Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 331

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 100 of the 100 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

“What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and Whites' reactions to multiculturalism.

Plaut, Victoria C., Garnett, Flannery G., Buffardi, Laura E., Sanchez-Burks, Jeffrey·2011·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/a0022832
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A 5-study investigation of reactions of dominant group members (i.e., White Americans) to diversity (relative to racial minority reactions) provides evidence of implicit and explicit associations between multiculturalism and exclusion and of a relationship between perceived exclusion and reactions to diversity. In Study 1, Whites but not racial minorities were faster in an implicit association task at pairing multiculturalism with exclusion than with inclusion. This association diminished in Study 2 through a subtle framing of diversity efforts as targeted toward all groups, including European Americans. In Study 3, in a "Me/Not Me" task, Whites were less likely than minorities to pair multiculturalism concepts with the self and were slower in responding to multiculturalism concepts. Furthermore, associating multiculturalism with the self (Study 3) or feeling included in organizational diversity (Study 4) predicted Whites' endorsement of diversity and also accounted for the oft-cited group status difference in support for diversity initiatives. Study 5 showed that individual differences in need to belong moderated Whites' interest in working for organizations that espouse a multicultural versus a color-blind approach to diversity, with individuals higher in need to belong less attracted to organizations with a multicultural approach. Overall, results show that the purportedly "inclusive" ideology of multiculturalism is not perceived as such by Whites. This may, in part, account for their lower support for diversity efforts in education and work settings.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0022832

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 100 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1990). Anxiety and social exclusion. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 165-195.
  2. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York, NY: Wiley.
  3. Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 447-466. doi:10.1037/00223514.88.3.447 · DOI
  4. Markus, H. R., Hamill, R., & Sentis, K. P. (1987). Thinking fat: Selfschemas for body weight and the processing of weight relevant information. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 50-71. doi:10.1111/ j.1559-1816.1987.tb00292.x
  5. Markus, H., & Kunda, Z. (1986). Stability and malleability of the selfconcept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 858-866. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.858 · DOI
  6. Perkins, L. A., Thomas, K. M., & Taylor, G. A. (2000). Advertising and recruitment: Marketing to minorities. Psychology and Marketing, 17, 235-255. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200003)17:33.0.CO;2-# · doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6793(200003)17:33.0.co;2-#
  7. Thomas, K. M., Mack, D. A., & Montagliani, A. (2004). Arguments against diversity: Are they valid? In F. Crosby & P. Stockdale (Eds.), The psychology and management of diversity in organizations (pp. 31-51). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Buffardi, L. E., & Sanchez-Burks, J.
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2011-08
Volume
101
Issue
2
Pages
337-353
ISSN
  • 1939-1315
  • 0022-3514
DOI
10.1037/a0022832
Cited by
331
References
100
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.