Article Sidebar

Submitted
Mar 10, 2026
Accepted
Jun 9, 2026
Published
Jul 23, 2026
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 10 Download : 5

Main Article Content

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems prove their utility in various aspects of daily life, their potential risk to societal progress is still debated given the increasing rates of their discriminatory behaviors. Some preliminary evidence suggests that the same discriminatory behavior may be perceived differently when performed by a person or an AI system, yet it remains largely unknown how people perceive and respond to AI’s discriminatory behaviors. Through two studies conducted in Türkiye (Study 1) and the United States (Study 2), participants read about either AI’s discrimination against women, humans’ discrimination against women, or an unrelated topic, and indicated the degree of perceived threat to women, willingness to participate in collective action for women’s equal treatment, and their attitudes toward women and feminists. In both cultures, discrimination was perceived to be less threatening to women when committed by AI compared to a human, yet collective action intentions and attitudes toward women and feminists did not differ across conditions. Notably, American men consistently reported less favorable attitudes toward women after reading about discrimination. These findings suggest discrimination by AI requires special attention and underline the importance of investigating the influence of technologies on sustaining intergroup inequality.

Keywords

Discrimination Intergroup Threat Artificial Intelligence Collective Action

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The author declares that the submitted to Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society (Je-LKS) is original and that is has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
The author agrees that SIe-L (Italian Society of e-Learning) has the right to publish the material sent for inclusion in the journal Je-LKS.
The author agree that articles may be published in digital format (on the Internet or on any digital support and media) and in printed format, including future re-editions, in any language and in any license including proprietary licenses, creative commons license or open access license. SIe-L may also use parts of the work to advertise and promote the publication.
The author declares s/he has all the necessary rights to authorize the editor and SIe-L to publish the work.
The author assures that the publication of the work in no way infringes the rights of third parties, nor violates any penal norms and absolves SIe-L from all damages and costs which may result from publication.

The author declares further s/he has received written permission without limits of time, territory, or language from the rights holders for the free use of all images and parts of works still covered by copyright, without any cost or expenses to SIe-L.

For all the information please check the Ethical Code of Je-LKS, available at http://www.je-lks.org/index.php/ethical-code

How to Cite
Akay, S., Kanero, J., & Bağcı, Çiğdem. (2026). When AI is sexist: Investigating responses to AI and human discrimination. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1136320

