Let’s Not, and Say We Would: Imagined and Actual Responses to Witnessing Homophobia

Abstract

We compared imagined versus actual affective and behavioral responses to witnessing a homophobic slur. Participants (N = 72) witnessed a confederate using a homophobic slur, imagined the same scenario, or were not exposed to the slur. Those who imagined hearing the slur reported significantly higher levels of negative affect than those who actually witnessed the slur, and nearly one half of them reported that they would confront the slur, whereas no participants who actually heard the slur confronted it. These findings reveal a discrepancy between imagined and real responses to homophobic remarks, and they have implications for the likelihood that heterosexuals will actually confront homophobic remarks.

Do dominant group members have different emotional responses to observing dominant-on-dominant versus dominant-on-disadvantaged ostracism? Some evidence for heightened reactivity to potentially discriminatory ingroup behavior

“…The hypothesis that dominant group members will react less negatively when witnessing ingroup members ostracize a disadvantaged group member as compared to a fellow dominant group member, which we refer to as the reduced reactivity hypothesis, is also in line with research suggesting bystander apathy, in both conscious self-reports and physiological responding, with respect to witnessing explicitly racist and homophobic comments directed toward outgroup targets [35][36][37].…”

“…Although it may be somewhat surprising that observers were more impacted by witnessing the ostracism of a disadvantaged ethnic minority group member as opposed to fellow dominant group members given research documenting that individuals display deficits in empathizing with outgroup targets [87] and tend to overestimate their reaction to prejudiced behavior (e.g., overt racism and homophobia; [35][36][37]), it is important to recognize that we examined a form of negative treatment distinct from that examined in previous research, one that might tap a more universal experience. Moreover, our results are consistent with theory and research highlighting the power of contemporary norms condemning prejudice and individuals' concerns with avoiding behaving in a prejudiced manner or appearing prejudiced to others [45,[47][48][49], as well as theory and research on the impact of group membership on observers' responses to ostracism that stresses that when observers witness the ostracism of a dissimilar person they are inclined to attribute the ostracism to malicious motives such as prejudice or discrimination [16].…”

Observing Discrimination: Implications for Group‐Based Respect and Organizational Morality

“…In a series of provocative experiments, U.S. White undergraduates anticipated that they would find another White students’ racist comment distressing (and therefore, would not choose the student as a partner), but White students actually confronted with the racist comment did not report increased distress or greater reluctance to work with the student (Kawakami, Dunn, Karmali, & Dovidio, ). Crosby and Wilson () uncovered the same pattern among U.S. heterosexual undergraduates confronted with a homophobic slur. We suspect that the undergraduate participants in these experiments did not see the confederate's behavior as a moral threat to a salient shared group membership (like the university).…”

The Silent Majority: Understanding and Increasing Majority Group Responses to Discrimination

“…Kawakami, Dunn, Karmali, and Dovidio () found that Whites hearing a racial slur were far less upset in reality and far less likely to actually distance themselves from someone who used a slur than they believed they would be when asked hypothetically. Crosby and Wilson () replicated this study using a homophobic slur and used a hidden camera to record the behavior of participants left alone with the individual who had used the slur. Although about 50% of those who imagined witnessing a homophobic slur reported that they would assertively confront the individual who uttered the slur, not a single participant who witnessed the slur actually confronted the speaker.…”