To confront or not to confront: non‐targets' evaluations of and responses to racist comments

Abstract

The current studies explore situational and individual factors affecting non‐target perceivers' reactions and behavior following a racist comment, focusing on verbal confronting behavior. Two studies were conducted in which participants reported about recent situations in which they witnessed a racist comment that was not directed specifically at their own racial group. Results indicated that only one third of participants directly confronted the commenter. Strength of verbal confrontation was predicted by affective reactions and judgments of the offensiveness of the prejudicial comment. Analyses also revealed that strength of confrontation for females was predicted by the experience of negative emotions, but that males confronted more with stronger ratings of the offensiveness of the racist remarks. Implications for theory and policy are discussed.

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

“…In fact, 48% of African American college students hear racially prejudiced comments about their racial group “often” or “frequently” (D'Augelli & Hershberger, ), and 92% of homosexual individuals have encountered heterosexist hate speech (Herek, ). Majority group members also report hearing an average of four racist comments and three heterosexist comments per week (Dickter & Newton, in press). Much research has suggested that the college campus may be a particularly ripe environment for prejudicial comments and hate speech about various minority groups (Burn, ; D'Augelli & Hershberger, ; Dickter, in press; Dickter & Newton, in press; Plummer, ; Thurlow, ; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, ).…”

“…Hearing prejudicial comments about one's social group can lead to feelings of discomfort and anger (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, , ) and eventually have long‐term negative psychological, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive effects such as depression, lower self‐esteem, stress, fear, and drastic behavioral changes (Cowan & Mettrick, ; D'Augelli, ; Garnets, Herek, & Levy, ; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, ). Research has also demonstrated that witnessing prejudicial comments leads to negative emotional experiences in non‐targets as well, such as increased anger, depression, and lower self‐esteem (Dickter & Newton, in press; Swim et al, ).…”

“…Less research has focused on the confrontation of prejudicial comments by non‐target individuals who are majority group members (e.g., White Americans, heterosexuals). Recent work has established that, like targets, non‐targets are reluctant to confront prejudicial remarks because of a fear of being evaluated negatively (Dickter, in press; Dickter & Newton, in press). However, recent work has suggested that non‐targets may not be perceived as complaining when confronting a prejudicial comment that is not directed toward their own group (Czopp & Monteith, ), as target confronters often are (Kaiser & Miller, ).…”

From the Crowd to the Competition: White Collegiate Athletes’ Response to Racism Directed at a Teammate of Color

“…People high in incremental theories of personality react to perpetrators of prejudice by directly stating their point of view and attempting to re-educate the offender (Rattan and Dweck 2010). Self-report research using online diaries also indicates that verbally disagreeing with prejudicial comments is a popular confrontation strategy (Dickter 2012;Dickter and Newton 2013).…”

“…Moreover, redirecting the target or perpetrator may be another potential indirect prejudice response strategy. For example, witnesses of prejudice against homosexuals describe redirection, such as changing the subject of the conversation, as a possible response strategy (Dickter and Newton 2013;Freis and Gurung 2013). Observers of gender prejudice also use redirection as a strategy by telling targets of sexual harassment to avoid the perpetrator or refocusing targets away from the situation (Bowes-Sperry and O' Leary-Kelly 2005).…”