Confronting Prejudice and Discrimination

The Science of Changing Minds and Behaviors

Robyn K. Mallett,Margo J. Monteith

• Publisher: Academic Press
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9780128147160
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Confronting Prejudice and Discrimination: The Science of Changing Minds and Behaviors focuses on confrontation as a strategy for reducing bias and discrimination. The volume tackles questions that people face when they wish to confront bias: What factors influence people's decisions to confront or ignore bias in its various forms? What are the motives and consequences of confrontation? How can confrontation be approached individually, through education and empowerment, and in specific contexts (e.g., health care) to yield favourable outcomes? These questions are paramount in contemporary society, where confrontation of bias is increasingly evident. Moreover, great strides in the scientific study of confrontation in the past 20 years has yielded valuable insights and answers. This volume is an essential resource for students and researchers with an interest in prejudice and prejudice reduction, and will also be valuable to non-academics who wish to stand up to bias through confrontation.

• Addresses factors that determine individuals' decisions to confront stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination
• Analyzes how personal and collective motives shape responses in confrontation-relevant situations
• Examines the consequences of confrontation from the perspectives of targets, perpetrators and bystanders
• Provides a roadmap for how to prepare for and engage in successful confrontations at the individual level
• Covers confronting bias in various settings including in schools, health care, the workplace and on the internet
• Discusses confrontation in the context of racism, sexism, sexual harassment and other forms of bias, including intersectional forms of bias

Part I

Decisions to Confront Bias

Outline

• 1 Confronting intergroup bias
• 2 The CPR model
• 3 The decision to act
• 4 When do groups with a victimized past feel solidarity with other victimized groups?

1

Confronting intergroup bias

Predicted and actual responses to racism and sexism

Kerry Kawakami, Francine Karmali and Elysia Vaccarino, Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

Abstract

In the present chapter, we examine predicted and actual personal responses to racism and sexism by targets of bias and by nontarget group witnesses. We summarize research related to forecasted responses when imagining intergroup bias first, and then we turn to actual responses. Our review indicates that people often overestimate the extent to which they will be impacted by acts of prejudice. We explore possible reasons for this discrepancy between predicted and actual reactions and why people often mispredict how sexist and racist actions will affect their emotions and behaviors. Our focus, however, is on potential explanations for why people often do not confront bias. Finally, possible strategies to motivate and encourage direct confrontation are discussed as well as the repercussions of not taking action.

Keywords

Affective forecasting; bias reduction; confronting prejudice; sexism; racism

Chapter Outline

• Forecasted and actual responses to intergroup bias 6
  • Forecasted responses 6
  • Actual responses 9
  • Discrepancies between forecasted and actual responses 12
• Why is there a discrepancy between predicted and actual responses? 12
• Why don’t people confront intergroup bias? 13
• Applications: Practical solutions to confronting bias 16
• Concluding remarks 20
• References 21

Imagine that you are a first year psychology student. To receive extra credit for participating in research in your introductory course, you have signed up for a study on word problems. You arrive at a waiting room and find two other students ostensibly waiting for the experiment to begin—a Black student, Lamar, and a White student, Daniel. After a few minutes, Lamar stands up and notes that he has forgotten his cell phone. As he walks out of the room to retrieve it, he gently bumps Daniel on the knee. Once he has left the room, Daniel makes a nasty racist comment. A moment later, Lamar and the experimenter return to the waiting room. The experimenter asks you to fill in a short questionnaire related to your current feelings and to choose a partner to begin the experiment. How do you think you would react to this situation?

A broad literature indicates that people are often inaccurate in their affective and behavioral forecasts of events (Gilbert, Driver-Linn, & Wilson, 2002; Wilson & Gilbert, 2005). In particular, although people are typically able to predict the type of emotion (e.g., fear, happiness, or anger) that they will experience, they often overestimate the intensity and duration of their response (Gilbert, Morewedge, Risen, & Wilson, 2004). Likewise, people are often inaccurate in estimating their own future behavior, typically overestimating desirable acts and being unduly optimistic (Balcetis, Dunning, & Miller, 2008; Dunning, 2015; Helzer & Dunning, 2012).

In the present chapter, we explored expectations related to in-the-moment responses to sexism and racism, actual responses when people experience such bias, and the extent to which these expectations and actual responses differ. The distinction between predicted and actual responses and the discrepancy between these two types of reactions are important for a number of reasons. First, it is worth noting that predictions about our own emotions and behaviors are valid reactions that have real consequences (Eastwick, Hunt, & Neff, 2013). For example, in a series of studies, Mallett, Wilson, and Gilbert (2008) demonstrated that participants overestimated the intensity of their negative emotions in interactions with outgroup members. One potential reason for these pessimistic expectations was that when imagining themselves in the interaction, forecasters viewed themselves as less similar to other-race partners than experiencers who were actually in an interaction. Importantly, this expected negativity predicted participants’ avoidance of future intergroup interactions, thereby curtailing opportunities for prejudice-reducing contact.

Second, forecasts can influence judgments of others’ responses to bias. Specifically, beliefs that we personally would be upset and confront perpetrators may facilitate blame and negative evaluations of other targets and witnesses who do not respond. For example, if a juror expects that she would verbally reprimand expressions of overt sexism, she may question a sexual harassment victim’s credibility after learning that the woman did not immediately confront her harasser (Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001). More generally, if people inaccurately predict how they themselves would respond to a negative situation, they may have difficulty in understanding others’ reactions and may wrongly infer that others’ responses are deviant or reflect undesirable personality traits (Van Boven & Loewenstein, 2003).

