The Confronting Prejudiced Responses (CPR) Model: Applying CPR in Organizations

Ashburn-Nardo, Leslie; Morris, Kathryn; Goodwin, Stephanie A.

doi:10.5465/amle.2008.34251671

Cited by 207 publications

(218 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

206

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Asburn-Nardo et al (2008) use the emergency helping model of bystander behavior to explain how people get sidetracked on the way to confrontation. One of the first steps in confrontation is to identify a behavior as biased.…”

Section: Confronting Sexismmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Did He Mean by that? Humor Decreases Attributions of Sexism and Confrontation of Sexist Jokes

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sexist humor may be more difficult to confront than serious expressions of sexism because humor disguises the biased nature of the remark. The present research investigated whether delivering a sexist remark as a joke, compared to a serious statement, tempered perceptions that the speaker was sexist which, in turn, made women less likely to confront. Using a computer-mediated instant messaging paradigm, women were randomly assigned to receive the same sexist remark phrased either in a serious manner or as a joke. We recorded how women actually responded to the sexist remark and coded for confrontation. In Experiments 1 (195 women) and 2 (134 women) we found that humor decreased perceptions that the speaker was sexist. Furthermore, as perceptions that the perpetrator was sexist decreased, women's confronting also decreased. Experiment 2 demonstrated an additional consequence of reducing the perceived sexism of the perpetrator-it increased tolerance of sexist behavior perpetrated against an individual woman and sexual harassment more generally. Interestingly, the indirect effects only appeared when women at least moderately endorsed hostile sexism. For hostile sexists, failure to identify sexism reduced confrontation and increased tolerance for sexual harassment and sexist behavior. Contrary to popular belief, humor can actually make sexist messages more dangerous and difficult to confront than serious remarks.A woman bank teller accidentally short-circuited a computer system that monitored the bank's transactions. After this incident, many employees told jokes about women's alleged inferiority with technology. At a subsequent meeting, a woman secretary accidentally unplugged a slide projector with her foot as she walked by. A man supervisor joked to his colleagues about a Bwoman's touch,^which elicited laughter from other supervisors (Kahn 1989). Incidents like theseplayful, demeaning, group-based comments cloaked in humor-are among the most common ways that women experience sexism in the workplace and other settings (Pryor 1995).Sexist humor has been defined as humor that denigrates, demeans, stereotypes, oppresses, or objectifies women (Bemiller and Schneider 2010;Greenwood and Isbell 2002;LaFrance and Woodzicka 1998). How should women respond to such playful, often funny, but nonetheless belittling instances of sexist humor? In the present research we contend that sexist humor presents a unique challenge for people who may wish to engage in confrontation because the meaning of humorous sexist remarks, and the intentions of their owners, are often unclear. Accordingly, we investigated the degree to which delivering a sexist remark as a joke, compared to a serious statement, affected women's perception that the perpetrator was sexist, the likelihood that they would confront the sexist remark, and their tolerance of a subsequently encountered incident of sexist behavior, as well as their tolerance of sexual harassment, a more general, normative pattern of gender discrimination against women (Equal Employment

show abstract

Section: Confronting Sexismmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Did He Mean by that? Humor Decreases Attributions of Sexism and Confrontation of Sexist Jokes

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, confronting prejudice can both empower confronters and discourage perpetrators through increased negative affect and guilt (Czopp, Monteith, & Mark, 2006). However, extant research has found that this confrontation does not always occur in workplace scenarios due to the ambiguity of subtly discriminatory comments (Jones, Peddie, et al, 2016) or hesitation to take on the responsibility of confronting a perpetrator (Ashburn-Nardo, Blanchar, Petersson, Morris, & Goodwin, 2014;Ashburn-Nardo, Morris, & Goodwin, 2008). Furthermore, in some instances, confrontation may even be discouraged due to the fact that bystanders do not wish to be victimized themselves (Porath & Erez, 2009).…”

Section: Bystander Experience Of Subtle Discriminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite generally negative connotations of the term confrontation, recent work emphasizes that confrontation is simply an expression of disapproval toward the perpetrator of discrimination and does not have to be a heated exchange in order to be effective (Ashburn-Nardo, Morris, & Goodwin, 2008;Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore, & Hill, 2006). Indeed, confronting prejudice can both empower confronters and discourage perpetrators through increased negative affect and guilt (Czopp, Monteith, & Mark, 2006).…”

Section: Bystander Experience Of Subtle Discriminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subtle Discrimination in the Workplace: A Vicious Cycle

Jones

Arena

Nittrouer

et al. 2017

Ind. Organ. Psychol.

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The first factor that may influence non-targets' responses to sexually prejudiced remarks is whether the comment is identified as prejudicial in nature (Ashburn-Nardo, Morris, & Goodwin, 2008). This may be of particular importance with sexually prejudiced comments as this type of prejudice is not as commonly accessible as other forms of prejudice (Marti, Bobier, & Baron, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Confronting Hate: Heterosexuals' Responses to Anti-Gay Comments

Dickter¹

2012

Journal of Homosexuality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An online diary study was used to examine the individual and situational variables that influence non-targets' verbal and nonverbal reactions and responses to sexually prejudiced remarks. Results indicated that anti-gay comments were extremely prevalent in a college setting and resulted in a range of reactions and behaviors. Confrontation of the perpetrator was predicted by the perceived offensiveness of the comment, perceived social pressure to confront, and the number of close same-sex attracted friends. Additionally, those who confronted felt more satisfied with their responses than those who did not confront. Implications for future research and prejudice reduction strategies are discussed.

show abstract

The Confronting Prejudiced Responses (CPR) Model: Applying CPR in Organizations

Cited by 207 publications

References 54 publications

What Did He Mean by that? Humor Decreases Attributions of Sexism and Confrontation of Sexist Jokes

What Did He Mean by that? Humor Decreases Attributions of Sexism and Confrontation of Sexist Jokes

Subtle Discrimination in the Workplace: A Vicious Cycle

Confronting Hate: Heterosexuals' Responses to Anti-Gay Comments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About