References

  1. Allen, R., & Masters, D. (2020). Artificial intelligence: The right to protection from discrimination caused by algorithms, machine learning and automated decision-making. ERA Forum, 20(4), 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00582-w
  2. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
  3. Allpress, J. A., Barlow, F. K., Brown, R., & Louis, W. R. (2010). Atoning for colonial injustices: Group-based shame and guilt motivate support for reparation. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.4119/IJCV-2816
  4. Allpress, J. A., Brown, R., Giner-Sorolla, R., Deonna, J. A., & Teroni, F. (2014). Two faces of group-based shame: Moral shame and image shame differentially predict positive and negative orientations to ingroup wrongdoing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(10), 1270–1284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214540724
  5. Bacchini, E. A. M., Scheepers, D., Ellemers, N., & Naber, M. (2024). Traditionally advantaged group members’ affective and physiological responses to social change. Social Psychology, 55(6), 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000567
  6. Bagci, S. C., Turnuklu, A., & Tercan, M. (2020). Positive intergroup contact decreases the likelihood that prejudicial attitudes become avoidant behavioral tendencies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 597–613. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2646
  7. Bagci, S. C., Verkuyten, M., Koc, Y., Turnuklu, A., Piyale, Z. E., & Bekmezci, E. (2020). Being tolerated and being discriminated against: Links to psychological well‐being through threatened social identity needs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(7), 1463–1477. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2699
  8. Bagci, S. C., Çelebi, E., & Karaköse, S. (2017). Discrimination towards ethnic minorities: How does it relate to majority group members’ outgroup attitudes and support for multiculturalism. Social Justice Research, 30(1), 1-22.
  9. Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and Action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1656–1666. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237647
  10. Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.105
  11. Becker, J. C., & Barreto, M. (2014). Ways to go: Men’s and women’s support for aggressive and nonaggressive confrontation of sexism as a function of gender identification. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 668–686. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12085
  12. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922
  13. Bigman, Y. E., Waytz, A., Alterovitz, R., & Gray, K. (2019). Holding robots responsible: The elements of machine morality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(5), 365–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.008
  14. Bigman, Y. E., Wilson, D., Arnestad, M. N., Waytz, A., & Gray, K. (2023). Algorithmic discrimination causes less moral outrage than human discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001250
  15. Borrell, L. N., Jacobs, D. R., Williams, D. R., Pletcher, M. J., Houston, T. K., & Kiefe, C. I. (2007). Self-reported racial discrimination and substance use in the coronary artery risk development in adults study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 166(9), 1068–1079. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwm180
  16. Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135
  17. Brown, N. D., Jacoby-Senghor, D. S., & Raymundo, I. (2022). If you rise, I fall: Equality is prevented by the misperception that it harms advantaged groups. Science Advances, 8(18), eabm2385. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abm2385
  18. Brown, R., & Cehajic, S. (2008). Dealing with the past and facing the future: Mediators of the effects of collective guilt and shame in Bosnia and Herzegovina. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(4), 669–684. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.466
  19. Caricati, L., & Owuamalam, C. K. (2020). System justification among the disadvantaged: A triadic social stratification perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 40. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00040
  20. Chettiar, I. (2025, February 5). Evidence that the right’s assault on women is here. Newsweek. https://www.newsweek.com/evidence-that-rights-assault-women-here-opinion-2026061
  21. Crawford, K. (2016, June 25). Artificial intelligence’s white guy problem. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/artificial-intelligences-white-guy-problem.html
  22. Danks, D., & London, A. J. (2017). Algorithmic bias in autonomous systems. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 4691–4697. https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2017/654
  23. Darling, K. (2012). Extending legal rights to social robots. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2044797
  24. Darling, K. (2015). “Who’s Johnny?” Anthropomorphic framing in human-robot interaction, Integration, and Policy. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2588669
  25. Dastin, J. (2018, October 11). Insight – Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/insight-amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK0AG/
  26. Deliso, M. (2025, February 6). Protesters across the US rally against Trump administration policies. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/anti-trump-protests-nationwide/story?id=118501194
  27. Dion, K. L., & Earn, B. M. (1975). The phenomenology of being a target of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(5), 944–950. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.944
