens centrality of gender, there is
little evidence from the zero-order correlations that social identification is
associated with perceptions of discrimination at either the personal or group
level. Of primary interest, however, was whether the social identity variables
interacted with neosexism and gender; these questions were addressed using
the regression analyses reported below.

Overview of Regression Analyses

Three sets of hierarchical regression analyses were conducted, with per-

ceived personal discrimination, perceived group discrimination, and the per-
sonal/group discrimination discrepancy as dependent variables. Following
procedures described by Aiken and West (1991), gender was dummy-coded
(men = 0; women = 1) and entered along with the centered continuous
variablesthe three components of social identification, neosexism, sex-role
ideology, self-esteem, and social desirabilityat Step 1 of the regressions.
Two-way interactions involving gender, neosexism, and the social identity
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Perceptions of Discrimination 755

variables were tested hierarchically (see Cohen & Cohen, 1983) at Step 2,
and the three-way interactions were tested at Step 3. Unstandardized re-
gression coefficients are reported throughout, given their interpretability in
the context of interactive effects (Aiken & West, 1991).

Perceptions of Personal Discrimination

The regression equation predicting perceptions of personal discrimi-

nation was significant at Step 1, F(8, 311) = 3.68, p < .001, R2 = .09. Con-
sistent with the general expectation that the various components of social
identity would be associated with reports of personal discrimination, the
effect of centrality of group membership was positive and significant,
B = .20, t(311) = 2.42, p < .05, although the main effects of ingroup ties,
B = .17, t(311) = 1.83, p = .07, and ingroup affect, B = .01, t(311) =
0.10, p = .92, were unreliable. The effect of sex-role ideology was signifi-
cant, B = .37, t(311) = 2.07, p < .05, reflecting the overall tendency of peo-
ple with relatively liberal sex-role views to perceive more discrimination at
the personal level.
At Step 2, two-way interactions involving gender, social identification,
and neosexism made a significant contribution ( p < .01) to prediction,
F(15, 304) = 3.59, p < .001, R2 = .15, 1R 2 = .06. The expected Gender
Neosexism effect was reliable, B = .91, t(304) = 3.45, p < .001, indicat-
ing that higher levels of discrimination tended to be perceived by men
with relatively neosexist beliefs, and, conversely, by women who eschewed
neosexist beliefs. Post hoc analyses of simple slopes (see Aiken & West,
1991) indicated that the effect of neosexism was significant for women,
B = .55, t(304) = 2.56, p < .02, but not for men, B = .36, t(304) = 1.51,
p = .13. Although there was no significant interaction involving gender and
social identity, simple slope analysis indicatedconsistent with the correla-
tional analysis reported abovethat the effect of centrality evinced at Step 1
was significant for men, B = .31, t(304) = 2.17, p < .05, but not for women,
B = .11, t(304) = 1.03, p = .30.
Two additional interactions were significant at Step 2: Ingroup
Ties Neosexism, B = .29, t(304) = 2.03, p < .05, and Ingroup Affect
Neosexism, B = .43, t(304) = 2.39, p < .05. Given the prediction of
three-way effects involving social identity, neosexism, and gender, however,
the higher order interactions were tested at Step 3 of the regression to as-
sist the interpretation of the two-way effects. Step 3 was associated with a
significant increment ( p < .05) of explained variance, F(18, 301) = 3.62, p <
.001, R2 = .18, 1R 2 = .03, primarily accounted for by a significant Gender
Neosexism Ingroup Ties interaction, B = .79, t(301) = 2.64, p < .01.
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

756 Cameron

Fig. 1. Predicted levels of perceived personal discrimination by gender,

plotted at 1 standard deviation of ingroup ties and neosexism.

