Interpersonal confrontations are a means of expressing one's displeasure or disagreement with the actions of others and are effective in influencing others' future behaviors. In contrast, inaction, especially from one expected to speak out, may be misperceived as passive acceptance and may promote a social norm inconsistent with the non-responder's actual beliefs. Participants watched a video discussion between two college students with clear pro- and antienvironmental beliefs. Prior to the discussion, half the participants were given information to suggest that the proenvironmental speaker had a strong background in environmental activism (creating high expectancy to confront). During the discussion, the proenvironmental speaker either confronted or did not confront the antienvironmental speaker. Relative to the confrontation condition, participants reported less favorable recycling attitudes and decreased intentions to recycle when the high-expectancy speaker did not confront compared to when the low-expectancy speaker did not confront. These findings are discussed in the context of the costs and benefits of confronting versus not confronting.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ashburn-NardoL., MorrisK. A., GoodwinS. A.2008. The Confronting Prejudiced Responses (CPR) model: Applying CPR in organizations. Academy of Management: Learning and Education, 7:332–342.
2.
BambergS., MoserG.2007. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27:14–25.
3.
BaumeisterR. F., StillwellA. M., HeathertonT. F.1994. Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115:243–267.
4.
Beahrs Environmental Leadership Program. n.d.Beahrs Environmental Leadership Program. Berkeley, CA: University of Californiahttp://beahrselp.berkeley.edu5June2012.
5.
BlanchardF. A., CrandallC. S., BrighamJ. C., VaughnL. A.1994. Condemning and condoning racism: A social context approach to interracial settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79:993–997.
6.
CialdiniR. B., RenoR. R., KallgrenC. A.1990. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58:1015–1026.
7.
CrosbyJ. R., MoninB., RichardsonD.2008. Where do we look during potentially offensive behavior?Psychological Science, 19:226–228.
8.
CzoppA. M., Ashburn-NardoL. A.2012. Interpersonal confrontations of prejudice. RussellW., RussellC. A.Psychology of prejudice: Contemporary issues, 175–201. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
9.
CzoppA. M., MonteithM. J.2003. Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29:532–544.
10.
CzoppA. M., MonteithM. J., MarkA. Y.2006. Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90:784–803.
11.
GlasmanL. R., AlbarracinD.2006. Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132:778–822.
12.
JarvisB. G.2008. MediaLab Research Software, Version 2008 [Computer Program]New York, NY: Empirisoftwww.empirisoft.com.
13.
KowalskiR. M.1996. Complaints and complaining: Functions, antecedents, and consequences. Psychological Bulletin, 119:179–196.
14.
LataneB., DarleyJ. M.1970. The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help?New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
15.
MallettR. K., MelchioriK. J., StrickrothT.2013. Self-confrontation via a carbon footprint calculator increases guilt and support for a proenvironmental group. Ecopsychology, 5:9–16.
16.
MallettR. K., WagnerD. E.2011. The unexpectedly positive consequences of confronting sexism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47:215–220.
17.
MillerD. T., McFarlandC.1987. Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53:298–305.
18.
MonteithM. J., Ashburn-NardoL., VoilsC. I., CzoppA. M.2002. Putting the brakes on prejudice: On the development and operation of cues for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83:1029–1050.
19.
NolanJ.2013. Creating a culture of conservation: Willingness to confront environmental transgressors. Ecopsychology, 5:3–8.
20.
OhtomoS., HiroseY.2007. The dual-process of reactive and intentional decision-making involved in eco-friendly behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27:117–125.
21.
OsbaldistonR., SchottJ. P.2012. Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44:257–299.
22.
PlantE. A., DevineP. G.2001. Responses to other-imposed pro-Black pressure: Acceptance or backlash?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37:486–501.
23.
RasinskiH. M., CzoppA. M.2010. The effect of target status on witnesses' reactions to confrontations of bias. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 32:8–16.
24.
RasinskiH.M., GeersA. L., CzoppA. M.“I guess what he said wasn't that bad”: Dissonance in non-confronting targets of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
25.
SchultzP. W., NolanJ. M., CialdiniR. B., GoldsteinN. J., GriskeviciusV.2007. The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18:429–433.
26.
SheltonJ. N., RichesonJ. A., SalvatoreJ., HillD. M.2006. Silence is not golden: Intrapersonal consequences of not confronting prejudice. LevinS., Van LaarC.Social stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives, 65–81. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27.
SheltonJ. N., StewartB.2004. Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: The inhibitory effects of social costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28:215–223.
28.
StoneJ., WhiteheadJ., SchmaderT., FocellaE.2011. Thanks for asking: Self-affirming questions reduce backlash when stigmatized targets confront prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47:589–598.
29.
SwimJ. K., BloodhartB.2013. Admonishment and praise: Interpersonal mechanisms for promoting proenvironmental behavior. Ecopsychology, 5:24–35.
30.
SwimJ. K., GervaisS. J., PearsonN., StangorC.2009. Managing the message: Using social influence and attitude change strategies to confront interpersonal discrimination. ButeraF., LevineJ. M.Coping with minority status: Responses to exclusion and inclusion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
31.
SwimJ. K., HyersL.1999. Excuse me—what did you just say?!: Women's public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35:68–88.
32.
ThogersenJ.2004. A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24:93–103.
33.
WickerA. W.1969. Attitudes versus actions: The relationship of verbal and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25:41–78.