  28. Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. M. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination: Theoretical and empirical overview. In J. F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination (pp. 3–28). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200919.n1
  29. Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2009). Collective action in modern times: How modern expressions of prejudice prevent collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 749–768. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01621.x
  30. Ellemers, N., Van Knippenberg, A., & Wilke, H. (1990). The influence of permeability of group boundaries and stability of group status on strategies of individual mobility and social change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29(3), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1990.tb00902.x
  31. Eurostat. (2025). Usage of AI technologies increasing in EU enterprises. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/fr/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20250123-3#:~:text=In%202024%2C%2013.5%25%20of%20enterprises,growth%20from%208.0%25%20in%202023.
  32. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
  33. Ferrara, E. (2023). Fairness and bias in artificial intelligence: A brief survey of sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies. Sci, 6(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci6010003
  34. Flood, M., Dragiewicz, M., & Pease, B. (2021). Resistance and backlash to gender equality. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.137
  35. Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. W. (2004). On the morality of artificial agents. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3848388
  36. Geiselmann, R., Tsourgianni, A., Deroy, O., & Harris, L. T. (2023). Interacting with agents without a mind: The case for artificial agents. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 51, 101282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2023.101282
  37. Giuliani, M., Mirnig, N., Stollnberger, G., Stadler, S., Buchner, R., & Tscheligi, M. (2015). Systematic analysis of video data from different human–robot interaction studies: A categorization of social signals during error situations. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00931
  38. Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315(5812), 619–619. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1134475
  39. Gray, K., Yam, K. C., Eng, A., Dillion, D., & Waytz, A. (2025). The psychology of robots and artificial intelligence. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, E. Finkel, & W. Mendes (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology 6th Edition (6th ed.). Situational Press. https://doi.org/10.70400/IKVM1257
  40. Hall, P., & Ellis, D. (2023). A systematic review of socio-technical gender bias in AI algorithms. Online Information Review, 47(7), 1264–1279. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2021-0452
  41. Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
  42. Hoskin, R. E., Thomas, E. F., & McGarty, C. (2019). Transnational contact and challenging global poverty: Intergroup contact intensifies (the right kind of) social identities to promote solidarity‐based collective action for those low in social dominance. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 3(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.24
  43. Intahchomphoo, C., & Gundersen, O. E. (2020). Artificial intelligence and race: A systematic review. Legal Information Management, 20(2), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1472669620000183
  44. Iyer, A., & Ryan, M. K. (2009). Why do men and women challenge gender discrimination in the workplace? The role of group status and in‐group identification in predicting pathways to collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65(4), 791–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01625.x
  45. Jenen, J., Winquist, J., Arkkelin, D., & Schuster, K. (2009). Implicit attitudes towards feminism. Sex Roles, 60(1), 14-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9514-3
  46. Jonker, A., & Rogers, J. (2024, September 20). What is algorithmic bias? IBM. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/algorithmic-bias
  47. Kahn, P. H., & Shen, S. (2017). NOC NOC, who’s there? A new ontological category (NOC) for social robots. In N. Budwig, E. Turiel, & P. D. Zelazo (Eds.), New perspectives on human development (1st ed., pp. 106–122). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316282755.008
  48. Kandiyoti, D. (2016). Locating the politics of gender: Patriarchy, neo-liberal governance and violence in Turkey. Research and Policy on Turkey, 1(2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/23760818.2016.1201242
  49. King, R. L., Moon, J., & Debushmann Jr, B. (2025, April 6). Anti-Trump protests held in cities across the US. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz79ewg193ro
  50. Knowles, E. D., & Lowery, B. S. (2012). Meritocracy, self-concerns, and whites’ denial of racial inequity. Self and Identity, 11(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2010.542015
  51. Kruesi, K., & Ungar, L. (2025, March 6). What to know about the Idaho emergency abortion case dropped by the Trump administration. PBS News. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/what-to-know-about-the-idaho-emergency-abortion-case-dropped-by-the-trump-administration
  52. Kube, C. (2025, January 31). Pentagon ends paying for travel for abortion and other reproductive care. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/pentagon-ends-policy-funding-travel-abortions-care-rcna190198
  53. Kutlaca, M., Radke, H. R. M., & Becker, J. C. (2022). The impact of including advantaged groups in collective action against social inequality on politicized identification of observers from disadvantaged and advantaged groups. Political Psychology, 43(2), 297–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12755
