Confrontation Of Prejudice Research Articles

(Absent) Allyship in STEM: Can Psychological Standing Increase Prejudice Confrontation?

(Absent) Allyship in STEM: Can Psychological Standing Increase Prejudice Confrontation?

Do Beliefs That Older Adults Are Inflexible Serve as a Barrier to Racial Equality?

Past research has demonstrated that older adults are stereotyped as less malleable than young adults. Moreover, beliefs that people are less malleable are associated with lower confrontations of prejudice, as perpetrators are seen as less capable of changing their (prejudiced) behavior. The present research sought to integrate these lines of research to demonstrate that endorsement of ageist beliefs that older adults are less malleable will lead to a lower confrontation of anti-Black prejudice espoused by older adults. Across four experimental studies (N = 1,573), people were less likely to confront anti-Black prejudice espoused by an 82-year-old compared with a 62-, 42-, or 20-year-old, due, in part, to beliefs that older adults are less malleable. Further exploration demonstrated that malleability beliefs about older adults were held across young, middle-aged, and older adult samples. These findings demonstrate how stereotypes about older adults can impede racial equality.

Not such a complainer anymore: Confrontation that signals a growth mindset can attenuate backlash.

We report the first investigation of whether observers draw information about mindsets from behavior, specifically prejudice confrontation. We tested two questions across 10 studies (N = 3,168). First, would people who observe someone confront a biased comment (vs. remain silent) see them as endorsing more growth (vs. fixed) mindsets about prejudice and bias? If so, would the growth mindset perceptions that arise from confrontation (vs. remaining silent) attenuate the backlash that observers exhibit against confronters? We investigated these questions using scenarios (Studies 1, 2a-b, 4, 5a-d), naturalistic confrontations of national, race, and gender stereotypes reported retrospectively (Study 3), and an in-person laboratory experiment of actual confrontations of racial bias (Study 6). Correlational and experimental methods yielded support for our core hypotheses: People spontaneously imbue someone who confronts a biased comment with more growth mindset beliefs about prejudice and bias (Studies 1, 2a-b, 4, 6), regardless of whether participants observe the confrontation (Studies 1, 2a-b, 5a-d) or are being confronted themselves (Studies 2a-4, 6). The growth mindset perceptions arising from these confrontations suppress backlash, assessed by classic interpersonal perceptions (Studies 4-5) and judgments of interpersonal warmth and willingness to interact again in the future (Study 6), both when the confronter was a target of the biased behavior (Studies 1-5), and when they were an ally (Study 6), in both correlational studies (Study 3-4) and when growth mindset (about personality, Study 5; about prejudice, Study 6) was manipulated, confirming causality. We discuss implications for the study of mindsets, confrontation, and intergroup relations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

DO BELIEFS THAT OLDER ADULTS ARE INFLEXIBLE SERVE AS A BARRIER TO RACIAL EQUITY?

Abstract Past research has demonstrated that older adults are stereotyped as less malleable than younger adults, such that older adults are perceived to be less capable of changing their beliefs and learning new things. Moreover, beliefs that people are less malleable are associated with lower confrontations of prejudice, as perpetrators are seen as less capable of changing their (prejudiced) behavior. The aim of the present research was to integrate these lines of research to demonstrate that endorsement of ageist beliefs that older adults are less malleable will lead to lower confrontation of anti-Black prejudice espoused by older adults. Across four experimental studies (N = 1,310), people were less likely to confront anti-Black prejudice espoused by an 82 year-old compared to a 62, 42, or 20 year-old, due, in part, to beliefs that older adults are less malleable. Further exploration demonstrated that malleability beliefs about older adults were held across young, middle-aged, and older adult samples, though older participants were the least likely to confront prejudice, regardless of perpetrator age. Alternative mechanisms are explored, including respect, perceived social influence, and perceived awareness of egalitarian norms. These findings demonstrate how stereotypes about older adults can impede racial equality and highlight that interventions geared towards reducing ageism could, in turn, lead to greater racial equality.

Should I “check my emotions at the door” or express how I feel? Role of emotion regulation versus expression of male leaders speaking out against sexism in the workplace

AbstractAs witnesses to workplace sexism, male leaders have the opportunity to leverage both their relative social privilege as men and authority as leaders to enact allyship. However, allyship is fraught. Expression of indignation may be viewed by observers as unprofessional, yet a muted response may lead observers to question their motives for allyship. Further, allyship that does not hit the mark may have a ripple effect on observers' perceptions of the leader‐ally, victim, transgressor, and organization. Thus, the present research (1) examined whether emotion expression during allyship influences observers' motive inferences of the leader‐ally, (2) examined whether emotion expression influences favorability of the leader‐ally, and (3) explored how a leader‐ally's emotional (or not) allyship behavior influences observers' perceptions of the victim, transgressor, and organization. Study 1 (n = 298) showed that prejudice confrontation accompanied by anger or sadness (vs. not) is associated with intrinsic motive inferences of the leader‐ally, and anger is seen as more appropriate and sincere when confronting prejudice. Study 2 (n = 112) showed that the leader‐ally was viewed as more favorable when prejudice confrontation was accompanied by anger (vs. not) because the leader‐ally was perceived as more sincere. Finally, qualitative data from thought‐listings across both studies showed that leader‐allies' anger expression was associated with greater calls for accountability of the transgressor and more positive impressions of the organization. However, anger expression also wrought highly polarized responses toward the victim, consisting of both support and victim‐blaming. Thus, authentic but measured emotion expression during confrontation is recommended.

