Endorsement and perceived effectiveness of victimhood claims are mutually reinforcing

Evidence

One limitation of the present research is our inability to definitively and causally argue that dominant groups favor digressive over competitive victimhood claims because they see them as more effective. The natural question that arises is whether the reverse may be true, that people see digressive arguments as more effective because they endorse them more. We cannot rule this out and likely these two beliefs are mutually reinforcing. That those high in outgroup prejudice but low in support for the digressive principle generally endorse digressive victimhood claims does, however, suggest that support for these claims can be seen as an effective means to an end. — Felix Danbold, Ivuoma N. Onyeador, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Dominant groups support digressive…, 170

Related

• Dominant-group members endorse digressive victimhood claims more than competitive ones (similarity 0.91)
• Support for digressive victimhood claims tracks outgroup prejudice. (similarity 0.88)
• Digressive victimhood shifts debate to a different dimension of suffering rather than denying bias (similarity 0.87)
• High outgroup prejudice outweighs weak belief in the invoked principle (similarity 0.87)
• Digressive victimhood claims confound topic-shifting with universal-rights framing and higher construal level (similarity 0.86)
• Non-dominant and dominant groups may prefer the same framing for different reasons (similarity 0.86)
• Dominant groups prefer abstract rights claims as a strategic silencing tactic (similarity 0.86)
• Dominant groups adopt victimhood claims even when they reject the principle the claim invokes. (similarity 0.85)
• Outgroup prejudice predicts support for both competitive and digressive victimhood (similarity 0.85)
• Insincerity marks some dominant-group victimhood claims meant to forestall criticism. (similarity 0.84)
• People endorse digressive victimhood claims without believing the principle they invoke (similarity 0.84)
• Preference for digressive over competitive victimhood persists beyond general conservative ideology. (similarity 0.84)
• Majority Christians endorse religious-freedom victimhood claims more than claims that Christians themselves are victims. (similarity 0.84)
• Prejudice alone can drive endorsement of freedom-based justifications for rejecting bias accusations (similarity 0.83)
• Dominant groups prefer shifting victimhood to a new harm dimension over claiming reverse discrimination. (similarity 0.82)