Not surprisingly, actual responses to bias also have important implications for intergroup relations. Not confronting racism or sexism may imply that this behavior is appropriate and condoned (Czopp, 2019). Responding negatively to bias, alternatively, can reaffirm egalitarian social values (Blanchard, Crandall, Brigham, & Vaughn, 1994). Specifically, reactions to racism and sexism can support norms that promote either intergroup antipathy or intergroup acceptance, to which people subsequently conform (Blanchard, Lilly, & Vaughn, 1991). Perceiving bias or hearing derogatory terms against a member of a target group may also cue negative implicit associations that influence subsequent evaluations and behaviors (Greenberg & Pyszczynski, 1985; Kirkland, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 1987). Confronting biased expressions may stop the impact of these negative associations or even cue more positive sympathetic associations. Importantly, challenging perpetrators of bias can also decrease their prejudiced expressions and behavior in the future. In particular, once reproached for their racist or sexist actions or remarks, perpetrators become aware that their behavior is inappropriate and are wary of offending again (Czopp, Monteith, & Mark, 2006; Mallett & Wagner, 2011). Notably, recent research suggests that not confronting a perpetrator can lead to more positive evaluations of a biased partner and less importance placed on confronting prejudice (Rasinski, Geers, & Czopp, 2013).

Finally, the discrepancy between forecasted and actual responses to intergroup bias is important because it has implications for the persistence of prejudice (Kawakami, Dunn, Karmali, & Dovidio, 2009; Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001). For example, if people overestimate the extent to which they will act desirably and support egalitarian behavior (Balcetis et al., 2008; Epley & Dunning, 2000), they may not be aware of the negative impact of their behavior in the situation. Specifically, if people predict that they will confront the perpetrator of sexist or racist acts but do not reproach the offender, they may perceive no need to address their own personal biases and change their behavior. One possible reason why racism and sexism may still be so prevalent is that while people think that they will be offended and censure people who act in biased ways, in actual fact when people experience or witness such actions, they may not respond. Therein lies the hidden danger in forecasts that undeservingly affirm egalitarian self-views.

There are numerous ways to respond to intergroup bias. Although Swim, Gervais, Pearson, and Stangor (2009) initially defined confrontation as “any behavior or verbalization that indicates disagreement with another’s behavior or comments” (p. 55), researchers have often taken a broader approach. In this chapter, we explore not only confrontational actions and words, but a variety of responses to sexism and racism. This strategy provides us with an opportunity to determine whether and how people are affected by intergroup bias and potential mechanisms explaining why people do or do not directly confront sexism or racism.

Researchers have often investigated in-the-moment emotional responses to imagined and actual experiences of sexism and racism (Dickter & Newton, 2013; Kawakami et al., 2009; Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001). For example, participants have been asked to rate the extent to which they predict or actually experience feelings of anger, fear, and discomfort upon being targeted or witnessing intergroup bias. A variety of behavioral responses to sexist or racist actions and comments have also been investigated (Dickter & Newton, 2013; Shelton & Stewart, 2004; Swim & Hyers, 1999). These responses range from ignoring the comment and changing the subject to increasingly more direct expressions of disapproval such as questioning the perpetrator (e.g., “What did you say?”), showing signs of surprise, humor or sarcasm, explicit confrontation (e.g., “You can’t pick someone for that reason.”), or reporting the incident. Researchers have also studied the impact of biased comments on the choice of the perpetrator as a partner (Karmali, Kawakami, & Page-Gould, 2017; Kawakami et al., 2009). Finally, experiments have examined cognitive and physiological responses to bias to explore whether participants demonstrate signs of distress or apathy when experiencing intergroup bias (Karmali et al., 2017). Specifically, a Stroop task was used to measure cognitive impairment after perceiving racism and cortisol levels, skin conductance, and heart rate (HR) were monitored to investigate distress.

In this chapter, we will focus on responses to sexism and racism by targets of bias and by nontarget group witnesses. Our goal is to examine a variety of different responses. We will review research related to forecasted responses when imagining intergroup bias and then turn to investigations of actual responses when targets or witnesses experience a prejudiced remark or action. Next, we will explore possible reasons why people at times mispredict their emotional responses and overestimate the extent to which they will censure the perpetrator. Our focus will be on potential explanations for why people often do not confront bias. Finally, we will discuss possible strategies to motivate and encourage direct confrontation and the repercussions of not taking action.

Forecasted and actual responses to intergroup bias

Forecasted responses

How do you think you would respond if you were the target of, or witnessed, a sexist or racist act? In much of the research investigating this question, participants were asked to imagine themselves in a situation in which they encountered intergroup bias (Karmali et al., 2017; Kawakami et al., 2009; Shelton & Stewart, 2004; Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001). While imagining this incident, their affective, behavioral, physiological, and cognitive responses were measured.

How do you think such an action would make you feel? For most targets of prejudice, it is not surprising that they expect to...

Table of contents

• Cover image
• Title page
• Table of Contents
• Copyright
• List of contributors
• Confronting prejudice and discrimination: Historical influences and contemporary approaches
• Part I: Decisions to Confront Bias
• Part II: Motives and Consequences of Confrontation
• Part III: Approaches to Confrontation in Context
• Index