People with disabilities routinely face a dilemma in dealing with patronizing help: While accepting unsolicited assistance may be harmful for its recipients, confronting the helper can lead to negative interpersonal repercussions. Across two studies, participants were presented with a scenario depicting an interaction between a blind target and a sighted pedestrian and asked to evaluate the behaviors of the characters involved. Study 1 showed that, whereas blind participants considered both patronizing and hostile treatment as inappropriate responses to the blind target’s request for information, sighted participants saw patronizing help as significantly more appropriate than openly hostile treatment. Study 2 further demonstrated that, among sighted participants, blind targets were viewed as less warm and more rude when confronting benevolent versus hostile discrimination. These findings highlighted the difficulty of confronting patronizing treatment and have important implications for people with disabilities as well as other patronized minorities more generally.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.51.6.1173
2.
BarretoM.EllemersN. (2005). The perils of political correctness: Men’s and women’s responses to old-fashioned and modern sexist views. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 75–88. doi:10.1177/019027250506800106
3.
BeckerJ. C.GlickP.IlicM.BohnerG. (2011). Damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t: Consequences of accepting versus confronting patronizing help for the female target and male actor. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 761–773. doi:10.1002/ejsp
4.
BeckerJ. C.WrightS. C. (2011). Yet another dark side of chivalry: Benevolent sexism undermines and hostile sexism motivates collective action for social change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 62–77. doi:10.1037/a0022615
5.
BiernatM. (2003). Toward a broader view of social stereotyping. American Psychologist, 58, 1019–1027. doi:10.1037/0003–066X.58.12
6.
BraithwaiteD. O.EcksteinN. J. (2003). How people with disabilities communicatively manage assistance: Helping as instrumental social support. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 1–26. doi:10.1080/00909880305374
7.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
8.
Costa-LopesR.DovidioJ. F.PereiraC. RJostJ. T. (2013). Social psychological perspectives on the legitimation of social inequality: Past, present, and future. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 229–237. doi:10.1002/ejsp
9.
CuddyA. J.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.92.4
10.
CzoppA. M. (2008). When is a compliment not a compliment? Evaluating expressions of positive stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 413–420. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.12
11.
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. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.90.5
12.
DardenneB.DumontM.BollierT. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 764–779. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.93.5
13.
DeelstraJ. T.PeetersM. C. W.SchaufeliW. B.StroebeW.ZijlstraF. R. H.van DoomenL. P. (2003). Receiving instrumental support at work: When help is not welcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 324–331. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.88.2
14.
DemoulinS.LeyensJ.-P.DovidioJ. F. (2009). Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
15.
DoddE. H.GiulianoT. A.BoutellJ. M.MoranB. E. (2001). Respected or rejected: Perceptions of women who confront sexist remarks. Sex Roles, 45, 567–577. doi:10.1023/A:1014866915741
16.
DovidioJ. F. (2001). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The third wave. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 829–849. doi:10.1111/0022–4537
17.
DovidioJ. F.PennerL. A. (2001). Helping and altruism. In FletcherG.ClarkM. S. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes (pp. 162–195). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
18.
EllemersN.BarretoM. (2009). Collective action in modern times: How modern expressions of prejudice prevents collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65, 749–768. doi:10.1111/j.1540–4560.2009.01621
19.
FehrJ.SassenbergK. (2009). Intended and unintended consequences of internal motivation to behave non-prejudiced: The case of benevolent discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1093–1108. doi:10.1002/ejsp
20.
FergusonR. (2001). We know who we are: A history of the blind in challenging educational and socially constructed policies: A study in policy archaeology. San Francisco, CA: Caddo Gap Press.
21.
FlournoyJ. M.Prentice-DunnS.KlingerM. R. (2002). The role of prototypical situations in the perceptions of prejudice of African Americans. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 406–423. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00222.x
22.
GilbertD. T.SilveraD. H. (1996). Overhelping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 678–690. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.70.4
23.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.70.3
24.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analyses: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
25.
HarwoodJ.RyanE. B.GilesH.TysoskiS. (1997). Evaluations of patronizing speech and three response styles in a non-service-providing setting. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25, 170–184. doi:10.1080/00909889709365475
JohnsonJ.SimmonsC.TrawalterS.FergusonT. (2003). Variation in Black anti-White bias and target distancing cues: Factors that influence perceptions of “ambiguously racist behavior.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 609–622. doi:10.1177/0146167203029005006
28.
KaiserC. R.MillerC. T. (2001). Stop complaining: The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254–263. doi:10.1177/0146167201272010
29.
KaiserC. R.MillerC. T. (2003). Derogating the victim: The interpersonal consequences of blaming events on discrimination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 227–237. doi:10.1177/13684302030063001
30.
KawakamiK.DunnE.KarmaliF.DovidioJ. F. (2009). Misreading affective and behavioral responses to racism. Science, 323, 276–278. doi:10.1126/science.1164951
31.
MajorB.QuintonW. J.SchmaderT. (2003). Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem: Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 220–231. doi:10.1016/50022–1031(02)00547–4
32.
MallettR. K.WagnerD. E. (2011). The unexpectedly positive consequences of confronting sexism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 215–220. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.10.001
33.
NadlerA. (2002). Intergroup helping relations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 487–502. doi:10.1111/1540–4560.00272
34.
Nario-RedmondM. R. (2010). Cultural stereotypes of disabled and nondisabled men and women: Consensus for global category representation and diagnostic domains. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 471–488. doi:10.1111/1540–4560.00272
35.
PreacherK. J.RuckerD. D.HayesA. F. (2007). Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. doi:10.1080/00273170701341316
36.
Purdie-VaughnsV.EibachR. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The ideological sources and social consequences of non-prototypicality. Sex Roles, 59, 377–391. doi:10.1007/s11199–008–9424–4
37.
RosenS.MicklerS. E.CollinsJ. E. (1987). Reactions of would-be helpers whose offer of help is spurned. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 288–297. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.53.2.288
38.
RyanE. B.KennaleyD. E.PrattM. W.ShumovichM. A. (2000). Evaluations by staff, residents, and community seniors of patronizing speech: Impact of passive, assertive, or humorous responses. Psychology and Aging, 15, 272–285. doi:10.1037/0882–7974.15.2.272
39.
SalvatoreJ.SheltonJ. N. (2007). Cognitive costs of racial prejudice. Psychological Science, 18, 810–815. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9280.2007.01984.x
40.
SchneiderM. E.MajorB.LuhtanenR.CrockerJ. (1996). Social stigma and the potential costs of assumptive help. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 201–209. doi:10.1177/0146167296222009
TurnerM. E.PratkanisA. R. (1994). Affirmative action as help: A review of recipient reactions to preferential selection and affirmative action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 43–69. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1501&2_3
43.
VorauerJ. D. (2006). An information search model of evaluative concerns in intergroup interaction. Psychological Review, 113, 862–886. doi:10.1037/0033–295X.113.4.862
44.
WienerR. L.WilbornS. L. (Eds.). (2011). Disability and aging discrimination. New York, NY: Springer.