The relevant simple regression lines are depicted in Fig. 1, with predicted
values plotted at one standard deviation above and below the means of the
continuous independent variables (see Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Consistent
with hypotheses, it can be seen that the Gender Neosexism effectthat
is, the tendency for relatively more discrimination to be perceived by high-
neosexism men and low-neosexism womenwas more pronounced for peo-
ple with subjectively strong ties to their gender category. Post hoc analyses
indicated that the simple slopes representing the regression of perceived
personal discrimination on ingroup ties were nonsignificant for the high-
neosexism men, B = .20, t(301) = 1.08, p = .28, and low-neosexism women,
B = .18, t(301) = 1.18, p = .24, and significantly negative for the low-
neosexism men, B = .66, t(301) = 2.54, p < .02, and the high-neosexism
women, B = .51, t(301) = 1.99, p < .05.
No other three-way interaction was significant, although simple effects
analyses showed that the Ingroup Affect Neosexism interaction obtained
in Step 2 was apparent for men, B = .51, t(301) = 2.18, p < .05, but not
for women, B = .04, t(301) = .16, p = .87. Post hoc analyses of the sim-
ple slope coefficients indicated that although neither slope was significant,
the pattern was consistent with expectations (see Fig. 2): The positivity of
feelings derived from group membership was negatively related to per-
ceptions of personal discrimination, but only for men with relatively high
scores on the neosexism scale, B = .39, t(301) = 1.69, p = .09. For low-
neosexism men, ingroup affect tended (nonsignificantly) to be positively
related to perceptions of discrimination, B = .37, t(301) = 1.02, p = .31.
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Perceptions of Discrimination 757

Fig. 2. Predicted levels of mens perceived personal discrimination,

plotted at 1 standard deviation of ingroup affect and neosexism.

In summary, the analyses of perceived personal discrimination indicated

(a) support for the predicted main effects of social identity on perceived per-
sonal discrimination only for mens centrality, (b) support for the anticipated
Gender Neosexism effect, and (c) evidence that effects of ingroup ties and
ingroup affect must be considered jointly with both gender and neosexism.

Perceptions of Group Discrimination

The regression of perceived group-level discrimination on the predic-

tor variables resulted in a significant equation at Step 1, F(8, 311) = 8.19,
p < .001, R 2 = .17. There were reliable effects of gender, such that women
tended to perceive more group-based discrimination than did men, B = .58,
t(311) = 4.46, p < .001 (Table I) and neosexism, indicating an overall
tendency for modern sexist beliefs to be negatively associated with per-
ceived discrimination, B = .25, t(311) = 2.15, p < .05. No other effects
were significant, with Step 1 thus providing no support for the expecta-
tion that the social-identity facets would predict perceptions of group-level
discrimination.
The interactions tested hierarchically at Step 2 reliably enhanced
( p < .001) the prediction of perceptions of discrimination, resulting in a
significant equation, F(15, 304) = 8.87, p < .001, R2 = .30, 1R2 = .13. The
predicted Gender Neosexism interaction was again significant, B = 1.05,
t(304) = 6.53, p < .001; post hoc tests confirmed that higher levels of gen-
der discrimination tended to be reported by high-neosexism men, B = .30,
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

758 Cameron

Fig. 3. Predicted levels of perceived group discrimination by gender,

plotted at 1 standard deviation of ingroup affect.

t(304) = 2.09, p < .05, and low-neosexism women, B = .76, t(304) =

5.69, p < .001. The Ingroup Affect Neosexism interaction was again sig-
nificant, B = .26, t(304) = 2.33, p < .03, as was an unexpected Gender
Ingroup Affect interaction, B = .41, t(304) = 2.37, p < .02; see Fig. 3.
Post hoc analyses of the simple slopes showed that the relationship between
ingroup affect and perceived discrimination tended to be positive for men,
particularly low-neosexism men, B = .41, t(301) = 1.81, p = .07; for high-
neosexism men, B = .04, t(301) = 0.29, ns, and negative for women,
particularly high-neosexism women, B = .37, t(301) = 2.20, p < .05; for
low-neosexism women, B = .08, t(301) = 0.49, ns.
Taken together, the three three-way interactions added at Step 3 did
not make a reliable contribution ( p = .08) to prediction, F(18, 301) = 7.85,
p < .001, R2 = .32, 1R 2 = .03, but the predicted Gender Neosexism
Ingroup Ties interaction was again significant, B = .45, t(301) = 2.46,
p < .02. This interaction mirrored the corresponding effect at the personal
level (see Fig. 1), with post hoc tests indicating the strongest (negative) re-
lationships between ingroup ties and perceived group discrimination for low-
neosexism men, B = .37, t(301) = 2.30, p < .05, and high-neosexism
women, B = .27, t(301) = 1.70, p = .09, and nonsignificant relation-
ships for high-neosexism men, B = .06, t(301) = 0.55, p = .58, and low-
neosexism women, B = .11, t(301) = 0.99, p = .26.
In summary, analyses of perceived group-level discrimination indicated
(a) no evidence of hypothesized main effects of social identity, (b) support
for the expected joint effect of gender and neosexism, and (c) mixed support
for higher order effects involving gender, neosexism, and social identity.
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Perceptions of Discrimination 759

