Confronting or avoiding confrontation? The role of sexism in evaluating women who avoid confronting discrimination ( ¿Confrontar o evitar hacerlo? El rol del sexismo en la evaluación de mujeres que evitan confrontar la discriminación )
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2022
Confronting or avoiding confrontation? The role of sexism in evaluating women who avoid confronting discrimination ( ¿Confrontar o evitar hacerlo? El rol del sexismo en la evaluación de mujeres que evitan confrontar la discriminación )
Confrontation is a good strategy for lowering discrimination. Given that victims who confront are evaluated negatively, the role of witnesses of discrimination is crucial. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse how women who confront discrimination not directed towards them are evaluated (versus those who don’t confront), by examining the role of two factors: sexist attitudes and the characteristics of the woman. In one experimental study with a general population (N = 657), we found that women who confront a racist comment are perceived more positively than women who do not confront. However, women who do not confront are more positively evaluated by sexist participants (vs less sexist individuals). The characteristics of the women do not affect the participants’ evaluation of them. These results show that even though women who confront may be positively evaluated in general, prejudice towards women is a key factor in the perception of women who choose not to confront.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CzoppA. M.MonteithM. J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(4), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250923
2.
CzoppA. M.MonteithM. J.MarkA. M. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 784–803. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.784
3.
DoddE. H.GuilianoT.BoutellJ.MoranB. E. (2001). Respected or rejected: Perceptions of women who confront sexist remarks. Sex Roles, 45(7/8), 567–577. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014866915741
4.
DuránM.Rodríguez-DomínguezC. (2020). Percepción social de situaciones de ciberviolencia sexual: El rol de las actitudes sexistas y la transgresión de rol de género de la víctima. International Journal of Social Psychology, 35(1), 148–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2019.1682295
5.
ExpósitoF.MoyaM. C.GlickP. (1998). Sexismo ambivalente: Medición y correlatos. International Journal of Social Psychology, 2(13), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347498760350641
6.
FigueiredoA.Jiménez-MoyaG.ParedesV.GonzálezA. (2017). Módulo 5: Brechas y actitudes: La desigualdad entre hombres y mujeres y los roles de género. Estudio Longitudinal Social de Chile (ELSOC). www.coes.cl/publicaciones
7.
FocellaE. S.BeanM. G.StoneJ. (2015). Confrontation and beyond: Examining a stigmatized target’s use of a prejudice reduction strategy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(2), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12153
8.
GervaisS. J.HillardA. L.VescioT. K. (2010). Confronting sexism: The role of relationship orientation and gender. Sex Roles, 63(7/8), 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9838-7
9.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
10.
GulkerJ. E.MarkA. Y.MonteithM. J. (2013). Confronting prejudice: The who, what, and why of confrontation effectiveness. Social Influence, 8(4), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.736879
11.
HaslettB. B.LipmanS. (1997). Micro inequities: Up close and personal. In BenokraitisN. V. (Ed.), Subtle sexism: Current practice and prospects for change (pp. 34–53). Sage.
12.
HyersL. L. (2007). Resisting prejudice every day: Exploring women’s assertive responses to anti-Black racism, anti-semitism, heterosexism, and sexism. Sex Roles, 56(1–2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9142-8
JostJ. T.BurgessD. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 293–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265003
15.
KaiserC. R.DyrenforthP. S.HagiwaraN. (2006). Why are attributions to discrimination interpersonally costly? A test of system – And group – Justifying motivations. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(11), 1523–1536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206291475
16.
KaiserC. R.MillerC. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272010
17.
KaiserC. R.MillerC. T. (2004). A stress and coping perspective on confronting sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(2), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00133.x
LavadoS.PereiraC. R.DovidioJ. F.ValaJ. (2016). Evaluations of witnesses’ responses to bias: Universalism–Concern and the costs of confrontation. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.003
20.
MladinicA.SaizJ. L.DíazM.OrtegaA.OyarceP. (1998). Sexismo ambivalente en estudiantes universitarios chilenos: Teoría, medición y diferencias de género. Revista de Psicología Social y Personalidad, 14(1), 1–14.
21.
ParkerL. R.MonteithM. J.Moss-RacusinC. A.Van CampA. R. (2018). Promoting concern about gender bias with evidence-based confrontation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.07.009
22.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.67.4.741
23.
RasinskiH. M.CzoppA. M. (2010). The effect of target status on witnesses’ reactions to confrontations of bias. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530903539754
24.
RudmanL. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 629–645. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.3.629
25.
SáinzM.MartínezJ. L.MenesesJ. (2020). Diferencias de género en las respuestas de afrontamiento del sexismo académico en un grupo de estudiantes españoles de secundaria. International Journal of Social Psychology, 35(2), 246–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/02134748.2020.1721049
26.
SwimJ. K.EyssellK. M.MurdochE. Q.FergusonM. J. (2010). Self-silencing to sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 66(3), 493–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01658.x
27.
UndurragaR.López HornickelN. (2020). Trayectorias laborales de mujeres y violencia en el trabajo: Una cuestión de género. Psykhe, 29(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.7764/psykhe.29.2.1494
28.
Valor-SeguraI.ExpósitoF.MoyaM. (2014). Atribución del comportamiento del agresor y consejo a la víctima en un caso de violencia doméstica. International Journal of Social Psychology, 23(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1174/021347408784135896
29.
WeberD.DickterC. (2015). Confronting the “F” word: The effects of gender, ambiguity, and individual difference variables on non-targets’ confrontation of heterosexist comments. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(10), 1289–1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1060050
30.
WoodzickaJ. A.LaFranceM. (2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 57(1), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00199
31.
WoodzickaJ. A.MilletR. K.HendricksS.PruittA. V. (2015). It’s just a (sexist) joke: Comparing reactions to sexist versus racist communications. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 28(2), 289–309. https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2015-0025
