Confronting intergroup biases: Validity and impugnment as determinants of other-confrontation consequences

Monteith, Margo J.; Mallett, Robyn K.; Hildebrand, Laura K.

doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2022.04.001

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 112 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Considering how the present research contributes to a broader understanding of people’s reactions to becoming aware of their biases is also of theoretical importance (see Monteith et al, 2022). Earlier research examining the consequences of bias awareness involved setting up opportunities for people to realize—without another person pointing it out—that their actual responses were more biased than their personal egalitarian standards suggested were appropriate (i.e., prejudice-related discrepancies; Devine et al, 1991; Monteith, 1996; Monteith et al, 1993).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Process on bias reduction is frequently not moderated by interpersonal (e.g., hostility; Czopp et al, 2006;Hyers, 2010) or intrapersonal (e.g., personal motivations to respond without bias; Parker et al, 2018) factors, and (c) the effect of confrontation on bias responding is typically driven by self-reflective (i.e., negative self-directed affect) processes, rather than interpersonal processes (Chaney & Sanchez, 2018;Czopp et al, 2006;Monteith et al, 2019Monteith et al, , 2022Monteith et al, 2023;Parker et al, 2018).…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…We did not expect that interpersonal trust would moderate the effect of confrontation on biased responding or negative self-directed affect. This expectation was driven by research showing that (a) the effect of confrontation on bias responding is robust (Burns & Monteith, 2019; Chaney & Sanchez, 2018; Czopp et al, 2006), (b) the effect of confrontation on bias reduction is frequently not moderated by interpersonal (e.g., hostility; Czopp et al, 2006; Hyers, 2010) or intrapersonal (e.g., personal motivations to respond without bias; Burns & Monteith, 2019; Parker et al, 2018) factors, and (c) the effect of confrontation on bias responding is typically driven by self-reflective (i.e., negative self-directed affect) processes, rather than interpersonal processes (Chaney & Sanchez, 2018; Czopp et al, 2006; Monteith et al, 2019, 2022; Monteith et al, 2023; Parker et al, 2018).…”

Section: Overview Of Current Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bias confrontations (i.e., calling out a prejudiced statement or behavior) are an excellent strategy for those wishing to curb bias. They reduce subsequent expressions of bias, both immediately and several days later (Chaney & Sanchez, 2018; Czopp et al, 2006; Gulker et al, 2013; Mallett & Wagner, 2011; Parker et al, 2018; Rasinski & Czopp, 2010; for reviews, see Czopp, 2019; Monteith et al, 2022). Certain factors moderate the size of the bias-reducing effect, such as whether the confrontation is delivered by a member of a target group (e.g., a Black person confronting racism) or a dominant-group member (e.g., a White person confronting racism; Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Gardner & Ryan, 2020; Gulker et al, 2013; Parker et al, 2018; Rasinski & Czopp, 2010; Thai et al, 2021).…”

Section: Confrontation Reduces Bias But Comes With Social Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The role of trust in reducing confrontation-related social costs.

Hildebrand¹,

Monteith²,

Arriaga³

2024

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Confronting, or calling out people for prejudiced remarks, reduces subsequent expressions of prejudice. However, people who confront others incur social costs: Confronters are disliked, derogated, and avoided relative to others who have not confronted. These social costs hurt the confronter and reduce the likelihood of future confrontation. The present studies (N = 1,019) integrate the close relationships and prejudice reduction literatures to examine whether people who are confronted assign fewer social costs when they trust the confronter. Study 1 provided correlational evidence that people who were confronted for making a sexist remark experienced less irritation and annoyance (i.e., negative other-directed affect) if they trusted the confronter, which, in turn, reduced social costs. Manipulation of trust in Study 2 with non-Black participants provided causal evidence that trust buffers against social costs. Being confronted predictably led to more negative other-directed affect and social costs, relative to not-confronted participants; however, these effects were mitigated among participants who underwent a trust-building exercise with the confronter. Study 3 used an ecologically valid context in which non-Black participants who made a stereotypic remark were confronted by an actual friend or stranger. They assigned fewer social costs when confronted by their friend (vs. stranger), and this effect was serially mediated by trust and negative otherdirected affect. Importantly, confrontation reduced subsequent stereotyping in all studies. Practically, these studies reveal that when confronters establish trust, they experience fewer social costs. Theoretically, these studies provide a new direction for confrontation research that accounts for interpersonal dynamics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overview Of Current Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Confrontation Reduces Bias But Comes With Social Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The role of trust in reducing confrontation-related social costs.

Hildebrand¹,

Monteith²,

Arriaga³

2024

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…People can learn about their biases from many places including direct feedback from others (Monteith et al., 2022), general education in diversity/anti‐bias training (Hawkins et al., 2023; Onyeador et al., 2021), and feedback about their performance on “objective” measures of intergroup bias (Adams III et al., 2014; Casad et al., 2013).…”

Section: How Do People Respond To Feedback About Bias?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responding to feedback about implicit bias

Howell,

Lofaro,

Ratliff

2024

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Providing people with feedback about their intergroup biases is a central part of many diversity training and other bias‐education efforts. Although this practice may increase self‐awareness, people sometimes respond negatively to learning about their own biases. In the present review, we provide a framework for understanding when feedback about intergroup bias should lead to behavior change intentions, and when it can work against that goal. Specifically, we suggest that feedback about performance on measures of bias (e.g., the Implicit Association Test) will cause psychological discomfort to the extent that feedback about intergroup bias is: (1) discrepant from self‐reported attitudes, and (2) more personally or socially unacceptable than self‐reported attitudes. We then suggest two possible routes stemming from that psychological discomfort: If people accept personal responsibility for feedback, they will respond to psychological discomfort with compunction and direct efforts toward behavior and attitude change. By contrast, if people reject personal responsibility for feedback, they will respond defensively, derogating the feedback and trying to prove that the results are inaccurate. We use responses to feedback about implicit bias as a test case to demonstrate our model and discuss the current state of the literature on responding to IAT feedback. We also discuss interventions that can move people from defensiveness to compunction and open our metaphorical “file drawer” to discuss lessons learned.

show abstract

How to respond to inappropriate questions in job interviews: Personal and social consequences of truth‐telling, deflection and confrontation

Kahalon,

Ullrich,

Becker

2024

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parents, especially mothers, and young women without children, face a subtle threat in job interviews: being asked inappropriate questions about parental status. In three vignette experiments (N = 760), we compared personal (perceived likability and likelihood of being hired) and social consequences (perceived chances that the interviewer will ask the inappropriate question again) of different response strategies. Results suggest that deflection (i.e., responding with another question) is a superior strategy at the personal level, as it increases the perceived chances to be hired in comparison to truth‐telling (Study 1) and confrontation (Studies 1–3) without hurting likability (Study 1). Confrontation (i.e., saying that the question is inappropriate) is a superior strategy at the social level, decreasing the perceived probability that the interviewer will keep asking inappropriate questions in comparison to deflection (Studies 2 and 3) and truth‐telling (Study 3). No gender differences were apparent. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

show abstract

Confronting intergroup biases: Validity and impugnment as determinants of other-confrontation consequences

Cited by 7 publications

References 112 publications

The role of trust in reducing confrontation-related social costs.

The role of trust in reducing confrontation-related social costs.

Responding to feedback about implicit bias

How to respond to inappropriate questions in job interviews: Personal and social consequences of truth‐telling, deflection and confrontation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About