  54. Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The schedule of racist events: A measure of racial discrimination and a study of its negative physical and mental health consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22(2), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/00957984960222002
  55. Lee, C. (2025, March 7). Trump administration drops high-profile emergency abortion case, Leaving Advocates ‘Devastated.’ TIME. https://time.com/7265757/trump-lawsuit-abortion-idaho-ban-emergencies-activists-providers-respond/
  56. Lemaster, P., Strough, J., Stoiko, R., & DiDonato, L. (2015). To have and to do: Masculine facets of gender predict men’s and women’s attitudes about gender equality among college students. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16(2), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036429
  57. Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363
  58. Lowery, B. S., Knowles, E. D., & Unzueta, M. M. (2007). Framing inequity safely: Whites’ motivated perceptions of racial privilege. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(9), 1237–1250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207303016
  59. Maslej, N., Fattorini, L., Perrault, R., Gil, Y., Parli, V., Kariuki, N., Capstick, E., Reuel, A., Brynjolfsson, E., Etchemendy, J., Ligett, K., Lyons, T., Manyika, J., Niebles, J. C., Shoham, Y., Wald, R., Walsh, T., Hamrah, A., Santarlasci, L., … Oak, S. (2025). Artificial intelligence index report 2025. Stanford University Human Centered AI. https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report
  60. Mazzuca, S., Moscatelli, S., Menegatti, M., & Rubini, M. (2022). Men’s reactions to gender inequality in the workplace: From relative deprivation on behalf of women to collective action. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 999750. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.999750
  61. McElheran, K., Li, J. F., Brynjolfsson, E., Kroff, Z., Dinlersoz, E., Foster, L., & Zolas, N. (2024). AI adoption in America: Who, what, and where. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 33(2), 375–415. https://doi.org/10.1111/jems.12576
  62. Miron, A. M., Warner, R. H., & Branscombe, N. R. (2011). Accounting for group differences in appraisals of social inequality: Differential injustice standards. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02009.x
  63. Moscatelli, S., Mazzuca, S., Menegatti, M., & Rubini, M. (2025). Women’s participation in collective action for workplace gender equality: The role of perceived relative deprivation, resentment, and moral conviction. Sex Roles, 91(4), 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-025-01573-7
  64. Nadeem, A., Abedin, B., & Marjanovic, O. (2020). Gender bias in AI: A review of contributing factors and mitigating strategies. Proceedings of the 31st Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2020), 27. https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2020/27
  65. Ollstein, A. M. (2025, March 31). Trump admin cuts tens of millions from Planned Parenthood. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/31/trump-admin-cuts-tens-of-millions-from-planned-parenthood-00261763
  66. Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2015). Opposing paths to ideology: Group-based relative deprivation predicts conservatism through warmth toward ingroup and outgroup members. Social Justice Research, 28(1), 27–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-014-0227-1
  67. Osborne, D., Jost, J. T., Becker, J. C., Badaan, V., & Sibley, C. G. (2019). Protesting to challenge or defend the system? A system justification perspective on collective action. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 244-269.
  68. Özdemir Sarıgil, B. (2022). Combating gender-based discrimination against women in Turkey: Achievements and the challenges ahead. In G. Yılmaz (Ed.), Non-discrimination in Turkey (pp. 59–77). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-08399-0_4
  69. Pascoe, E. A., & Smart Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135(4), 531–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016059
  70. Phillips, L. T., & Lowery, B. S. (2015). The hard-knock life? Whites claim hardships in response to racial inequity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.06.008
  71. Poyrazlar, E. (2024, October 10). Outrage over murders of women forces Turkey’s Erdoğan to harden laws. Politico. https://www.politico.eu/article/outrage-murder-women-turkey-erdogan-feminicide-laws-ak-party/
  72. Reimer, N. K., Becker, J. C., Benz, A., Christ, O., Dhont, K., Klocke, U., Neji, S., Rychlowska, M., Schmid, K., & Hewstone, M. (2017). Intergroup contact and social change: Implications of negative and positive contact for collective action in advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(1), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216676478
  73. Schmitt, M., & Maes, J. (2002). Stereotypic ingroup bias as self‐defense against relative deprivation: Evidence from a longitudinal study of the German unification process. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.91
  74. Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Postmes, T., & Garcia, A. (2014). The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 921–948. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035754
  75. Schmitt, M. T., Spears, R., & Branscombe, N. R. (2003). Constructing a minority group identity out of shared rejection: The case of international students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.131
  76. Shank, D. B., & DeSanti, A. (2018). Attributions of morality and mind to artificial intelligence after real-world moral violations. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 401–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.05.014
