Title: What convinces majority groups of minorities’ discrimination and adversity? Results from a survey experiment using ecologically valid evidence and arguments.

Speakers:

Postdoc Clara Vandeweerd, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen

Professor Peter Thisted Dinesen, Department of Political Science, University College London & University of Copenhagen

Professor Kim Mannemar Sønderskov, CEPDISC & Department of Political Science, Aarhus University

Abstract:

One route for minority groups to become successful in advancing their cause as a group is to convince majorities/dominant groups about the adversity they experience in order to potentially gain their political support. This in turn raises the question of which types of arguments and evidence minorities may marshal to make majority group members acknowledge their situation. In this paper, we scrutinize how majority groups respond to arguments based on different types of evidence when evaluating the extent of discrimination. More specifically, we
develop a typology of communications along two dimensions: (i) manifest versus perceived evidence of discrimination, and (ii) thematic/“statistical” versus episodic/“personal” evidence.

We test the effectiveness of these arguments in changing majorities’ opinions about the extent of discrimination of immigrants (how pronounced this problem is) in a pre-registered survey experiment (n = 1429) conducted in Denmark. Matching our typology, the survey includes four ecologically valid treatments, featuring types of content that have been deployed in the real world in order to prove or illustrate ethnic discrimination in Denmark. Specifically, we test treatments based on a (i) published audit study showing discrimination of immigrants (manifest/statistical evidence), (ii) a published survey documenting immigrants’ perceived discrimination (perceived/statistical evidence), (iii) a personal story of explicit discrimination reported that appeared in a newspaper (manifest/personal evidence), and (iv) stories of “everyday racism” inspired by experiences reported on websites (perceived/personal evidence). All treatments cause small, significant changes toward stronger concern about discrimination compared to the control condition—with the exception of the treatment consisting of perceived personal evidence. In general, “manifest” treatments appear stronger than “perceived” treatments.

Our study has important implications for the question of which arguments and evidence—if any—that may change majority opinions about a highly politicized group’s experiences. This in turn relates to the effectiveness of different
minority-group strategies for advancing their cause as a group. Our findings suggest that arguments relying on manifest evidence of discrimination—whether in statistical form or through personal stories—are especially effective, whereas more subjective personal stories are not. For future iterations of the paper, we plan to collect more data regarding perceived treatment of other minority groups.

If not a member of CEPDISC please contact Centre Administrator Maj Thimm Carlsen