Prejudice confrontation styles: A validated and reliable measure of how people confront prejudice

While research has demonstrated that confrontations of prejudice serve as effective prejudice reduction tools and as a coping mechanism for targets of prejudice, research has yet to identify a validated measurement of prejudice confrontation styles. The present research develops the Prejudice Confrontation Styles (PCS) Scale, which includes five styles of prejudice confrontation: Educational, Argumentative, Help-seeking, Empathy, and Humor. The factor structure of the PCS Scale is identified across two diverse samples employing exploratory (Study 1) and confirmatory (Study 2) factor analyses. Moreover, the PCS Scale demonstrates construct validity, predicting imagined confrontation styles two weeks later among women confronting prejudice, and prejudice confrontation styles moderated autonomy, rumination, and perceived effectiveness of prejudice confrontations (Study 3). Thus, the present research identifies and develops a tool to measure prejudice confrontation styles and demonstrates that prejudice confrontation styles are associated with divergent psychological health outcomes.

Intersectional patterns of prejudice confrontation by White, heterosexual, and cisgender allies

AbstractScholarship produced by psychologists typically focuses on one area of social identity and oppression per study (e.g., only sexism) with very little intersectional analysis across systemic oppression and privilege. To better understand the intersecting patterns of ally behavior, we examined online confrontation behavior by privileged individuals in response to antigay, antitransgender, and racist comments. Study 1 explored rates and types of confrontation during encounters with anti‐Mexican and antigay comments. Study 2 used an experimental design to assess rates and types of confrontation of anti‐Arab and antitransgender comments in the presence of a second confederate who either confronted the prejudice or remained silent. When exposed to anti‐Mexican bias, men were initially more likely to speak up than women, whereas women were more likely to respond to antigay comments. In terms of anti‐Arab and antitransgender bias, social influence resulted in more direct confrontation for anti‐Arab statements and higher rates of confrontation for antitransgender bias. Applying an intersectional lens, patterns of power and privilege reveal gender socialization may impact ally responses to racism and antigay bias. For example, gender socialization and stereotypes equating femininity with gay men may both decrease ally behavior among men and increase confrontation of antigay bias among women. When another potential ally is present, social influence appears to become the most powerful predictor of both whether or not a participant confronts bias and how direct they are with the perpetrator. Intersectional examination of invisible norms for promoting ally confrontation informs development of effective equity and justice interventions.

Politeness Strategies in Confrontations of Prejudice

ABSTRACTThis project draws on the self-regulation of prejudiced responses model and politeness theory to investigate the role of politeness strategies in interpersonal confrontations of prejudice. One hundred and three participants were exposed to experimental confrontations of prejudiced remarks made about Native Americans. The results generally indicate that direct confrontations, which included an explanation of why the response was perceived as prejudiced, were most effective in reducing prejudiced responses and reducing levels of reported prejudice. Furthermore, participants generally accepted confrontations of their prejudiced responses and did not negatively evaluate their confronters. Finally, the more positive politeness participants perceived in the confrontations, the more positively they evaluated their confronter. Implications for theory and the confrontation of prejudice in everyday life are discussed.

Framing and source effects on White college students' reactions to racial inequity information.

This study addressed: (a) Do professors' race/ethnicity and the race-related inequity information they present influence students' evaluations of the professors, acknowledgment of racial inequity, or motivation to respond without prejudice (MRWP)? (b) Do collective guilt and students' evaluations of professors mediate these relationships? White American undergraduate students (N = 614, 66.3% females, 64.7% first year, mean age of 19.3 years [age SD = 1.5]) completed an anonymous online survey. Students imagined they were taking a racial diversity course with either a Black or a White male professor who presented either White privilege or Black disadvantage statements. Participants then completed surveys that assessed their evaluations of the professor, collective guilt, beliefs regarding racial inequity, and MRWP. Students evaluated White professors as having lower expertise, learning conduciveness, and warmth/intelligence but rated Black professors as more biased. Consistent with the inequality-framing model, intergroup sensitivity effect (ISE), and findings from prejudice confrontation research, White professors induced greater acknowledgment of racial inequity when they discussed White privilege rather than Black disadvantage. But, Black professors induced more external MRWP when they presented White privilege rather than Black disadvantage. Students' perceptions of the professors' warmth/intelligence determined the effectiveness of the inequity message while perceptions of the professors' expertise, judgmental, and conduciveness to learning determined students' concerns about appearing prejudiced. The presenters' race/ethnicity and how they frame racial inequity information affect students' evaluation of the presenters, the message effectiveness, and students' external MRWP. (PsycINFO Database Record

Perceiving and Confronting Sexism: The Causal Role of Gender Identity Salience.

