People in marginalized groups are less likely to accurately remember the extent of discrimination they have suffered in the past when conditions improve for other members of their groups — even if these conditions don't improve for themselves, according to University of Alberta research.
In a study published late last year in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Tito Grillo of the Alberta School of Business and marketing PhD candidate Shuhan Yang found that workplace and societal advancements in fair treatment based on race and gender "may change how some perceive their own prior experiences with discrimination, leading them to see these experiences as having been fairer."
The study is partly based on previous research on "memory malleability," says Grillo, showing that "every time we remember the past, we remember it with a bias based on the present."
In a series of five experiments, Grillo and Yang looked at groups of women and immigrants in the United States, United Kingdom and China, finding the same "fairness revisionism" regarding perceptions of personally experienced discrimination across cultural contexts.
The researchers surveyed participants' perceptions of real-world advancements and their own experiences in the workplace, but also created simulated scenarios asking them to imagine differences in treatment between the past and present.
In one critical finding, the revisionist shift came into play even when advancements in fair treatment had no direct impact on individuals themselves, says Grillo, but benefited current and future members of their group.
The study follows prior research on shared experiences showing that individuals can perceive themselves as having a central role in events experienced by other in-group members, such as sports fans who feel like they share in their team's victories.
"Experience-sharing tendencies may cause people to see their own life events more favourably in response to social advancements that improve other people's lives," says Grillo.
The shift in perception of the past does not come into play, however, when advances are made in groups to which one does not belong, "nor when individuals assess fairness in other groups' past experiences from an outsider's perspective."
Grillo calls the phenomenon a potentially dangerous double-edged sword, bringing some peace of mind to those once treated unfairly but also making the need for change seem less urgent.
"We need to remember the mistakes in the past so we don't repeat them," he says. "It's important to gauge the right perspective from victims themselves, and help them inform the rest of society.
"This is a special case, because we are showing that victims of discrimination are prone to changing their narrative to paint their experience in a more positive light. And that has a special weight."
If previous discrimination is softened or seen as less severe than it actually was, it could hamper further progress toward equality, he says. It's important to celebrate progress when it does happen, but with clear eyes, fully acknowledging past treatment so the struggle seems worth the fight.
Participants in Grillo's study experienced the revisionist shift immediately, he says, but how long the effect lasts requires further research.
"There's a chance that over time, you start to recalibrate back to your original perception. As a new policy becomes older and you habituate to a new state of things, it may shift back."