  77. Shank, D. B., North, M., Arnold, C., & Gamez, P. (2021). Can mind perception explain virtuous character judgments of artificial intelligence? Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000047
  78. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and Oppression (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043
  79. Swim, J. K., & Miller, D. L. (1999). White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 500–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025004008
  80. Taylor, A. (2025, February 18). ‘Not My President’s Day’: Thousands gather in protest against Trump. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2025/02/thousands-gather-protest-against-trump-musk/681721/
  81. Tian, L., & Oviatt, S. (2021). A taxonomy of social errors in human-robot interaction. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 10(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/3439720
  82. Tougas, F., & Veilleux, F. (1990). The response of men to affirmative action strategies for women: The study of a predictive model. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue Canadienne 
  83. Uluğ, Ö. M., Chayinska, M., & Tropp, L. R. (2023). Does witnessing gender discrimination predict women’s collective action intentions for gender justice? Examining the moderating role of perceived female support. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 33(2), 501–518. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2642
  84. Uluğ, Ö. M., & Tropp, L. R. (2021). Witnessing racial discrimination shapes collective action for racial justice: Enhancing awareness of privilege among advantaged groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(3), 248–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12731
  85. United Nations Development Programme. (2023). 2023 Gender social norms index (GSNI): Breaking down gender biases: Shifting social norms towards gender equality. United Nations Development Programme. https://hdr.undp.org/content/2023-gender-social-norms-index-gsni#/indicies/GSNI
  86. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2022). EEOC sues iTutorGroup for age discrimination. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-itutorgroup-age-discrimination
  87. Uysal, M. S., Uluğ, Ö. M., Kanık, B., & Aydemir, A. (2022). “The liberation of LGBTQ+ will also liberate heterosexuals”: Heterosexual feminist women’s participation in solidarity‐based collective action for LGBTQ+ rights. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(2), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2799
  88. Van Laar, C., Van Rossum, A., Kosakowska-Berezecka, N., Bongiorno, R., & Block, K. (2024). MANdatory – Why men need (and are needed for) gender equality progress. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1263313. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1263313
  89. Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
  90. Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). On conviction’s collective consequences: Integrating moral conviction with the social identity model of collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 52–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02000.x
  91. Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Bettache, K. (2011). Can moral convictions motivate the advantaged to challenge social inequality?: Extending the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 735–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210395637
  92. Vargas-Solar, G. (2022). Intersectional study of the gender gap in STEM through the identification of missing datasets about women: A multisided problem. Applied Sciences, 12(12), 5813. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12125813
  93. Veilleux, F., & Tougas, F. (1989). Male acceptance of affirmative action for women: The results of alturistic or egoistical motives? International Journal of Psychology, 24(1–5), 485–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.1989.10600060
  94. Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(4), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.163
  95. Vlasceanu, M., & Amodio, D. M. (2022). Propagation of societal gender inequality by internet search algorithms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(29), e2204529119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2204529119
  96. Wajcman, J. (2010). Feminist theories of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/ben057
  97. We Will Stop Femicides Platform. (2024). We Will Stop Femicides Platform October 2024 report. https://kadincinayetlerinidurduracagiz.net/veriler/3126/we-will-stop-femicides-platform-october-2024-report
  98. West, S. M., Whittaker, M., & Crawford, K. (2019). Discriminating systems: Gender, race, and power in AI. AI Now Institute. https://ainowinstitute.org/publications/discriminating-systems-gender-race-and-power-in-ai-2
  99. Williams, D. R., Neighbors, H. W., & Jackson, J. S. (2003). Racial/Ethnic discrimination and health: Findings from community studies. American Journal of Public Health, 93(2), 200–208. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.2.200
  100. World Economic Forum. (2024). Global gender gap report 2024. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2024/
  101. World Economic Forum. (2025). Global gender gap report 2025. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2025/
  102. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73
  103. Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 994–1003. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.994
  104. Wright, S. C., & Tropp, L. R. (2002). Collective action in response to disadvantage: Intergroup perceptions, social identification, and social change. In I. Walker & H. J. Smith (Eds.), Relative deprivation: Specification, development, and integration (pp. 200–236). Cambridge University Press.