The Personal/Group Discrimination Discrepancy

A 2 (sex) 2 (type of discrimination: personal/group) ANOVA, with

repeated measures on the second factor, was conducted to examine the
personal/group discrimination discrepancy. The main effect of sex was sig-
nificant, indicating that women perceived greater discriminationaveraged
across the personal and group levelsthan did men, F(1, 319) = 22.20,
p < .001. The within-subjects effect, which replicates the personal/group
discrimination discrepancy, was also significant, F(1, 319) = 47.42, p < .001.
These main effects were subsumed within a significant Sex Type of Dis-
crimination interaction, F(1, 319) = 5.23, p < .05. Simple effects tests indi-
cated that the personal/group discrepancy was larger for women, F(1, 319) =
58.67, p < .001, than for men, F(1, 319) = 8.24, p < .01. The pattern of
means in Table I indicates, in concert with the results of the regression anal-
yses reported above, that this is attributable primarily to greater perceptions
of group-level discrimination on the part of women.
Personal/group discrepancy scores were computed for each participant
by subtracting perceived personal discrimination from perceived group-level
discrimination, and were regressed on the predictor variables using the same
hierarchical procedure as for the separate personal and group components.
At Step 1, the personal/group discrimination discrepancy was not reliably
predicted by the combined independent variables, F(8, 311) = 1.90, p <
.06, R 2 = .05, although two effects were significant: sex, B = .49, t(311) =
2.57, p = .01, as reported above, and sex-role ideology, B = .34, t(311) =
2.00, p < .05, indicating that the discrepancy tended to be smaller for those
with relatively liberal sex-role beliefs. None of the interactions entered
at Step 2, F(15, 304) = 1.81, p < .05, R 2 = .08, and Step 3, F(18, 301) =
1.68, p < .05, R 2 = .09, was significant.

DISCUSSION

One of the curious features of contemporary identity politics is that

claims of discrimination can emanate from members of both advantaged
and disadvantaged groups. From an intergroup perspective, this apparent
paradox can be interpreted in terms of competing expressions of social
identity. For low-status group members, the perception of discrimination
is requisite for efforts to improve their collective position, whereas for
high-status group members it can represent resistance to social change. This
study demonstrated that both social identity and gender-related ideology
operationalized in terms of modern sexismwere implicated in perceptions
of gender-related discrimination, and that the relationships were not only
qualified by gender, but were the product of joint effects of particular facets
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

760 Cameron

of social identity and neosexism. Moreover, the results suggest that per-
ceptions of personal and group discrimination have distinguishable associ-
ations with identification and neosexism, and, in concert with other recent
research (e.g., Postmes et al., 1999), raise questions about the meaning of
the personal/group discrimination discrepancy.
An important indication that perceptions of discrimination serve dif-
ferent functions for women and men was provided by the hypothesized in-
teraction between gender and neosexism: More self- and group-directed
discrimination was perceived by high-neosexism men and low-neosexism
women. This suggests that the reverse discrimination perceived by some
men reflects the view that their advantaged position is legitimate (and thus
illegitimately challenged), whereas the discrimination perceived by women
is associated with their rejection of traditional gender-related social arrange-
ments. More important to the intergroup focus of this study, however, are
findings that perceptions of gender-related discrimination also reflect the de-
gree of mens and womens psychological and emotional investment in their
groupsthat is, their social identities. Indeed, it is noteworthy that individual
differences on variables less closely tied to group membershipglobal self-
esteem and social desirabilitydid not predict the extent of discrimination
perceived to be directed at either the self or the group.
For men, discrimination perceived at the personal level, and to a lesser
extent, at the collective level, was positively associated with the central-
ity of group membership. In other words, men who tended to think about
and define themselves in terms of their gender also tended to perceive
that they were discriminated against as men. To the extent that claims of
reverse discrimination represent a response to a threat to group status
(and, arguably, function as an impediment to social change), this suggests
that identity centrality can have ideological significance for dominant-group
members and complements previous findings that the chronic salience of
group membership is associated with a collective orientation among women
(Cameron & Lalonde, 2001; Gurin & Markus, 1989; Gurin & Townsend,
1986). With this exception, however, aspects of mens and womens social
identities were involved in more complex relationships with perceived dis-
crimination. Moreover, these relationships involved personal-level as well
as group-level perceptions of discrimination, despite expectations and pre-
vious research (Postmes et al., 1999) suggesting that the latter would be
particularly implicated.
Respondents subjective feelings of belonging with other group
memberstheir ingroup tiesinteracted with gender and neosexism to pre-
dict perceptions of personal and group discrimination. These interactions
were consistent with expectations in that the tendency for high-neosexism
men and low-neosexism women to perceive more discrimination than their
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Perceptions of Discrimination 761

