{"title":"Cultural Heterogeneity in Americans' Definitions of Racism, Sexism, and Classism: Results from a Mixed-Methods Study.","authors":"Lauren Valentino, Evangeline Warren","doi":"10.1086/733194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This sequential mixed-methods study examines how Americans ascribe meanings to the concepts <i>racism</i>, <i>sexism</i>, and <i>classism</i>. We first conduct interviews (<i>N</i> = 40) using a symbolic boundaries elicitation approach, gathering examples of scenarios that do and do not \"count\" as racism, sexism, and classism. We then use these examples as vignettes in a nationally representative survey experiment (<i>N</i> = 2,000). Results reveal striking evidence for cultural heterogeneity in how Americans understand and define racism, sexism, and classism. We find that a person's definition of these concepts depends on their emphasis on intentionality, unequal treatment/outcomes, and power (a)symmetry. We also find that political partisanship, gender, age, and income shape the importance of these three components in their definitions. Finally, we show that Americans' definitions of racism, sexism, and classism strongly predict their discrimination-related public opinion and policy preferences, such as support for affirmative action and antidiscrimination laws, even after accounting for demographic controls, including political views.</p>","PeriodicalId":7658,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Sociology","volume":"130 4","pages":"846-892"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11684753/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/733194","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This sequential mixed-methods study examines how Americans ascribe meanings to the concepts racism, sexism, and classism. We first conduct interviews (N = 40) using a symbolic boundaries elicitation approach, gathering examples of scenarios that do and do not "count" as racism, sexism, and classism. We then use these examples as vignettes in a nationally representative survey experiment (N = 2,000). Results reveal striking evidence for cultural heterogeneity in how Americans understand and define racism, sexism, and classism. We find that a person's definition of these concepts depends on their emphasis on intentionality, unequal treatment/outcomes, and power (a)symmetry. We also find that political partisanship, gender, age, and income shape the importance of these three components in their definitions. Finally, we show that Americans' definitions of racism, sexism, and classism strongly predict their discrimination-related public opinion and policy preferences, such as support for affirmative action and antidiscrimination laws, even after accounting for demographic controls, including political views.
期刊介绍:
Established in 1895 as the first US scholarly journal in its field, the American Journal of Sociology (AJS) presents pathbreaking work from all areas of sociology, with an emphasis on theory building and innovative methods. AJS strives to speak to the general sociology reader and is open to contributions from across the social sciences—sociology, political science, economics, history, anthropology, and statistics—that seriously engage the sociological literature to forge new ways of understanding the social. AJS offers a substantial book review section that identifies the most salient work of both emerging and enduring scholars of social science. Commissioned review essays appear occasionally, offering readers a comparative, in-depth examination of prominent titles. Although AJS publishes a very small percentage of the papers submitted to it, a double-blind review process is available to all qualified submissions, making the journal a center for exchange and debate "behind" the printed page and contributing to the robustness of social science research in general.