An illustrative dilemma
Imagine an organization excluding someone from an event because others might object to the person’s identity. The decision-maker insists that this is not an expression of their own prejudice; it is a practical attempt to prevent conflict. This hypothetical situation raises a different question from whether the decision-maker personally dislikes the excluded group. What happens when an institution changes its treatment of a person to accommodate somebody else’s hostility?
The research question
Our ongoing research examines how people recognize and respond to antisemitism and exclusion, including the roles of bystanders and institutions.
Separating concepts
A criticism of government policy, a disagreement with an individual, a condition imposed on someone because they are Jewish, and a response to third-party hostility are not interchangeable. The research aims to make these distinctions explicit and test their implications. An institution’s stated intention and the consequences of its decision may also be different questions.
Bystander judgments
A decision can be normalized not only by the person making it but also by observers who regard it as unavoidable. This makes bystander judgments an important empirical target. Our public project description explains the program’s questions; findings from studies still being prepared for publication are not presented as settled conclusions. The London Centre profile provides further background on this research direction.