ArticleJournal of youth and adolescence2025
From Egalitarian To Exclusionary: Profiling Youth Acceptance of Discrimination in the Digital Age.
Article in Journal of youth and adolescence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Adolescence is a formative period for the development of prejudice, yet little is known about how digital environments and gendered socialization jointly shape attitudes toward discrimination. Participants were 762 Belgian secondary-school students (M = 17.03, SD = 0.89; 58% female). Using these survey data, this study examined whether adolescents found unequal treatment acceptable across six grounds: ethnicity, religious denomination, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, and age. Latent Profile Analysis estimated separately by gender revealed four attitudinal constellations: Low discriminators (strongly egalitarian), Moderate discriminators (ambivalent), Selective discriminators (tolerant of gender- and sexuality-based discrimination only), and Broad discriminators (high acceptance across all grounds). Although the profile structure for boys and girls was similar, their prevalence differed: a larger share of girls (70%) than boys (54%) fell into the Low discrimination group, while boys were more often represented in the Moderate group, which also showed stronger exclusionary attitudes. Multinomial logit models indicated that social media use was strongly linked with group membership. For boys, higher levels of use were associated with an increased likelihood of exclusion. For girls, however, the platform context played a greater role: use of Instagram and TikTok was linked to lower levels of prejudice, whereas use of Facebook and Reddit was linked to higher levels. Experiences of discrimination further heightened the risk of exclusion, particularly among boys. Together, the results show that a focus on within-gender diversity and platform-specific use yields a clearer picture of how gender and digital context are associated with adolescents’ acceptance of discrimination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41082124What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.