(respectively) low- and high-neosexism counterparts was most pronounced

for individuals with relatively strong ingroup ties. This pattern also sup-
ports the notion, central to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979;
see also Turner, 1999), that the relationship between social identity and
group-relevant perception and behavior will be moderated by subjective
beliefs about group relations (in this case, modern-sexist beliefs). Thus,
high-identifying dominant-group members will tend to defend their group
(Ellemers et al., 1997), but only if they perceive their high status to be
legitimate.
One unexpected aspect of the effects involving ingroup ties was that
the strongest relationships were negative ones involving low-neosexism men
and high-neosexism women (i.e., those who are presumably not particularly
motivated to perceive gender-related discrimination). Given experimental
evidence of womens minimization of personal discrimination (Ruggiero
& Taylor, 1995, 1997), this raises the interesting possibility that certain
aspects of social identity are implicated in this discounting. For example,
perceived cohesion or belongingness with other group members might in-
sulate minority-group members from negative experiences (see Baumeister
& Leary, 1995; Cross & Strauss, 1998), although the present results suggest
that this is likely to be true particularly for those group members who are
not ideologically inclined to perceive discrimination in the first place.
Effects involving gender, neosexism, and ingroup affect further high-
light the complicated nature of the link between social identity and per-
ceptions of discrimination. In line with the notion that a negative social
identity can underlie attempts to improve or defend group status (Tajfel,
1978), ingroup-derived affect tended to be negatively associated with per-
ceptions of personal gender-related discrimination, but only for men with
relatively high levels of neosexism. An alternative interpretationthat the
experience or perception of personal discrimination causes a more nega-
tive social identitycannot be dismissed on the basis of these correlational
data alone; however, a socialmotivational explanation is more compelling
in light of the fact that the relationship occurred only for men who endorse
neosexist beliefs, as well as prior evidence that thinking about disadvantage
is psychologically beneficial for men (Branscombe, 1998). Indeed, if pos-
itive outcomes are associated with the acknowledgment of discrimination
for dominant-group members, then this might explain why the perception of
group discrimination tended to be positively associated with ingroup-derived
affect only for men, whereas the trend was negative for women. The joint
effects of gender and ingroup affect (or collective self-esteem) might be
profitably examined in an experimental context in which evaluative aspects
of enduring social identity are assessed separately from the emotional con-
sequences of gender-related discrimination.
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

762 Cameron

Several observations can be made concerning the theoretical implica-

tions of the results. First, they suggest that in addition to the theoretically
important relationship between social identity and perceptions of collec-
tive disadvantage, aspects of identification might play a role in perceptions
of discrimination that is directed at a personal level. Indeed, such percep-
tions can themselves be predictive of behaviors directed at the improvement
or maintenance of group status (Foster & Matheson, 1998). The present
results, however, point to the importance of joint effects of social iden-
tity and neosexism. Thus, the ideological meaning of social identification
is an important consideration with respect to the socialpsychological con-
sequences of group membership (Cameron & Lalonde, 2001). A related
point is that the various aspects of gender-derived social identity can take
on very different meanings in different subgroups of women and men. We
might expect, then, that social identity would be more strongly and con-
sistently related to perceptions of discrimination (and other group-relevant
perceptions and behavior) when assessed with respect to politically relevant
subcategories (e.g., feminists) as compared to the more inclusive cate-
gories of women and men (Henderson-King & Stewart, 1994; Simon
et al., 1998).
A second observation is that the present data clearly demonstrate the
utility of a multidimensional conception of social identification. A number
of effects were specific to certain facets of social identity; for example, the
extent of personal discrimination perceived by men who endorsed neosex-
ist beliefs was positively associated with ingroup ties but negatively associ-
ated with ingroup affect. This is particularly worthy of note considering that
many measures of social identification emphasize the affective or evaluative
aspect of group membership (e.g., Brown et al., 1986; see Cameron, 2000).
Although the negativity of social identity has, in theory, considerable moti-
vational significance (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), these data indicate that other
dimensions of identification have distinguishable, and sometime opposite,
effects. Further research might usefully address the various functions (e.g.,
Deaux, Reid, Mizrahi, & Cotting, 1999) and outcomes that are associated
with specific facets of social identity, and how they might inform distinctions
(and links) between cognitive and motivational accounts of group behav-
ior, and between perceiving, and responding to, discrimination (Lalonde &
Cameron, 1994). Moreover, as the present findings suggest, dimensions of
social identity are of potential psychological and ideological importance not
only for women, as members of a historically disadvantaged social category,
but also for men.
Finally, although the results replicated the personal/group discrimina-
tion discrepancy among both women and men, the discrepancy itself was
not significantly accounted for by the combined predictor variables. This
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Perceptions of Discrimination 763

