Strategic confrontation: Examining the utility of low stakes prodding as a strategy for confronting sexism

Abstract

ABSTRACT Confronting sexism has been routinely operationalized in experimental research as assertive behavior that expresses disapproval of sexism. The present research examines an indirect confrontation strategy we term low stakes prodding. We first establish the use of this strategy in a real-time sexist situation (Pilot study, N = 59), then test whether this indirect type of confrontation is considered to be an effective strategy for reducing sexism (Study 1, N = 138), and finally investigate whether low stakes prodding is deliberately used to avoid work-related costs (Study 2, N = 129). Study 1 demonstrated that the majority of respondents perceived low stakes prodding as confrontation, but viewed it as less effective when it was delayed. Study 2 showed that low stakes prodding was seen as a somewhat deliberate confrontation strategy that contributes to positive interpersonal interactions. Overall, the current research suggests that definitions of confrontation need to be expanded in order to encompass strategies used in actual situations of sexism.