Although many researchers have explored the relations among gender identification, discriminatory attributions, and intentions to challenge discrimination, few have examined the causal impact of gender identity salience on women's actual responses to a sexist encounter. In the current study, we addressed this question by experimentally manipulating the salience of gender identity and assessing its impact on women's decision to confront a sexist comment in a simulated online interaction. Female participants (N = 114) were randomly assigned to complete a short measure of either personal or collective self-esteem, which was designed to increase the salience of personal versus gender identity. They were then given the opportunity to confront a male interaction partner who expressed sexist views. Compared to those who were primed to focus on their personal identity, participants who were primed to focus on their gender identity perceived the interaction partner's remarks as more sexist and were more likely to engage in confrontation. By highlighting the powerful role of subtle contextual cues in shaping women's perceptions of, and responses to, sexism, our findings have important implications for the understanding of gender identity salience as an antecedent of prejudice confrontation. Online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/page/pwq/suppl/index.

Do You Say Something When It's Your Boss? The Role of Perpetrator Power in Prejudice Confrontation

Two experiments examined the role of perpetrator power in witnesses’ decision to confront a prejudicial remark. In Experiment 1, participants who witnessed a sexist remark by a higher‐power (vs. an equal‐power) perpetrator were significantly less likely to express confrontation intentions, despite finding the remark highly biased and inappropriate. In Experiment 2, participants read scenarios involving a sexist versus racist remark perpetrated by someone higher vs. lower vs. equal in power, and they reported their confrontation intentions. Perpetrator power again inhibited direct confrontation intentions, and this effect was mediated by perceptions of responsibility for intervening, perceived ability to decide how to respond, and perceived costs versus benefits of confronting. Findings were not qualified by discrimination type (racism vs. sexism) or by individual differences in participant prejudice. Consistent with power‐as‐approach theory, feeling powerless increased sensitivity to confrontation obstacles and thereby inhibited confrontation intentions.

Themes in Heterosexuals’ Responses When Challenging LGBT Prejudice

The purposes of this study were (a) to examine themes in heterosexuals’ responses when responding to LGBT prejudice, and (b) to explore the potential influence of educational information about LGBT topics on these themes of responses. Heterosexual undergraduate students (N = 225) were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: participants received information about LGBT topics, or they did not. Then participants were asked to speak out in a written format against LGBT prejudicial statements they read in a blog taken directly from the Internet. Using content analysis, 16 codes were generated from the literature on the confrontation of prejudice and from participants’ responses. The 16 codes were then grouped conceptually into four themes with the following percent representations in participants’ responses: values (38.9 %), knowledge promotion (36.2 %), attack (16.7 %), and personal participation (8.4 %). No differences between conditions emerged in the prevalence of these themes. Implications for ally interventions, multicultural education, and future research are discussed.

The egalitarian optimist and the confrontation of prejudice

Standing up against prejudice often requires one to surmount powerful inter- and intra-individual forces. Egalitarian standards alone are often insufficient to surmount these forces. As individuals high in dispositional optimism vigorously pursue valued goals, even when threatened with obstacles, we propose that the combination of high optimism and salient egalitarian goals predicts the confrontation of prejudice. In the present study, individuals high and low in both optimism and prejudice were randomly assigned to hear a racist joke followed by an argument, or to hear the same joke but without the argument. We found that low-prejudice optimists who had their chronic egalitarian values made salient by hearing the argument were highly likely to confront a later act of prejudice. Self-report data closely mirrored this behavioral finding. These findings support a self-regulatory approach to confrontation and suggest new avenues for combating prejudice.

Resisting Prejudice Every Day: Exploring Women’s Assertive Responses to Anti-Black Racism, Anti-Semitism, Heterosexism, and Sexism

Past lab and scenario research on sexism suggests that women are more likely to contemplate than to engage in assertive confrontation of prejudice. The present study was designed to explore how the competing cultural forces of activist norms and gender role prescriptions for women to be passive and accommodating may contribute to women’s response strategies. Women were asked to keep diaries of incidents of anti-Black racism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, and sexism, including why they responded, how they responded, and the consequences of their responses. Participants were about as likely to report they were motivated by activist goals as they were to report being motivated by gender role consistent goals to avoid conflict. Those with gender role-consistent goals were less likely to respond assertively. Participants were more likely to consider assertive responses (for 75% of incidents) than to actually make them (for 40% of incidents). Assertive responders did, however, report better outcomes on a variety of indicators of satisfaction and closure, at the expense of heightened interpersonal conflict. Results are discussed with respect to the personal and social implications of responding to interpersonal prejudice.