observation, coupled with the fact that somewhat different patterns of pre-
dictors were manifested at the personal and group levels, suggests that inde-
pendent processes operate at each level (Postmes et al., 1999; Taylor et al.,
1996). Although opposing processes at the self and group levels are not
without theoretical parallel (e.g., the inverse relationship, posited by self-
categorization theory, between the salience of personal vs. social identifi-
cation; Turner et al., 1987), the utility of a difference score remains to be
demonstrated in the context of the methodology generally used to assess
the personal/group discrimination discrepancy (Dion & Kawakami, 1996;
Postmes et al., 1999). In summary, the present data indicate that perceptions
of personal and group discrimination are most appropriately and fruitfully
analyzed as separate variables, rather than in terms of the difference between
them.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering that experiences of discrimination can be variously char-

acterized as invisible, invented, and indisputable, it is not surprising that
perceptions and reports of such experiences, at both personal and collective
levels, are difficult to capture with theory. The present results suggest that
there is some merit in considering perceptions of discrimination as contextu-
alized in an intergroup context, and as informed both by peoples identities
as group members and the motivational meaning of such membership. In-
deed, the complexity of the data indicate not only that the conceptualization
and utility of the personal/group discrimination discrepancy should be care-
fully examined, but that multiple dimensions of identity, in conjunction with
group-relevant beliefs, can operate at both the personal and group levels.
The inclusion of such variables in an intergroup framework will go some
way toward illuminating not only the interpretations and consequences of
discrimination, but the maintenance and change of group relations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by a University of Queensland Postdoctoral

Research Fellowship and a University of Queensland New Staff Research
Grant. I thank Scott Reid for his assistance with various aspects of the study.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

764 Cameron

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attach-
ments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Review, 117, 497529.
Branscombe, N. R. (1998). Thinking about ones gender groups privileges or disadvantages:
Consequences for well-being in women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37,
167184.
Brown, R. J., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. (1986). Explaining intergroup dif-
ferentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59, 273286.
Cameron, J. E. (2000). A three-factor model of social identity. Manuscript submitted for publi-
cation.
Cameron, J. E., & Lalonde, R. N. (2001). Social identification and gender-related ideology in
women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 5977.
Campbell, B., Schellenberg, E. G., & Senn, C. Y. (1997). Evaluating measures of contemporary
sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 89102.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Converse, P. E. (1970). Attitudes and non-attitudes: Continuation of a dialogue. In E. R. Tufte
(Ed.), The quantitative analysis of social problems (pp. 168189). Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Cowan, G., Mestlin, M., & Masek, J. (1992). Predictors of feminist self-labeling. Sex Roles, 27,
321330.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties
of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608630.
Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27,
371386.
Cross, W. E., Jr., & Strauss, L. (1998). The everyday functions of African American identity.
In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The targets perspective. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psy-
chopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349354.
Deaux, K. (1996). Social identification. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 777798). New York: Guilford.
Deaux, K., & LaFrance, M. (1998). Gender. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),
The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 788827). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Deaux, K., Reid, A., Mizrahi, K., & Cotting, D. (1999). Connecting the person to the social:
The functions of social identification. In T. R. Tyler, R. M. Kramer, & O. P. John (Eds.),
The psychology of the self (pp. 91113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dion, K. L., & Kawakami, K. (1996). Ethnicity and perceived discrimination in Toronto: An-
other look at the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. Canadian Journal of Behav-
ioral Science, 28, 203213.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to the
group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371389.
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: Ingroup iden-
tification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 617626.
Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash: The undeclared war against women. London: Vintage.
Foster, M. D., & Matheson, K. (1998). Perceiving and feeling personal discrimination: Moti-
vation or inhibition for collective action? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1,
165174.
Gurin, P., & Markus, H. (1989). Cognitive consequences of gender identity. In S. Skevington &
D. Baker (Eds.), The social identity of women (pp. 152172). London: Sage.
Gurin, P., & Townsend, A. (1986). Properties of gender identity and their implications for
gender consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 139148.
Henderson-King, D. H., & Stewart, A. J. (1994). Women or feminists? Assessing womens group
consciousness. Sex Roles, 31, 505516.
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Perceptions of Discrimination 765

