When dominant groups are accused of discrimination against non-dominant groups, they often seek to portray themselves as the victims of discrimination instead. Sometimes, however, members of dominant groups counter accusations of discrimination by invoking victimhood on a new dimension of harm, changing the topic being discussed. Across three studies (N = 3081), we examine two examples of this digressive victimhood – Christian Americans responding to accusations of homophobia by claiming threatened religious liberty, and White Americans responding to accusations of racism by claiming threatened free speech. We show that members of dominant groups endorse digressive victimhood claims more strongly than conventional competitive victimhood claims (i.e., ones that claim “reverse discrimination”). Additionally, accounting for the fact that these claims may also stand to benefit a wider range of people and appeal to more abstract principles, we show that this preference is driven by the perception that digressive victimhood claims are more effective at silencing further criticism from the non-dominant group. Underscoring that these claims may be used strategically, we observed that individuals high in outgroup prejudice were willing to express a positive endorsement of the digressive victimhood claims even when they did not fully support the principle they claimed to be defending (e.g., freedom of religion or speech). We discuss implications for real-world intergroup conflicts and the psychology of dominant groups.

当主导群体被指控歧视非主导群体时，他们往往试图将自己描绘成歧视的受害者。然而，有时，主导群体的成员通过在新的伤害维度上援引受害者身份来反驳歧视指控，从而改变正在讨论的话题。在三项研究 ( N  = 3081) 中，我们研究了这种离题受害的两个例子– 基督教美国人通过声称宗教自由受到威胁来回应恐同指控，而美国白人则通过声称言论自由受到威胁来回应种族主义指控。我们表明，主导群体的成员比传统的竞争性受害者主张（即声称“反向歧视”的主张）更强烈地支持离题的受害者主张。此外，考虑到这些主张也可能使更广泛的人受益并诉诸更抽象的原则这一事实，我们表明这种偏好是由这样一种看法驱动的，即离题的受害者主张更有效地消除来自非——主导群体。强调可以战略性地使用这些声明，我们观察到，外群体偏见高的人愿意表达对离题的受害者主张的积极支持，即使他们不完全支持他们声称要捍卫的原则（例如，宗教或言论自由）。我们讨论了对现实世界群体间冲突和主导群体心理的影响。