Perceptions of non‐target confronters in response to racist and heterosexist remarks

Abstract

Research has established that targets who express disagreement with prejudicial comments directed toward their social group may be viewed negatively by those they confront or by members of social outgroups. Less research has examined how non-target individuals who confront prejudicial remarks are perceived. The current studies were designed to examine how non-targets who confronted racist (Study 1) and heterosexist (Study 2) comments would be perceived as a function of the level of offensiveness of the comment and the confrontation style used. The studies also examined whether confronting behavior would affect perceptions of the individual who made the prejudicial comment. Undergraduate participants read vignettes depicting a situation with a high or low offensive prejudicial comment in which a non-target individual confronted assertively, unassertively, or not at all. Participants provided judgments of both individuals. Results indicated that non-targets who confronted highly prejudicial comments either assertively or unassertively were liked and respected more than those who failed to confront. Additionally, commenters who were assertively confronted were respected less than commenters who were not. These findings suggest that non-targets may be especially effective in confronting prejudicial comments, as they do not suffer the same negative consequences as targets who confront.

Confronting Hate: Heterosexuals' Responses to Anti-Gay Comments

“…Additionally, the findings reported here support previous work suggesting that even non-direct forms of confrontation (i.e., nonverbal behaviors) can be empowering experiences for individuals (Swim & Thomas, 2006). Added to the benefits of confronting identified by previous work suggesting that perceivers who confront individuals who make sexually prejudiced remarks are liked and respected more than those who fail to confront (Dickter et al, 2012), this research highlights the important role that non-targets can play in fighting sexual prejudice. It may be fruitful to educate non-targets about these benefits of confronting prejudicial comments in diversity education programs; future research should examine this possibility.…”

“…In fact, non-targets may be more effective than targets in inducing negative affect and behavioral change in perpetrators because whereas target confronters may be viewed as complaining (Kaiser & Miller, 2001), non-targets are not (Czopp & Monteith, 2003). That is, because non-targets are not confronting to promote the self-interest of their group, non-target confronters are viewed as overreacting less than target confronters (Czopp & Monteith, 2003), are liked and respected more when confronting a racist comment than when they fail to confront (Dickter, Kittel, & Gyurovski, 2012), and are more effective than targets at increasing bystanders' perceptions of how biased the racist comment is than targets (Rasinski & Czopp, 2010).…”

It’s just a (sexist) joke: comparing reactions to sexist versus racist communications

“…Yet there is some evidence that people may like those who confront serious statements better than people who ignore the remark. Dickter et al (2011) found that participants liked and respected a person more when the person confronted blatantly offensive prejudice compared to when the person said nothing to address the prejudice. Each type of response (i.e., labeling bias versus saying it is not funny) may receive unique social sanctions.…”

“…Compared to confrontations of subtle prejudice, confrontations of blatant bias are more readily accepted (Saunders and Senn 2009). Moreover, those who confront blatant bias garner more respect than those who do not confront (Dickter et al 2011;Dodd et al 2001).…”

Confrontation and Beyond: Examining a Stigmatized Target's Use of a Prejudice Reduction Strategy

“…Taken together, the research indicates that a target who confronts bias risks being negatively evaluated by the biased individual, as well as by observers. Notably, non-targets who confront bias do not appear to incur similar negative evaluations (e.g., Boysen, 2013;Dickter, Kittel, & Gyurovski, 2012;Kowalski, 1996).…”