Hinkle, S., Taylor, L. A., Fox-Cardamone, D. L., & Crook, K. F. (1989). Intragroup identifica-
tion and intergroup differentiation: A multicomponent approach. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 28, 305317.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup
relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
Jackson, J. W., & Smith, E. R. (1999). Conceptualizing social identity: A new framework and
evidence for the impact of different dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
25, 120135.
Kawakami, K., & Dion, K. L. (1995). Social identity and affect as determinants of collective
action: Toward an integration of relative deprivation and social identity theories. Theory
and Psychology, 5, 551577.
Kelly, C., & Breinlinger, S. (1995). Identity and injustice: Exploring womens participation in
collective action. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 4157.
Kobrynowicz, D., & Branscombe, N. R. (1997). Who considers themselves victims of discrimi-
nation? Individual difference predictors of perceived gender discrimination in women and
men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 347363.
Lalonde, R. N., & Cameron, J. E. (1994). Behavioral responses to discrimination: A focus on
action. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario
Symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 257288). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self-evaluation of ones
social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302318.
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In
J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91125).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Moghaddam, F. M., Stolkin, A. J., & Hutcheson, L. S. (1997). A generalized personal/group
discrepancy: Testing the domain specificity of a perceived higher effect of events on ones
group than on oneself. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 743750.
Murphy, M. (1999, June 26). Menswar. The National Post, Weekend Post, p. 3.
Myaskovsky, L., & Wittig, M. A. (1997). Predictors of feminist social identity among college
women. Sex Roles, 37, 861883.
Postmes, T., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Young, H. (1999). Comparative processes in
personal and group judgments: Resolving the discrepancy. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 320338.
Radcliffe Colleges Bunting Institute will admit men. (1999, March 5). The Chronicle of Higher
Education, p. A14.
Renzetti, C. M. (1987). New wave or second stage? Attitudes of college women toward femi-
nism. Sex Roles, 16, 265277.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1995). Coping with discrimination: How disadvantaged group
members perceive the discrimination that confronts them. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 826838.
Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1997). Why minority group members perceive or do not
perceive the discrimination that confronts them: The role of self-esteem and perceived
control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 373389.
Simon, B., Loewy, M., Sturmer, S., Weber, U., Freytag, P., Habig, C., et al. (1998). Collective iden-
tification and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74, 646658.
Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group
status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 23, 538553.
Spence, J. T., & Hahn, E. D. (1997). The Attitudes Toward Women Scale and attitude change
in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 1734.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimen-
sions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin, MN: University of Texas Press.
P1: IAS/GOQ P2: GVG
Sex Roles [sers] pp489-sers-373446 May 3, 2002 12:4 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

766 Cameron

Swim, J. K., Aiken, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned
and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199214.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 3347). Monterey,
CA: Brooks-Cole.
Taylor, D. M., Ruggiero, K. M., & Louis, W. R. (1996). Personal/group discrimination dis-
crepancy: Towards a two-factor explanation. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 28,
193202.
Taylor, D. M., Wright, S. C., Moghaddam, F. M., & Lalonde, R. N. (1990). The personal/group
discrimination discrepancy: Perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a target for discrim-
ination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 254262.
Taylor, D. M., Wright, S. C., & Porter, L. E. (1994). Dimensions of perceived discrimination:
The personal/group discrimination discrepancy. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.),
The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 233255). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Tomorrows second sex. (1996, September 28). The Economist, p. 2328.
Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995). Neosexism: Plus ca change, plus cest
pareil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842849.
Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization
theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commit-
ment, content (pp. 634). Oxford: Blackwell.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering
the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and prob-
ability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207232.
Who needs men? Addressing the prospect of a matrilinear millennium. (1999, June). Harpers
Magazine, 299, 3346.